Talk:Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

Writers have speculated he was a deviant. We're supposed to ignore those books?

To editor NBHP: Per WP:BRD, can you impeach those cited sources, or are you just making accusations of bias? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you were a journalist then your integrity would be judged negatively if you simply repeat what others say without verifying any facts. The sources you refer to are commentry by other people without evidence to back it up. It would be fair to acknowledge that those people have made the accusations but they should not be stated as fact. NBHP (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also he had a finacee who died of typhoid so the paragraph contained a statement that was factually incorrect. The gossip like nature of the paragraph sounds somewhat childish and homophobic in my opinion. If not removed then it should be edited carefully to ensure that it is not attacking a deceased individual’s legacy and not an attempt at senationalising a few off hand comments made by sources that readers cannot easily assess the reliability off. NBHP (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I see you have put it back. As you wish. Wikipedia is an important source of information and it would be nice to maintain it’s encyclopaedic integrity. I personally don’t feel that the paragraph does that. NBHP (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NBHP: Wikipedia is not journalism, per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't independently verify sources, per WP:NOR. We regurgitate what other reliable sources have said. In this case, the claims come from Ronald Hyam's 1991 book Empire and Sexuality: British Experience published by Manchester University Press, Montgomery Hyde's 1972 The Other Love: An Historical and Contemporary Survey of Homosexuality in Britain published by Mayflower Books, Denis Judd's 2011 book Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present published by I. B. Tauris and British Army Major-general Frank M. Richardson's 1981 book Mars Without Venus: a study of some homosexual generals published by W. Blackwood. In each case, we attribute these claims to those authors, we don't simply state it was true with citations. That section starts with the words: "Some biographers have concluded...". Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think his supposed fiancée was Valentine Baker's daughter iirc. I think some writers take the tale with a pinch of salt as it was precisely the sort of tale of youthful tragedy or jilting which bachelors like Arthur Balfour or even Edward Heath used to cultivate. ("They say a girl jilted him once" "Oh they all say that" as Bathsheba says to her maid Liddy of Farmer Boldwood). Of course we have to stick to what the books say, but I wonder if some writer hasn't suggested that his "Band of Boys" - the young officers who worked for him - were more likely surrogate sons rather than objects of lust, and that the idea that he continued to be a welcome guest at country houses despite a reputation for nocturnal expeditions in pursuit of anal rape is well beyond the bounds of plausibility.Paulturtle (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

post by NBHP that was disallowed by an abuse filter

Nominating section on Kitchener’s sexuality to be removed The whole section is based on speculation and references other articles that are speculation and hearsay. The suggestion that he was a paedophile or routinely made uninvited advances against young people is offensive and does not respect someone who is deceased and unable to defend themselves. The section also contains a factually incorrect statement that he never loved a women when in fact he was engaged to be married and his fiancee died of Typhoid. Whether he was homosexual or not is not really noteworthy or worth including and impossible to establish. Is every famous person in history going to be subject to speculation about there sexuality? I suspect that the inclusion of this whole section is deliberate misinformation and information of a nature that is intended to attack the man’s historical legacy and is motivated by politics/religion or homophobia and childishness. I have left it to a regular contributor to decide how to deal with this. ~~~~

The recent biography by Cassar has this to say about the rumors: "Kitchener never married and, because his inner circle consisted mostly of bright young officers and he became attached to a few of them, some writers claimed in the wake of his death that he must have been a covert homosexual or one whose sexual practices were never uncovered. Kitchener made many enemies during his long career of national service and if there had been any hint of homosexuality, then illegal and considered a mortal sin, it certainly would have been used to destroy his reputation. Kitchener’s correspondence with his sister Millie shows that he enjoyed the company of women and named a few with whom he had flirted" (p. 13) (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair comment, although Cassar is simply regurgitating what he wrote in his doorstep-sized 1977 biog, which I'm reading at the moment. He also mentions that Kitchener had a semi-courtship, which came to nothing, of "a Tory lady" circa 1902 after his return from the Boer War. Round about that time he also (not mentioned in that book - I think it's in the Pollock biog) told some Egyptian/Arab/Turkish bigwig that he was too old to marry, only to be told by the man in question that he was far older and had lately taken (yet another) pretty young wife.Paulturtle (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

