Jump to content

Talk:John Pendlebury

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


Updated

[edit]

The death story isn't quite right. I don't have time to fix it. Maybe eventually. Dilys Powell, Humpfrey Paynes's wife tells it in Villa Ariadne. Captain Pendlebury was member of British intelligence serving in Crete as an organizer of native resistance under cover of being a military liason. Just before and during the invasion, which the British fully expected, the cover was dropped. Captain Pendlebury was in charge of some commandos acting as a cover for withdrawal of British troops. The battle was lost and the British - New Zealanders actually - were still holding Heraklion but were making plans to depart. Pendlebury detached himself from the commandos and started south to take up command of some guerrillas. Just outside the city a new stick of paratroopers were coming down. There was one Greek machine gun position in action. The Greeks had been ordered to withdraw from lack of ammunition. One machine gunner disobeyed the order and stayed to use up his ammunition. He ran out just as Pendlebury was coming up. Naturally the captain went to his assistance. He had only a pistol, which he drew and started shooting paratroopers. He was hit in the chest and he and the machine gunner taken captive. He was passed by three German doctors and assigned a Greek lady to care for him. However she was away trying to make contact with someone when a recently dropped stick of paratroopers came on Pendlebury, who was bed-ridden. They demanded he inform them of the whereabouts of the English. He refused repeatedly so they dragged him out and shot him. A Greek man was shot also. A German doctor who came to check on his patient said he had been shot illegally. They did not know who Pendlebury was. After the British left and they found out, a manhunt was instituted for Pendlebury. It was discovered that he had been shot. A charade was carried out with the body, which was buried a few times in different locations. No one was sure it was he. Finally the German officers demanded the glass eye as proof, giving rise to the exaggeration that Hitler had demanded the glass eye of Pendlebury.

I do not know what all this stuff about identity cards and civilian clothes is. You mean, the Germans issued identity cards to their prisoners? What, Cretan civilians were given identity cards to identify them? Was that before or after the civilians tried to kill them with shovels and sticks? I think someone misunderstands the battle of Crete. The toughest units in the Wehrmacht were descending by parachute into the middle of seasoned Greek and New Zealand troops who had just been evacuated from Greece. There was no quarter and no mercy. No Marquis of Queensbury rules applied here. A few gentile German doctors counted for nothing at all. The Germans had their own brutal rules that did not include identity cards or any other consideration. I got no idea where that comes from. They shot and were shot without mercy to the expense of thousands of men. After they had the island they went on shooting village after village. They weren't too popular, naturally. Nor did they enjoy it being open season on Germans. There was no gentile war there played by any rules.Dave (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The eye accident

[edit]

There are two stories current on the Internet, a pencil thrust by an eight-year-old and an uncertain accident happening to a two-year-old. As far as I can see the only source of the eight-year-old story is Wikipedia. The other has a good source, so I'm going with it. If however a good source of the eight-year-old story should be discovered, then, so as to achieve a balanced view, both should be included each with its source.Branigan 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Classical Tripos

[edit]

The tripos is not an award, it is a curriculum. So, you cannot "win ... a classical tripos." According to the source given, Powell, a citizen of the UK, Pendlebury got the First in Part II. Here the link Classical Tripos is not really sufficient. Tripos means "three-legged" in Greek. For some reason the curricula originally studied 3 of something. There was one in oriental studies as well. The terminology still meant something in Pendlebury's time. I can see from the classical tripos article that today the term has been altered quite a bit. The three seems to have gotten lost. It was still there in Pendlebury's time however. Ideally the classical tripos article should cover the origin and changes of meaning. As you would expect from the the term, there was more than one part. Pendlebury got the first in the second part. Whether there was a 3rd I do not know. These distictions should be made in the classical tripos article if anyone cares to make a more positive contribution. Oh - I forgot to add the distinction in archaeology. Will do that now.Branigan 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS I defer to the gentleman from Rutland, Great Britain, as long as what is said does not contradict the sources and is comprehensible to the American public either through links or notes.Branigan 15:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Archaeologist

[edit]

Needs more detail with more connective sentences and phrases. Currently it is too compact to give a sense of what was going on. I plan to expand it a little on my first opportunity. His being a war hero is important, no doubt, but he was an important archaeologist as well, having excavated at two major sites. Pendlebury's works are in great demand, if you can find them. We must not let war overshadow peace.Branigan 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Love of Greece ...

