Talk:Orde Wingate

Recent edit of article

Recent edit of article on Orde Wingate are based on first hand conversations and testimony Orde had with my father who served with Orde in the Sudan Defence Force.

For historical record this does need to be recorded and mentioned if and until anyone disputes these facts.

This violates WP:OR, which is in place to ensure verifiability of material in Wikipedia. --Yaush (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific and list in what way does it violate what you mention.

The remnants of the Gideon Force were later transferred to Field Marshall Montgomery's 8th Army and fought during the campaign in the Western Desert in North Africa. Some of the members of the Gideon Force later became known as the Jewish Brigade. --‎Pop goes the we (please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~)

‎Pop goes the we, thank you very much for discussing it here, it's important. Please note that Wikipedia's policy is not to permit "what we know" or "what I've personally experienced", but "what is written down and can be verified" - please read WP:V. This is because anybody - me, her, them - can say "oh wow, we just had this AMAZING experience, yeah, wow, god is an iridescent purple/green goldfish, I saw her right here in my study, ow wow amaaaazing" and nobody at all can contradict us, because we know what we saw and felt. Wikipedia's view is that only things that can be independently verified are allowable in the encyclopedia. That means they have to be written down somewhere - doesn't have to be online, can be in the Library of Congress or whatever, but it must be a reliable, independent, verifiable source. If I've written a book which I keep in my desk, that doesn't count because nobody else can check it, and even if they can, it's not independent of me. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with this change :

'''''....Abyssinia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Burma during World War II. Also known as the father of modern guerrilla warfare, his early ideas on guerrilla warfare using special forces behind enemy lines are what later became inspiration for the foundation of the SAS ( Special Air Service ). He was a successful military strategist and an expert in military tactics. ''''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the we (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with this change :

''Military HQ Cairo, invited him to Sudan to begin operations against Italian occupation forces in Ethiopia. It is unclear if Wingate met Col David Stirling (who was to later form the Special Air Service ) in Cairo at that same time. Bold text'''Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the we (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't shout! And please sign your talk page postings using ~~~~. Very probably these small edits would have been acceptable (that is not a go-ahead), but I expect they got reverted along with the rest because references were not supplied and nobody felt like searching for small bits that might not have breached WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Once you have read and internalized the basic policies, and don't indulge in edit-warring - you did breach WP:3RR yesterday, for which you could have been blocked - then everybody will relax and feel happier about the valuable knowledge you have to contribute. - Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to shout it is just I wanted to highlight the changes I madePop goes the we (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC). Please let me know if you think these changes are OK?Pop goes the we (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you indicate a source for them, with a suitable reference like <ref>Bloggs, Joe. ''The Chindits''. Methuen, 2009. page 123.</ref>

Article needs correction as many inaccuracies exist.

My understanding is that Wiki is to collect all known knowledge. Some may be undocumented and some may be novel, new and unpublished. The information I supplied was held by an individual who was present during the time described. It is probably new and unpublished material but it is still significant and adds knowledge to the article. It it stands the test of time it should be published and if authenticity is disputed in future it should be removed. I do not see why we cannot publish new material in Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the we (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Ethiopia was known as Abyssinia at that time.
2. In first para "Burma World War II" in first para does not make sense.
3. Orde was "Also known as the father of modern guerrilla warfare, his early ideas on guerrilla warfare using special forces behind enemy lines are what later became inspiration for the foundation of the SAS ( Special Air Service ). He was a successful military strategist and an expert in military tactics." that is why as the article says "he was a brilliant British Army soldier." This change only expands and explains what is already mentioned in the article. It is self evident at Military Colleges and among students of irregular guerrilla warfare.
4. The article references "Middle East Command" this was known as Military HQ Cairo.
5. "It is unclear if Wingate met Col David Stirling (who was to later form the Special Air Service ) in Cairo at that same time." Why would this need a source it is only posing a question? As both men were supposedly founders of Special military Operations and both could have met at Military HQ in Cairo as they were both there at the same time?

Pop goes the we (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To take these points in turn:

1. Then why put both names in?
2. A minor correction is all that is required
3. Then find a reliable source which says so.
4. Find a reliable source which says so.
5. Speculation is not information. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

HLGallon (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"My understanding is that Wiki is to collect all known knowledge. Some may be undocumented and some may be novel, new and unpublished." Your understanding is not correct. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be documented from published reliable sources (WP:RS). Secondary sources are preferred (WP:PRIMARY). Original research is expressly forbidden (WP:OR).

