Jump to content

Talk:John Simpson Kirkpatrick

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

England and Australia

[edit]

This is more of a correction, than a discussion topic, but I noticed in the page for John Simpson Kirkpatrick that they state it's "ironic" for him to be an Australian Hero since he's English.

I agree that it is strange for him to be known as an icon here in Australia, but it's important that understand that for the early years, Australia was capable of what's known as "dual patriotism". This means that australian's did not see themselves as separate from the english empire- England was still the "motherland", even to those who were born over in Australia, and australians very much regarded themselves as the same as their english counterparts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccles fan (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 March 2006

What's this "English" business? He was SCOTTISH. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although his parents were Scottish, he was born and grew up in South Shields, which is in England. Jll (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cochrane's work

[edit]

The article completely ignores Peter Cochrane's seminal work on Simpson, which analyses the myth and the reality. Simpson was also a socialist, a radical, and, a little shifty, as well. His heroism is not in doubt, but the 'saintly' image which he has been given is

61.68.1.4 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included the Cochrane book in the references and also tried to balance the article by including some more objective and factual analysis, mainly sourced from the article by Graham Wilson. I have also removed some of the more artistic interpretations about Simpson having been under constant fire or completely ignoring heavy fire etc, because there is just no objective contemporary source for that. Simpson seems to be a figure like Robin Hood or Ned Kelly: there is so much modern fable that it is hard to find what was actually true, and people react negatively when you do. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait

[edit]

It should be noted that after Simpson was killed, the task of evacuating wounded by donkey was then continued by New Zealander Lieut. Richard Alexander (Dick) Henderson. Also, one of the most famous paintings of 'Simpson' by Horace Millichamp Moore-Jones which apparently hangs at Australia's National Gallery (or is it called the National Gallery of Australia?), is actually a portrait of Henderson, painted from a photo of Henderson taken by a fellow New Zealander Sergeant James G. Jackson, New Zealand Expeditionary Force.

Well it would be pretty hard for anyone to have painted a picture of Simpson when he only lived for about 4 weeks after the landing! :-) --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for bravery

[edit]

It needs to be said that whilst several people wrote personal comments attesting to Simpson's bravery, he was never actually FORMALLY nominated for anything beyond his MID. To say that his nominations were turned down by sceptical or petty bureaucrats is really quite untrue and is one of those myths about Simpson that seems to have taken root about 30 years ago and propogated from there. Whether "we" are admiring of Simpson's bravery or not is kind of irrelevant as well. Our admiration is based upon many of the stories that have questionable veracity.

To say that Monash reccommended him for the highest honours is disingenuous. Monash mentioned him in his dispatches. Which is why Simpson is credited with an MID. Check the Wikipedia entry for Mention in Dispatches and you'll see that the Monash quote is a classic example of one.

There is mention in the latest edit of Simpson being reccommended via his unit for a VC on June 3 1915. I'd like to see the citation for that. A unit CO's personal diary entry is not th same as an official VC reccomendation and every bit of research I have seen says there is no record of a VC submission for Simpson in the War Office. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments

[edit]

This seems to suggest that he was formally nominated for a VC by Sutton. I don't think the new Tribunal would be spending its time making a ruling about his eligibility or otherwise if it didn't have something formal to consider in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. A CO mentioning that he would like to get a VC for someone is not the same as that person being formally recommended. Ove the 90+ years since Gallipoli nobody has ever been able to find any shred of paperwork in the multiple avenues that would exist had Simpson been actually recommended. That's why there are no witness reports to be obtained: they were never gathered in the first place because there was no formal need to at the time. The new tribunal is actually NOT considering Simpson. They're saying before they even convene the tribunal that Simpson is not a likely case and they are doing this because Simpson is such a political football. Linking him as a possible first candidate for the (A)VC has been a furphy since the new honours system was implemented. --Mat Hardy (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks. I should learn not to believe everything the media tells me. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's notable about the article that you linked to is that it was written by the great-grandaughter of Simpson's CO. She's got a bit of a vested interest there but it's quite inexcusable that she blatantly states as fact that Simpson was recommended for a VC by Sutton.. Really it should be up to the pro-VC people to come up with the proof that he was formally put forward for the medal. But the paperwork just doesn't support it. The belief that there was a VC in the offing has all grown out of a couple of misunderstandings and erroneous assumptions from decades ago. But hell, it makes for an interesting debate about this article! --Mat Hardy (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

[edit]

The sections recently added with the quotes from Simposn's commander, Monash etc seem to be plagiarised directly from http://www.anzachouse.com/simpson.shtml I think the quotes are a great addition because they provide a lot of material on the VC controversy, but the opinion and footnote numbers that have been pasted straight across are a bit naughty! Plus they are causing some page layout problems with the ext box formatting. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkpatrick as anti-militarist

[edit]

This article really ignores Kirkpatrick's own politics, and the use of him in the 1920's as an anti-militarist symbol, and this should be corrected. Does anyone want to discuss before I add? Takver

Australian War Memorial acknowledges that Kirkpatrick was "a trade union activist" and it is likely that during his seafaring he came into contact with the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World. Peter Cochrane in his 1992 book 'Simpson And The Donkey: The Making Of A Legend' goes much further and says "Again and again Simpson’s allegiance to class, his vehemence and anger, have been erased, in favour of the simple tale centred on his alleged loyalty to mother, nation, empire and, in the last instance, to his manhood."

