Talk:Frederick Russell Burnham/Archive 1

Possible texts for incorporation

The facts of Burnham's life were romantic enough. He was born on an Indian reservation in Minnesota on May 11, 1861, and the family moved to California. His father, Edwin Ottoway Burnham, died when "Fred" was only 13. His family then moved from California, but the young "Fred" stayed and made his own way. He was trained in scouting while still a boy by some of the last of the old frontiersmen. He fought in the Apache wars, rode shotgun for Wells Fargo, was caught up in the feuding between ranchers and sheepherders, and once was tracked for days by two men out to kill him for unstated reasons except that one was driven by “an insane jealousy.” He settled for a time in Rhodesia, where he made a name for himself as a scout in the Matabele wars. He was 38 years old and prospecting for gold in the Klondike when the Boer War began. There one day a cable reached him: “Lord Roberts appoints you on his personal staff as Chief of Scouts. If you accept, come at once the quickest way possible.” Although Cape Town is at the opposite end of the globe from the Klondike, he left within the hour.

Burnham arrived at the front just before the Battle of Paardeberg, and his first feat was to float down the Modder River through the Boer positions, concealed in an oxhide. He spent much time behind the Boer lines, was twice captured and twice escaped. In addition to gathering information he also hlew up railway bridges and tracks. Sent to cut the Pretoria-Lourcnco Marques line, the Boers’ vital link to the sea, Burnham was unhorsed and seriously wounded while still ten miles from his objective. Heroically he decided to go on, carrying with him the bags of explosives. In spite of the Boers’ vigilance and his own pain he reached the point to be cut, placed his charges, and blew the line in two places. After hiding for two days while Boer search parties passed all around him, Burnham at last made his way painfully back, stumbling and crawling, to the British lines.

Earlier military exploits in Rhodesia - With the Bulawayo Field Force there were a number of men known as American Scouts. Three of them were Major F. R. Burnhamn and Messrs. Swinburne and Blick. Major Burnham came to South Africa from the United States early in 1893. He joined the Victoria Column and took part in the battles at Bembesi and Shangani.

On Baden-Powell - It was on patrol, scouting in the Matopo Hills, that B-P first met Major Frederick Burnham, an American military scout in the employ of Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company. The meeting made a lasting impression on Burnham. Burnham's description of their scouting days together is one of the earliest pictures of B-P's military exploits and his thoughts about the future.

cleanup tag

This article has excessive redirects back to Burnham, which make the article unwiki and unsightly. Please remove them. Chris 22:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. Clean tag removed.

User:ctatkinson 01:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further review urgent

I'm moving here

The 26 December 1862 Sioux uprising in Mankato, Minnesota is still today the largest mass execution in the history of the United States.

There's no reason for this irrelevant topic to be in his bio, but more importantly, if the author is similarly incoherent elsewhere in the article, there will be a great need for further editing.
--Jerzy•t 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Scouting

This section is quite rambling and basically states the same thing over again. If it gets cut to where it should be, this section is going to be down to the two sentences about his descendants. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at revising this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ctatkinson/Sandbox#Father_of_Scouting

-- Ctatkinson 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, but...
Scouting is capitalized only when referring to the Scout Movement
"The young Boy Scouts envisioned by Baden-Powell and Burnham in 1896 during these scouting missions was one of fighters first whose business it was to face their enemies with both valor and good cheer, and as social workers afterward."

I have no clue what this statement means.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the awkward sentence and the capitalization.

-- Ctatkinson 02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The young Boy Scouts envisioned by Baden-Powell and Burnham in 1896"— Let me clarify; as best I understand, B-P never envisioned the creation of the Boy Scouts until after it spontaneously appeared in 1907. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll remove the capitalization. B-P knew that wars were changing and the British Army needed to adapt, so he and Burnham discussed the concept of a broad training program in woodcraft for young men. -- Ctatkinson 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

At the time it was nominated, this needed some work, but the work done since then by several editors makes this a very good article. For FA, I'd suggest more on his non-military work.Sumoeagle179 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Many thanks to all who contributed to making this a GA. Special thanks to WikiProject Scouting members: Rlevse for his significant contributions to the article and for guiding it through the nomination process; and Gadget850 ( Ed) for his editorial eye and updating. The article has been high on substance, meeting all of the criteria for B status or above for quite sometime, but it's only in the last month that the article's quality has seen considerable improvement. With only a bit more effort this article should be able to pass FA. -- Ctatkinson 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what suggestions are there prior to a FAC nom? Ctatkinson, did you finish all you were working on?Rlevse 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting section updated. Pls review. -- Ctatkinson 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death- cause?