These rules exist to ensure that everything in Wikipedia is verifiable. Otherwise, it is impossible to distinguish the vandals, the cranks, and the simply misinformed from the trustworthy in a project that can be edited quite literally by anyone that shows up. Don't like that model? I have grave doubts about it myself, though perhaps for different reasons. But if you're going to edit Wikipedia, you have to do it by Wikipedia's rules.

Consider your case specifically. We don't know you from Adam. You say you have information that came to you from Orde Wingate via your father. So you're asking us to trust your recollections of your father's recollections of conversations with a man who exhibited borderline insane behavior at times. This may be of interest, but only if you have reliable transcripts of your father's recollections. In which case, they should be published in a reliable historical journal which can then be cited in this article -- where they will still be regarded as one man's recollections of conversations with Wingate, and not as the truth about Wingate. At best. --Yaush (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

General Comment

I disagree on this point.

1. Knowledge is held by people in their heads based on their life experiences.
2. Not everybody is an author to write or publish their knowledge.
3. Knowledge if it is not captured dies with the people who have it.
4. Some other organisation needs to publish original thought online.
5. Otherwise what is in Wikipedia is just a regurgitation of existing published knowledge and add to nothing.

If it is not Wikipedia then someone else needs to document all this knowledge which is vastly more then all knowledge that has ever been published and publish it. If it is inaccurate then it will be disputed and can be removed. Pop goes the we (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a key house rule here, so if you don't like it, choose another house. If you like 'dim lights, thick smoke, and loud loud music', choose an old-style night club. If you like verifiable facts, choose Wikipedia. Up to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct, Chiswick Chap. Unverified information need not be challenged for accuracy. It will be removed, per WP:V and WP:OR. HLGallon (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to him he did quote a reference which you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.73.149 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he copied and pasted a sentence and cite from a subsequent section in the text. The cite does not support the speculative sentence I deleted. HLGallon (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is a comment currently saying that the intro to this article is deficient. Pop actually provided a good intro by showing why Orde is a briiiant British Army officer as the intro currently states. Otherwise the intro does not provide any referenece to who and why considered Orde a brilliant British Army officer not does it justifiy it. Pop's comment does.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.29.243 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the tag states that the lead needs to be changed to reflect the content of the rest of the article, which is correctly cited. When a lead just summarizes the rest of the article it does not need to be cited again. It is not legitimate for the lead to introduce new uncited claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims for successful Army officer

I've done what you guys requested and I found the references I need to justify my additions to the article.

I hope you guys approve. Pop goes the we (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The article is now seriously unbalanced towards the view, which is highly disputable, that Wingate was a military genius. You've beautifully illustrated why I have serious doubts about the viability of the Wikipedia model. --Yaush (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The article originally said Wingate was a brilliant British Army Officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.101.83 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed, under NPOV rules. HLGallon (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wingate was a successful Army officer (see book "Orde Wingate: A Man of Genius 1903-1944" by Trevor Royle). He was successful in the Abyssinia campaign and in Burma. "He also trained in the art of guerrilla warfare in the Sudan and the Abyssinia campaign many from the Yishuv, and the Haganah. Many of those he trained became heads of the Palmach and, later, the Israel Defense Forces (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/wingate.html). Many of Orde Wingate's Jewish troops in the Sudan went on to form the Jewish Brigade which fought in North Africa with Field Marshall Montgomery's 8th Army and then to Italy.

Historically to that end many of the original founding fathers of the IDF regarded Wingate at that time as one of the fathers of the IDF and owned him a debt of gratitude. In the early years of the IDF new recruits were trained using Orde Wingate's methods.

Among the officer Corps of the British Army many, to this day, regard Wingate with contempt and blame him for the bombing by Haganah of the British Military HQ in Jerusalem at the King David Hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.165.20 (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That allegation says more about "many of" the officer Corps of the British Army, or the individual making the allegation for I suspect it is untrue. That those "many" have contempt for a successful attack on a military HQ, or that they lump the Haganah and Irgun (actually responsible for the King David bombing and condemned by the Haganah) as one Jew entity. 86.180.20.107 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a mystery surrounding Wingate's death. Wingate was supposed killed in a plane crash in 1944 in Burma. A confidential investigation at that time speculated that the crash was not an accident. Some claim Wingate was never on the plane and the bodies were too charred to be identified.