One of Kirkpatrick's letters home to his mother in 1912 gives an idea of his political values when he said "I often wonder when the working men of England will wake up and see things as other people see them. What they want in England is a good revolution and that will clear some of these Millionaires and lords and Dukes out of it and then with a Labour Government they will almost be able to make their own conditions."(ref)Australian History - Donnelly's Donkey by historian Humphrey McQueen, accessed 22 April 2007(/ref)

Kirkpatrick was also used as an anti-militarist symbol. According to a report in the Age in 2003 "1920s, pacifist schoolteachers adopted Simpson (Kirkpatrick) and his donkey to turn Anzac Day commemorations away from militarism and towards a celebration of the mateship that passed for socialism in the bush."(ref)Gallipoli's shadows The Age April 25, 2003 (/ref)

Seems like something that should be included. But I would say that this should be in perspective and not overwhlem the Anzac side of things. ie. The fact that Simpson, a working man, had sympathies with the working class in one letter home, should not turn the article into "Simpson the Revolutionary". ie. He is not famous for any notable contribution to the labour movement or industrial relations. He is famous as an Anzac icon. (Challenging the basis for that iconic status and explaining how it came about is of course valid.) --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a common perception during WW1 that many bearers, and other non-combatants, were contentious objectors. It's no surprise that pacifists would seize on a famous bearer as their cause celebre. All AIF soldiers were volunteers, to the chagrin of Billy Hughes, so Simpson was not an objector.220.244.246.217 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Doctorate

[edit]

Can anyone actually offer a reference about the Honorary degree Simpon was supposedly awarded by the University of Adelaide? A quick half hour of looking around has drawn a blank for me. The University of Adelaide certainly seems to contain no information on this within its own pages. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I meant to remove that when I removed the hoax references for it too. It's a load of cobblers. In 1919 Simpson wasn't particularly well known. It was only much later did the legend grow. He was never given any honorary doctorate, by anyone! Gillyweed 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you. How embarassing that "fact" has been there for so long. Initially my suspicion was aroused because I didn't think the giving of honorary doctorates was that prevalent in 1919, especially posthumously. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

202nd person to enlist in WA

[edit]

The phrase that Simpson was the “202nd person to enlist in WA” has been deleted. It was claimed that his service number of 202 indicated he was the “202nd person to enlist in WA”. In World War 2, service numbers were allotted by state but in World War 1 they were allotted by unit. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony. Nice to see a contributor of your expertise here on Wikipedia! --Mat Hardy (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Devanha

[edit]

I have included the external links on this ship which may seem peripheral to Simpson's story. However it is thought that they will all those researching the story, especially school students, a winder perspective on what happened on 25/04/1915. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey's Name

[edit]

According to Cochrane, Simpson had multiple donkeys so I have removed the reference to his donkey having a name in the lead photo. It only seems to attract debate! Gillyweed (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The donkey may have had several names, or there were several donkeys. That's no reason to withhold info from 1st hand accounts. Abdul, Murphy, or Duffy. According to the AWM, donkeys were used for water transportation. (All mounted units in Egypt destroyed their horses and mules before embarking for Galliboli.) Donkeys were readily in both Aus and the Middle East, and I have not been able to ascertain their provenance.220.244.246.217 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph

[edit]

The article now seems to contain inconsistencies about the lead photograph, captioned as "J. Simpson (centre) with his donkey, bearing a wounded soldier." The AWM source at http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/J06392 says the photographer was O'Brien, John Aloysius, and taken "c May 1915" Later in the WP article we read, "The photograph of him with the donkey wearing a Red Cross band around its muzzle was taken by Sergeant James G. Jackson of the NZMC on 12 May 1915." The word "him" here appears to refer to Henderson, the subject of the previous sentence. Is this the photo referred to by the person who started the section Portrait on this Talk page? 12 May was a week before Simpson's death, suggesting it is a photo of Simpson not Henderson. Arew there two photos? Can someone else clear this up? Spathaky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

Is there any evidence that his birth name was John Simpson Kirkpatrick? According to this article, which may or may not be accurate, I wouldn't know, he was born John Kirkpatrick and adopted the surname Simpson in Australia. If that is so, it should probably be noted in the article.