[edit]

I'm saving us some time and taking this out. He already had a deep interest in archaeology from his meeting with Budge. What do you mean by Love of Greece? Why would be not love Egypt? You would not say he acquired those things from the visit to Mycenae. Who said that he had them? If that stays in, I'll have to ask for a reference on it. Otherwise it is the editor saying it, which is an editorial conclusion not allowed. I'm rewriting the paragraph. It was a critical visit, but in large part because he talked to Alan Wace. If he was not decided in favor of archaeology before the visit, he was after, according to Powell. I'm using my source, Powell. Then I really got to go, but I'll be back. You can expect deferments where warranted, but not where not.Branigan 17:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

C Michael Hogan etc

[edit]

C Michael Hogan is not an encyclopedic reference and the work cited is not encyclopedic. Moreover, C. Michael Hogan in those notes does not even mention John Pendlebury much less discuss his archaeology. So, not only is the ref unencyclopedic, but it has no relevance to John Pendlebury. Now, from my reading of Pendlebury I know that he probably did take some such approach and in that differed from Evans, who took a basically architectural approach. So, if you want to say Pendlebury was among the first of the moderns for the environmental approach, I do not at this moment object. This is in fact a bit of a different topic. Therefore I am creating a different subsection, as previously we have been writing biographical material. This isn't biography but it seems to fall within the scope of the article. I do not know why C Michael Hogan is in there. I would hope this is not a plug for C. Michael Hogan. Right now it appears he has to go. We need a good ref for Pendlebury's approach and also it seems as though some expansion would be warranted. Since there is such scrutiny of this article - I wonder why the scrutiny did not result in a better article long since - I am not going to take it out at the moment but I am leaving it in for improvement. Since it is after where I am at the moment it works out to be a convenient deferment. I want you should feel free, free to correct your errors and improve the article. I guess you have not seen the request for a page number. Feel free to fix that also. Free-e-ee-dom, free-e-eedom, free-ee-dom, freedom, freedom.Branigan 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Pendlebury. 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) 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Pendlebury. 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) 09:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nedrutland's edits

[edit]

Hi. Since I'm working on the British School, I thought I would try to finish this up. I left off at the military service section apparently years ago. It had not changed since. What I have that was not previously mentioned is Dilys Powell's book, basically the leading bio of Pendlebury and his times. The main sources previously were blogs and very short Internet Encyclopedia refs. Most had no refs. What I'm after here is

  • connectedness
  • accuracy

While I appreciate your English language edits I must say that I have not got far yet and the gist of the military service section remains pretty much inaccurate. It will be basically rewritten. Of course everyone's writing needs pruning and language checking. Thank you serving in that capacity. There are no changes I disapprove at the moment. I'll be taking it one paragraph at a time. If you put any additional material in that is accurate I will find a way to work it in. Ciao.

The list, the list

[edit]