I have background and will add. -- Ctatkinson 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography and External links cleanup- I will tackle that over the next week.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burnham and Baden-Powell at camporee

Frederick Russell Burnham and Michael Baden-Powell will be attending a camporee in Illinois next month. [1] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, these two men are the grandsons of Burnham and B-P. Russell Adam Burnham (Burnham's great grandson) was also invited but could not attend because of a scheduling conflict - he will be competing for in the U.S. Army's NCO of the Year in Washington, DC. -- Ctatkinson 14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

I've pulled several pieces of Burnham's personal life into one section and added background on his wife. I'm going to make a few more edits and post to the article tomorrow. -- Ctatkinson 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved the sandbox version into the article and its ready for review. -- Ctatkinson 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like this. But portal tags go in See also, but then I think that looks silly if only portal tags are there with no see also links. I think Gadget850 has some changes to make too.Rlevse 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified the facts against multiple sources and updated this section. I think we are ready to go. -- Ctatkinson 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first two paragraphs in Shangani patrol and the para on Roderick needs at least one ref each. I think Gadget850 still has stuff he wants to do. Nice work by Ctatkinson.Rlevse 13:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references have now been added. I also created sections on Burnham's appearance and mannerism, based almost exclusively on a merger of descriptions found in these two sources: Haggard's The Days of My Life (1926); Davis' Real Soldiers of Fortune (1906). -- Ctatkinson 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC?

Ready for a FAC run now?Rlevse 10:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way cool. I'm in. --Ctatkinson 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS to Ctatkinson his first FA! You were the key on this one. Outstanding job. Rlevse 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Rlevse and Gadget850 ( Ed). The teamwork on this article was outstanding. -- Ctatkinson 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Image:AfterMlimo.jpg should have {{information}}
Image:Scouting on two contintents cover 1934.jpg needs {{non-free use rationale}}

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged them. But don't know all the info to fill in. Ctatkinson?Rlevse 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the info on the 1896 AfterMlimo sketch and switched to the image posted on Wikicommons (same image, but a better source). Rlevse completed the fields for the book cover image -- nice work. -- Ctatkinson 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the photo in the First Matabele War section states that Burnham is holding his "Remington Model 1875 No. 3. Army in .44WCF rifle." All references I have found state that the Remington 1875 is a single-action revolver. I have not found definitive information on the Remington No. 3 rifle, but there is a Remington-Hepburn No.3 rolling block single-shot rifle. Can some clarify this? Fred4570 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wheelers and other oddities

We read that he dropped between the two wheelers of the wagon. What's a "wheeler": a wheel, an axle, something else?

On my run through this article a day or so ago, I inserted at least two questions within SGML comments; somebody may wish to attend to these. -- Hoary 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to wheels. I'd already left Ctatkinson a note about the other questions because I don't know the answers.Rlevse 02:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sister links and portals

I've moved the templates for the sister links and portals down towards the bottom of the article. I did this because I think that having them in the otherwise empty "See also" section isnt appropriate, and it resulted in a unattractive white space. Feel free to undo my change if you strongly disagree. John Vandenberg 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halycon Hot Springs sanatorium and different death date

According to "Halcyon Hot Springs (springs)". BC Geographical Names. Burnham bought the site of a decayed hot springs resort here and converted it into a sanatarium; I see no mention of his involved in British Columbia here so left this to regular editors of this page to add it. The BCGNIS account says that Burnham died in the fire which destroyed the sanatarium in 1955 but this is clearly an error (BCGNIS is not known for its historical accuracy...)....maybe it was his son that was killed in the fire?Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Halcyon Hot Springs I've attributed his Brigadier-General status to the British Army; if this is incorrect and it was a US Army title, please correct it.Skookum1 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This character is an altogether different Frederick Burnham. Frederick Russell Burnham and his wife were certainly in British Columbia, but only on-route to Alaska in the late 19th to early 20th century for the purpose of prospecting or hunting. A couple of other problems: surgeon, military rank, date of death. Also, his son Bruce died as a child in London, and his only other son Roderick lived until 1976. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar

What variant of English spelling is this article in? At the moment I think it has instances of both. It uses m-d-Y dates, so maybe US Eng is best? It doesn't really matter, but it needs to be consistent. --John (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Burnham graduation

According to the "Biennial report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Territory of Arizona. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1890", Mrs. Blanche Burnham graduated in Phoenix on June 6, 1890 with a "Life" grade. Some others in her class graduated with an "Educational" grade. What do these two grade options mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.217.2 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria Cross