War Crimes in South Africa

No discussion of War Crimes ordered by Kitchiner in South Africa and internment of Dutch South Africans in death camps and summary executions of combatants.. HuttonIT (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

They were not considered war crimes at the time; just a dirty response to (as the British saw it) dirty tactics from the enemy. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:350A:ACD9:F66D:5A92 (talk) 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:350A:ACD9:F66D:5A92 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References coding.

I amended the article references for 2 reasons, 1. the article citations were outdated. 2. There were gaps in the coding which needed amending to bring this article to up date and to fix citations in quoting books. Sorry if your reading this as the person who wanted to upgrade the Lord Kitchener article, however it was overdue. Cltjames (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is an upgrade: while the "sfn" citation type has its advantages, on the one occasion I tried to use them in the past, another editor changed them with the comment "convert to non-templated list format to aid page-load time (many citation templates are slow)". I have therefore not since used them. Please observe WP:CITEVAR. Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my point of view was... Wikipedia has been upgraded several times over the past decades, and the old style doesn't quite acknowledge how Wikipedia now uses different coding, today from the offset this article was the old style. It was only a matter of time for the upgrade of the coding, and that is within respect to the article's stature. And now the article respects the new styles of referencing code, and has also been amended for the repetitive and at times incorrect coding listed prior, the article is now up to date for it's coding, and also for the issue of correcting mistakes in regard to prior referencing mistakes, furthermore it's had an overhaul for which it could be regarded as an article which is now correct and up to date, and no offence this is for everyone, not just one complaint about the past, the article is bigger than one person, written consent or not. Cltjames (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you say, but my understanding is that WP:CITEVAR does not allow you to change the citation style...and you have already been warned about this on your talk page when you made changes (which have since been reverted) in relation to the HMS Hood article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand, HMS Hood article was reverted, a shame to me. But this is Lo rd Kitchener, and a force in the military, this isn't 1 ship, this is a legend of the military, I only upgraded this article because he deserves it, as for Hood, I was testing the waters with a main page article, I hope you understand, if anything I gained practice wirh Hood, but this article deserves the upgrade. Cltjames (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Cltjames, if a citation style has been established in an article, you shouldn't change it without getting consensus first, even if you consider it an "upgrade". Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sure... Just I have been emotional about Lord Kitchener's life, I'm just trying to help ! Cltjames (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about 'citevar', it won't happen again. And to whom it may concern, I was wanting to upgrade the decorations in the article, as in an example would be Mark Stanhope and his military awards and decorations images. Cltjames (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, to be a pain but adding brightly coloured ribbons would not be an upgrade either: the Mark Stanhope article should not be taken as an example, especially as the table of decorations is entirely unsourced. A better example would be Bernard Montgomery. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So be it, the article seems to a good standard, I'll leave it at that. Cltjames (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, David Petraeus Recognitions and honors are perfect, why not give Lord Kitchener the same distinction ? Cltjames (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, David Petraeus should not be taken as an example: it appears that a significant amount of the content has been written by editors receiving undisclosed payments and editors with a conflict of interest. A lot of work was put into the Kitchener article to get it to "B" on the quality scale. Please do not imperil that assessment. Dormskirk (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, end of chat on talk, obviously above my pay grade, literally and odd comment about the Petraeus article, something I'm learning about I guess. Cltjames (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox be changed to a military one rather than the current one? It would be in line with other military figures and mean it was less cluttered. As his postnominals are already elsewhere, only 'His Excellency', 'Field Marshal', and 'The Right Honourable' ought to remain? Nightingale104 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Although he had been a military person, his later career was as a politician (Secretary of State for War) making "Infobox officeholder" more appropriate. Dormskirk (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"if you want an omelet, you have to break a few eggs"

I read somewhere that this oft-quoted phrase was originally his. Any verification?38.104.70.30 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)captcrisis