Hi guy (nedrutland). Looks like it is show and tell time. Our article portrays our man as a prophet who predicts the war and then runs home to join up with the SO. Not so fast. Dilys says he left Crete for other reasons and then in August 1939 was placed on "the reserve officer list." This can't have been the SO list linked in our article because first, there was no war, and he couldn't have known about it, and second, he did some civilian war work in the army reserve during the sitzkrieg, and third, when he was called up he was given a choice of infantry or cavalry, of which he chose cavalry. Lastly, he was not known to the SO, who discovered him as a cavalry officer and asked him in for interrogation. So, I'm taking this tack. Do you have a ref showing that your list is the one linked and when he might have got on it? Meanwhile I am going ahead with the reserve officer list.Botteville (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages). I think you mean SOE and the General List. You added the para.s about the pre-War situation which hint at prophecy which I would happily omit. If it is the General List you are asking about, then the source is the citation given - the London Gazette. The General List was often used as a cover for personnel of the SOE. Nedrutland (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were two lists. He went into the TA on the first list and became an officer there. He was probably not aware of the General List on which he must already have been placed secretly since 1938, when the entire archaeological school had been interviewed. At least, he did not act as though he knew. The request to interview again with the SOE came as a surprise. I finally located the refs - the citations need some improvement - and sure enough he was advertised as having made lieutenant and having been placed on the General List, which surprised me, as it told anyone who cared to read about it in the paper that he was now a spy. Those British seem to need their one-line notices. I know I added one paragraph but there will be at least 3 or 4 more, which is why I created a whole section for it. He did not just jump miraculously into the spy business out of his prophetic foresight. The sequence of personal and historical events is a little tricky so I want to be sure I get it right. Ciao - oh by the way, it is also customary to give reasons for your changes, although some of them are clear without it. Come ye forth into the light.Botteville (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The storm clouds of war"

[edit]

This section is unreferenced but, more importantly, has little to do with the subject of the page. Please consider carefully if the presence of these paragraphs adds any value to a page about Pendlebury. Nedrutland (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not need references except where there is anything new, which there is not. It does not need references because it has references - the references are located in the blue-linked articles. This is not using WP as a reference, but rather is using the references in those articles as references. The topic is already well-known and does not need re-development. We can't develop every topic in every article. As to whether it has to do with Pendlebury, it is only the background that makes any sense of Pendlebury's behavior. The public needs to know that there was a war and that he left archaeology to go and fight it, and that he was killed in one of its battles. His year-by-year activity depended on the development of the war. The section is not finished. I am still writing it. If necessary I can write it off-line and put it in. It is unfortunate that this major criticisn coincides with hohum's starting an edit war. I put up a request for a ref on an off-the-wall idea in Battle of Britain, whereupon he reverted the request and hopped over to here. You are not supposed to edit war. I suggest you let me finish the article at my pace. We've got along pretty well up to this point.Botteville (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remain of the view that this section (and most of the final two para.s of "The path to special operations" section) is unnecessary and adds no value.
Pendlebury only made a first step towards the military in August 1939 only weeks (or possibly days) before the start of the War so no explanation of the "storm clouds" (an un-encyclopaedic phrase in any case) is necessary. Other pages on people who saw service in the war manage to omit a geopolitical overview so why should it be required for this one subject? Nedrutland (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(My answer is below. This is a sort of aside. So far we are not playing with a full deck. There was a lot more after August 1939 which I have not been given a chance to add. For example, he was called up and went to cavalry school. You should read Dilys.)
Well, what you are really saying is, you do not like my subdivision of the topic. I can understand that. As to the other articles, there is no need to do them all the same way. What, we have to follow someone else's pattern? I doubt it. However, we do not have to do it my way either. What is the best way? I thought a separate mention of the geopolitical circumstances would improve comprehensibility. We don't have to do it that way. However use of the blue links in the text is not only allowed but is encouraged. They don't have to go in a separate section. For example, Pendlebury returned to Cambridge from the Isle of Wight because war was declared. War is a geopolitical circumstance. You can't object to mention of it, can you? I think you see what I mean. I don't have to have that structure. I can rewrite or you can rewrite it. If you do not rewrite it I will. If you do rewrite it I will ensure that my basic material with sufficient blue links is in. I think you have a tendency to denude the section of detail, tending to reduce everything to what was there, which is inadequate and expresses a lot of mistaken conclusions. The whole point of this effort from my point of view is to add the missing detail from my source. I rewrote the earlier part of the article years ago, and now I want to finish it. I'm going back to the British School to make some progress on that and I have to do my taxes. Then I will pick this up again. If you do anything on it, you should expect that I will change some of what you do, accept other of what you do, and add more detail from my source. I'm surprised you have not read my source. It is very good. One more thing. You seem to have interrupted my last edit. That isn't too polite, but I assume for now your enthusiasm for the article is so great it has lead to inadvertent interruption.Botteville (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem to have interrupted by last edit." Please explain what you mean. Nedrutland (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got things to do. But, I'll get this off the table, I hope. After I typed a previous reply, I attempted to save. It was not saved because you were editing instead. In the past I've had people watch the article on which I was working and deliberately keep interrupting whatever I did. That was a technique of harassment. Those people hae left long since and I have not had a repeat incident. In your case since you appear not to know what I am talking about I presume you did not know I was trying to edit. It appears to have been inadvertent. Clear now?Botteville (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is not biographical to Pendlebury and should be removed. Any "geopolitical overview" can be far briefer, directly linked to the subject of the article, and rely on links the the correct articles. (Hohum @) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're on. See my longer reply below. Let's see what you and ned can do.Botteville (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant detail in "The path to special operations"