Is there any evidence from outside the Australian Army (to which he had given a false name) that his mother was called Sarah Simpson Kirkpatrick? The reference given for that sentence does not give her name, though this document does. It would be most unusual (though not of course impossible) for her to have had her father's surname as her middle name; she would thus have been Sarah Simpson Simpson before her marriage to Kirkpatrick. As I said, not actually impossible; but perhaps not very likely? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I had a quick look here. There was only one John Kirkpatrick registered in South Shields in July - September 1892. He did not have a second name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

[edit]

"In the early hours of the following day, as he was bearing a wounded comrade on his shoulders, he spotted a donkey and quickly began making use of it to bear his fellow soldiers." Reading this you'd think he rescued every ANZAC at Galipolli single handed. While he was an early 'media story' he needs to be placed into perspective as one of many first aiders and muleteers (such as the Zion Mule Corp). Otherwise, its just amplifying a 1910s media friendly story without context. (Even if the quote is true the donkey wasn't there by accident). AnonNep (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the article implies that Simpson rescued every British Empire soldier at Anzac single handed. However, it would be more accurate to say that he performed a valuable service in helping lightly wounded, particularly those wounded in the leg, to move down the steep cliffs to the beach. I admire this British soldier who died helping others. Australia is honoured to share his memory with South Shields, England. The Valour inquiry in March 2013 looked at the arguments for and against a late award. See footnote 18 for the full text of the report. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, perspective, or as Wikipedia would term it, a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Of course Simpson should be recognised for the valuable service he gave, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but the article, on the one hand, acknowledges that his story initially came to public attention as war propaganda, but, at the same time, that same uncritical propaganda seems to colour other sections (such as the lede and 'Military service'). Aside from the final sentence, Simpson is presented as exceptional for his acts, rather than notable because of the publicity, acknowledged as questionable in parts, those acts received (and which many others also performed). AnonNep (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for evidence that ‘Simpson is exceptional for his acts, rather than notable because of the publicity’ Simpson was one of a small number of Australians posthumously Mentioned in Despatchers. The day after his death, the future Australian Corps commander, General Sir John Monash, mentioned Simpson's loss in a report to division headquarters. See Valour Report paragraph 15-36 which states:
On 20 May 1915, Colonel John Monash, Commander 4th Brigade, wrote to the Headquarters of the NZ&A Division as follows:
I desire to bring under special notice, for favour of transmission to the proper authority, the case of Private Simpson, stated to belong to C Section of the 3rd Field Ambulance. This man has been working in this valley since 26 April … collecting the wounded, and carrying them to the dressing-stations. He had a small donkey which he used to carry all cases unable to walk.
Private Simpson and his little beast earned the admiration of everyone at the upper end of the valley. They worked all day and night throughout the whole period since the landing, and the help rendered to the wounded was invaluable. Simpson knew no fear and moved unconcernedly amid shrapnel and rifle fire, steadily carrying out his self-imposed task day by day, and he frequently earned the applause of the personnel for his many fearless rescues of wounded men from areas subject to rifle and shrapnel fire.
Simpson and his donkey were yesterday killed by a shrapnel shell, and enquiry then elicited that he belonged to none of the AMC units with this brigade, but had become separated from his own unit, and had carried out his perilous work on his own initiative. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the key word there is 'posthumously'. As the 2013 review, quoted in the article notes, Simpson's "initiative and bravery were representative of all other stretcher-bearers of 3rd Field Ambulance", and, as the 2013 review determined, he was appropriately recognised for that with a 'Mentioned in Despatches'. Again, I'd say the reason for notability isn't his actions but the publicity given to those actions (as part of war propaganda). But I don't want to see Simpson, himself, disparaged - he had no say how he was used after his death - but the article isn't entirely fair to Simpson, as it stands. For example, it has the 'Industrial Workers of the World members' category but there isn't any reference to his trade union activism. One possibility may be to remove the redirect from Simpson and his donkey and create that article to focus on the posthumous myth-making, while this article becomes an expanded biography of the man (including the documented facts of his war service). AnonNep (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is that ‘notability isn't his actions but the publicity given to those actions (as part of war propaganda)’ then Simpson is no different than Jacka. Simpson’s actions were notable and like many actions of VC recipients including Jacka the publically give to those notable actions as part of war propaganda do not detract from the notability of their actions. Simpson’s actions have on one hand been grossly exaggerated and on the other hand have critically examined more thoroughly than most stories. As a partisan on the side of those who have critically examined the exaggerations I find the present article to be balanced. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given you're arguing that its actions not publicity here, how about we compare the 'balance' of this article to other articles of Australian military personnel who were 'MiD'? Suggestions of other articles to look at? AnonNep (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Simpson Kirkpatrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Simpson Kirkpatrick. 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) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Simpson_Kirkpatrick&oldid=1207991558"