I have deleted the following sentence. Burnham had been selected for the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest military award, but he declined rather than forfeit his American citizenship – a requirement at the time. The criteria for the award of the Victoria Cross is membership of the British forces not British citizenship. Five Americans, one in 1866 serving in the Royal Navy and four serving with Canadian forces in the First World War received the Victoria Cross. On the other hand only US citizens could be officers of the US forces but I am unaware if there was a similar restriction for British officers.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is still in the article, but does not seem to be supported by the citation. It also seems dubious as American William Henry Harrison Seeley was awarded the VC in 1865 and Swiss Ferdinand Schiess was awarded the medal in 1879 and there is no indication that they had to become British to do so.--DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this isn't supported by the source, I've removed it. Shimgray | talk | 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcraft

In the first sentence, why is woodcraft italicized? It doesn't fit any of the categories at WP:ITALICS. I would change it here and on the soon-to-be Main Page version, but it was approved as a Featured Article with that hard-to-miss word italicized. Art LaPella (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this is an FA doesn't mean it has no issues— if you find something wrong, go ahead and fix it. I actually meant to fix this when I cleaned up the article a few days ago. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Stone

The article has a mistake where it says that Mayan artifacts were discovered in the Yaqui River including teh Esperanza stone. The Yaqui are has no Mayan ruins or artifacts. It is a shame that an error this big is allow to happen in a Featured article, please correct, the Esperanza Stone is not mayan and there are no mayan ruins in Sonora. Thanks--99.106.183.2 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Burnham and Holder presumed that the stone was Mayan. I have done a diligent search, but have found nothing else on this object. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and FAR?

The paragraph beginning "On June 2, 1900, while trying by night to blow up the bridge" closely matches the wording used by this source, which is a reprinting of a 1906 book. Though that book is now public domain due to age, a) the paragraph is not cited or otherwise attributed, and b) the article does not indicate that it incorporates public-domain text. I also have other concerns related to the article's sourcing, particularly the missing page numbers in several citations, which make verifiability difficult. I intend to list this article for review unless these concerns can be quickly resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concern with that paragraph. Tag the citations that need a page number with {{page needed}} and we will see what we can dig up. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been looking further, and have found some copying from this copyrighted source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. Keep looking so we can fix this soonest. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled this article from the main page per Nikkimaria's suggestion. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good to quantify how extensive it is and note down checked and good refs below as well as copied ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That endeavor is complicated by the possibility that the "copied" refs are not included in the relevant section - the one that prompted this section, for example, was not cited for the text taken from it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

groan - I'd meant to have more of a look today to get my head around how extensive the problem is, so if someone who's rolling up their sleeves can comment that'd be great (v. busy +++++ IRL...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a few chunks, however I also found a couple sentences in that source that were in this article in 2006/2007, which would make it partially a reverse close paraphrase if the Dec/Jan 2010 date is correct. The two paragraphs of greatest concern are of course gone, but more problems likely remain. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with the FAR nom - FAR is the most transparent, systematic place where these articles can be processed. I intend to list 4 Minutes (Madonna song) there in a minute. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military status