That is why Wingate and none of Wingate's men from the Sudan Defence Force ever received any official recognition for their bravery in the Abyssinia campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.165.20 (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole story of Wingate would make a great Hollywood movie.

The references are still inadequate. A page number is required for the Thompson work; it is not enough to point the reader at a book and require him or her to read it from cover to cover to confirm the single-sentence assertion which it cites. The other reference requires a subscription (£23 or so, no mean sum) and cites only the peacock phrase "He was a successful military strategist and an expert in military tactics", which is questionable no matter what sources are provided. I will review the Wikipedia rules on sourcing and citation, but these two cites and the text they support may yet be removed under WP:POV and WP:V. HLGallon (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on in there - the original accepted and approved version said Orde Wingate was and I quote "...a brilliant British Army officer" and that was only changed when I question it. There is no dispute that Wingate was a successful Army officer by the fact that he won lots of honours for his service in the successful campaign to rid the Italian Army from East Africa and the Japanese Army from Burma. A man who won the DSO three times and with two bar and is Mentioned in Dispatches must be a successful Army officer. Pop goes the we (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, any claims to genius, etc, need the most careful treatment. We could say "The Nobel committee chairman praised Einstein as "a genius of modern physics" if we had such a quote and could cite it, but it remains someone's opinion. Otherwise it's totally out of bounds (as are almost all adjectives - good, notable, inspired, excellent, etc - they're all basically WP:OR and unencylopedic. Basically we mustn't let the article be derailed. Evidence, or delete. And we should completely replace the lead - I'd do it but I'm not sure where to put the citations in the current lead (perhaps here on the talk page). The lead should be a pure summary of the article with no editorializing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Point taken will provide page numbers. Simon Anglim's work is based on his research papers for Aberyswith University for his PHD thesis. Pop goes the we (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Wingate ever meet David Stirling in Cairo in 1941 ?

The article on the Gideon Force states "The Gideon Force was officially disbanded June 1, 1941. Wingate returned to Egypt".

Col David Stirling founder of the SAS was in Cairo at that time. I wonder if he and Orde Wingate ever meet in Cairo and if Wingate passed on his ideas about special forces and guerrilla warfare to Stirling who later formed the SAS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.165.20 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is not a forum. It is the talk page for a Wikipedia article only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wingate's Death

According to Donovan Webster's Book 'The Burma Road', if I remember correctly, it was stated that Wingate actually died from impulsively drinking water out of a potted plant when he was thirsty, and the complications that occurred, and not from the plane crash. Webster in general is critical of the Chindit operation from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

Apologies if I'm not remembering this book properly.

Here is a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Burma-Road-Story-China-Burma-India-Theater/dp/0060746386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377179584&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Burma+Road 198.181.11.139 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If Webster says that, it destroys the credibility of his book. It's simply not in dispute that Wingate died in an air accident. --Yaush (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If I get a chance I'll try to look at the book again, maybe he just got really sick from the incident. It is more likely I messed up than Webster did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.11.139 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I found the citation, page 186 from the book. It was the explanation of why Wingate didn't personally participate in the Chindit operation, he got sick from the incident. Webster's derisiion is palpable.

Here is the quote (page 186, last paragraph: 'But against the success of the invasion, there were problems. And the one taking first priority was getting all twelve thousand Chindits inserted into Burma. Inside Wingate's Circus,the problems began with Wingate himself. Several months earlier - during a witheringly hot stop in Castel Benito, Libya, while on his trip back from the Quadrant Conference - Wingate had grown impatient while waiting for the airfield's canteen to open. In a lapse of judgement that was characteristically Wingate, the newly promoted major general had thrown some flowers out of a vase and consumed the container's water. A few weeks later, safely back in India, he was hospitalized with a life-threatening case of typhoid. By early May, while back on his feet, Wingate's strength, stamina, and ability to command with his usual enthusiasm were profoundly compromised. He was skinny and weak. He was tired. And his eyes, which always burned blue beneath his prominant brow, were now so lifeless and sunken that they appeared to be nothing more than black holes in his head.' 24.184.103.88 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wingate's parents

Their religious affiliations and courtship are discussed, but neither is given a name. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)