[edit]
At the time the British military was not in a state of readiness. Little could be done about the border crossing. The resulting frantic conversion to a war economy, while the German army ran rampant over Europe, is termed "the Phony War." Chamberlain immediately convened the War Cabinet, which included Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty.
The Germans were headed for Warsaw. As the Polish army prepared for defence, on 17 September, the Soviet army struck it from the rear in the Soviet invasion of Poland. The Polish military collapsed. Some elements escaped to the west, especially what was left of the Polish Air Force, which flew out, to turn up later in Spitfires at the Battle of Britain. For now, the Germans had taken half of Poland by 6 October; the Soviets followed suit by 20 October."

While this text is historical, there is no direct relation to Pendlebury. Also, the section heading doesn't reflect what's in the section at all. (Hohum @) 13:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Did you see above? Nedrutland (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hohum and nedrutland, when I undertook to update this article I did not know I would be getting so much help, so I started to do it my way. In the end it all would have made sense. You're doing what often happens in technical writing, taking an unfinished work and treating it as the final thing. Had I finished it, the relations would have been apparent. Pendlebury in the war was basically reactive, he only responded to the events of government and war. He gave up archaeology entirely to be a soldier, which, Dilys says, he loved. That is the relevance. But, now that you are on this article, I see you are quite interested. One man working is not the same as three. You can't really plan ahead. Actually I am delighted there is so much interest. Maybe we will finish this. Since I was the last major contributor you two are in the position of being critical of what I did. This is a major event in the article, which hitherto lay fallow for quite a number of years. However I can handle it. It seems obvious that it is your turn now. Even if I had finished, you would still be entitled to a turn. So, go ahead. Work it out between you what you want to say. When you reach a stable point I will take a look and see if it includes the relevant material from Dilys Powell. If not I will add it. Fair enough? Incidentally hohum, I would appreciate if you would take a hand in that shocking implication in Battle of Britain that the German High Command never intended to invade Britain but only wanted to bring them to the table. I'm not getting on that article, at least not in the near future. I may not be looking at this article either for a while, as I want to give you a chance to do what you would prefer to do. We think differently so I'm handing it over to you until you get a chance to express yourselves. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted

[edit]

I see what you have done. It was less than I expected. I expected a remodularization or a change to stream instead of modules. You've left me as lead writer, the major contributor. So be it. I can't get back on it right now, as I have a big vacation from Wikipedia coming up. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia or anyone on it. When I do get back (April?) I will pick up where you left off. I disagree concerning the presence of geopolitical information. It is too relevant. However I am putting completion of the article first. I will pay special attention to only including material more closely related to Pendlebury. I think your current cuts go too far, but then you had no way of knowing what was on my mind for future additions. I will put larger chunks in, finished form, totally referenced. Also I will have to put back some information you deleted, but I will do it in a different way. I'll be seeing you in April (or May).Botteville (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Pendlebury&oldid=1195662580"