Burnham is referred to as British Army officer and it is unclear what his status was during the Boer War. As far as I can find he was a scout who help the local rank of Major but was conversely technically a civilian Ref Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The insignia on his uniform is that of a Major (United Kingdom) and the Distinguished Service Order cross pinned to his uniform is British Army military decoration. Click on his infobox photo and you can see both up close. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The DSO is not a British Army decoration. It was open to officer who held "a Commission in Our Navy, in Our Land Forces, or Marines, or Our Indian or Colonial Naval or Military Forces, or a Commission in one of the Departments of our Navy or Army, the holder of which is entitled to Honorary or relative Navy or Army rank. See also the link which I attached above again here: Ref. It clearly states he held a local rank (with the forces in South Africa) and was not a regular officer of the British Army Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not an expert on the DSO, but the first sentence in the WP article states: "The Distinguished Service Order (DSO) is a military decoration of the United Kingdom, and formerly of other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire, awarded for meritorious or distinguished service by officers of the armed forces during wartime, typically in actual combat".
    But more to the point, when going through historical documents it is not unusual to encounter isolated reports that are not totally consistent with most other reports. My personal favorites are a few otherwise pretty authoritative reports that refer to Burnham as the "Canadian Scout" (Ref) and those that refer to him as "Captain Frank Burnham" Ref. But I've never seen any source refer to Burnham as either a South African Army soldier or as a civilian combatant. Conversely, there are many sources that report that Burnham was American, Chief of Scouts and a Major in the British Army, and show him in British Army photographs dressed in the uniform of a British Army Major (Here is one ref of many). Ctatkinson (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have taken my point on board. He was a local British Army officer whilst in South Africa but was not a British Army commissioned officer, a sort of temporary officer. The London Gazette is the official government journal and is definitive. It wouldn't be difficult to update the article to state this. He was an American and therefore not allowed to take a British Army commission. Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms with the London Gazette is an authoritative source, but it is not infallible nor is it the only authoritative source, and the reference you pointed us to does not support your assertion that "[an American is] not allowed to take a British Army commission." Moreover, the changes you propose are not at all consistent with Burnham's biographies -- because of the age of this subject, several that are referenced in the WP article can be read online. But I am glad that we agree that Burnham was an American in spite of several reports that he was Canadian. I was starting to think I would have to try to dig up Burnham's long-form birth certificate. Ctatkinson (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well what are your sources for saying he was a commissioned British Army officer as opposed to someone who held a local British Army rank? Kinda hard to discuss this without knowing what you are referring to?!Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section saying he was "given a commission" is sourced to the American Heritage article, but that detail doesn't seem to be in there. Are there any other sources which are explicit on this point?

One interesting detail about the Gazette is that this is the 1901 despatches list - names of people noted for meritorious service - and not actually the announcement of the DSO, which I can't find. This actually makes it more convincing, in a way - he's been entered under the "civil" heading in a document signed by Roberts himself, the man who recruited him in the first place. It seems to make it clear that as far as the British authorities were concerned he was unambiguously not considered to hold a commission either in the local colonial forces or in the British Army proper. My interpretation would be that he was a civilian, employed by Roberts and given the (nominal?) rank of Major but not a commission - note that he's explicitly listed as "local Major" and not as "Major". This would seem to reconcile the details.

However, this is with the caveat that "this is complicated" and a contemporary source might clear things up immensely. I'll have a look tonight and see if it's possible to track down either the DSO announcement (and see how it styles him) or a 1900/01 Army List which may mention him in some way. Shimgray | talk | 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were several locally raised units that served during the Boer War. I would imagine he belonged to one of them, so he would have worn the rank badges etc, but not have held a commission in the British Army. See here for a list of local raised units [2] Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the QSA medal roll he is listed under "Field Intelligence Department, Army Headquarters. Rank = Mr (local Major) Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would make a very interesting addition to the article indeed to say that Burnham was not commissioned, and as Sunters claims a civilian, but Burnham has been the subject of many works and I have to wonder why no scholar has ever made this bold assertion -- certainly all must have known his military status. Here are some texts that discuss his promotion to Major and DSO:

ENROLL WESTERNERS FOR SERVICE IN WAR: Movement to Register Men of That Region, New York Times (extracted from ProQuest Historical Newspapers), Mar 13, 1917, p. 11: The Preliminary work is in charge of Major Frederick Russell Burnham, frontiersman, mining expert explorer, and big game hunter, who was chief of scout for Lord Roberts in the Boer war, won the D.S.0., and has the distinction of being the only American who ever held a commission in the British Army without being compelled to make at least technical renunciation of American allegiance.
The Cyclopædia of American Biography: For heroic services done he was commissioned major in the British army, presented with a large sum of money, and received a personal letter of thanks from Lord Roberts. On his arrival in England, he was commanded to dine with Queen Victoria, and spent the night at Osborne Castle. King Edward honored him by the personal presentation of the South African medal with five bars and the cross of the Distinguished Service Order.
Press Reference Library: Notables of the West: He received the campaign medal and was presented by King Edward, personally, after the death of the Queen, with the Cross of the Distinguished Service Order. He was given the rank of Major in the British Army, presented with a purse of gold, and received a personal letter of praise from Lord Roberts.
Real Soldiers of Fortune: On leaving the army he was given such hearty thanks and generous rewards as no other American ever received from the British War Office. He was promoted to the rank of major, presented with a large sum of money, and from Lord Roberts received a personal letter of thanks and appreciation. In part the Field-Marshal wrote: "I doubt if any other man in the force could have successfully carried out the thrilling enterprises in which from time to time you have been engaged, demanding as they did the training of a lifetime, combined with exceptional courage, caution, and powers of endurance." On his arrival in England he was commanded to dine with the Queen and spend the night at Osborne, and a few months later, after her death, King Edward created him a member of the Distinguished Service Order, and personally presented him with the South African medal with five bars, and the cross of the D. S. 0.
Sniping in France: In the Boer War, for instance, Major F. R. Burnham, D.S.O., an American who held a commission in the British Army, made a wonderful name for himself, as did Dan Theron on the Boer side.

Ctatkinson (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well here his DSO listing in the Gazette - you might like to note he was made an Honorary Companion of the DSO London Gazette. "Major (local) F. B. Burnham. To be a Companion (Honorary) of the Distinguished Service Order" Here's lots more instances of his 'Local rank' status Anglo-Boer website. I've cited the official documents - have to say more convincing to me than 'Real Soldiers of Fortune' and 'Notables of the West'. Note please try to take my point on-board - I'm saying he was a LOCAL officer with the British Army - not a regular British Army officer. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To understand what a 'Local Rank' means, - this page gives a roughly correct definition Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "To be..." comes before - he's got a "real" DSO, not an honorary one. With this entry, again, he's listed in the section containing the volunteer surgeons and the mysterious Count dal Verme, rather than under any particular unit - it suggests he had a "general" local rank, but not a local commission in any particular colonial unit, which fits with him working directly for Roberts. Shimgray | talk | 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, the 1901 Army List is online. Unfortunately, it is accurate to 31 December 1900 - so we can't see how he was officially characterised whilst serving in South Africa - but we can try to trace him through the general lists of officers, looking for a major with seniority from ~July 1900. He's not entered on the active list here, on the "unemployed supernumary list" here, the retired-with-pension list here or the "fully retired" (no half-pay, pension, etc) list here. As a double-check, there's no Burnham in the index for the active list or retired list. If he did hold a commission, it should certainly be listed here. Shimgray | talk | 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do get what it means to hold local rank. We know that Burnham held local rank in the First Matabele War, Chief of Scouts with the Victoria Column, and in the Second Matabele War, Captain and Chief of Scouts with the Bulawayo Field Force. However, a plethora of authoritative sources assert something quite different about Burnham's time in the Boer War: Lord Robert's invited Burnham to join his staff as Chief of Scouts, gave him a commission in the British Army (sources at that the time refer to him as a Captain), Roberts promoted him to Major and recommended him for the D.S.O., and the D.S.O. and Q.S.A. medals were both presented by King Edward while Burnham was dressed in a British Army officer uniform. In addition, a plethora of sources assert that British Army scouts reported to Burnham (the only time regular army reported to Burnham) and British Army photographs always show him dressed in full British Army officer uniform (Burnham never wore any army uniform in either of the Matabele Wars). The London Gazette is very brief on Burnham, but it does raise a question worth pondering. Still, it is an isolated source (angloboerwar.com is not helpful in this case since it just quotes the London Gazette you already mentioned) and the like other sources it not Gospel or infallible. To dismiss a plethora of other authoritative accounts in favor of a brief mention in London Gazette would be inaccurate. Ctatkinson (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start this again: Burnam was given a commission CORRECT. He was given a 'local' commission, so he was a British Army officer correct but a particular type of officer and not a regular officer. Is there anything in your quoted sources that states the TYPE of commission / further details of his engagement - Y/N. The query I have merely expands the knowledge you have gained from your sources not challenges it! Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting path, Bravo! I've been pouring through documents and here is the relevant section from Burnham's 1926 memiors (Scouting on Two Continents manuscript ed, p.475):
The actual investiture took place in St. James' Palace... At the instant the cross was pinned over my heart by the king his left hand was placed on my wrist and I touched the hand with my lips and after that retired from the throne to receive the congratulations of brother officers gathered for the occasion... King Edward, in confirming my majority in the British Army, was so gracious as to permit me to hold my rank without renouncing my American citizenship- an unprecedented and most highly prized favor.
This account does not seem to fit your theory, do you see otherwise? Ctatkinson (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there that contradicts the sources I've provided. So I'll update the article with the dates of his promotion, his DSO and the passage you've provided and let the reader decide. It's really not for you to believe or disbelieve it. Kernel Saunters (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've listened to your comments and I've worked hard to find evidence to improve the article for all to enjoy. You have found only one source that includes a brief contradiction to the plethora of authoritative sources I have identified. Many people have contributed to this article, worked hard to elevate it to FA-class, and are working hard on it now to keep it FA-class. There are many issues we will need to address, and although this is interesting, this is not at all critical to that important work. If you decide to help with the FA work, that would be terrific, but that is not what you are proposing. Ctatkinson (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]