Talk:Percy Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


There are many Baronets of the United Kingdom, it seems more helpful to me to give the actual name of his Baronetcy (and indeed the standard for articles on Baronets is generally to include Sir and nth Baronet in the article title). It may also be worth getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies on this. David Underdown (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreyer vs. Pollen[edit]

Please can we have an informed, polite debate about this? Words like 'slander' are not helpful. If a Royal Commission found that Dreyer plagiarised Pollen's work, as stated in the article on Arthur Pollen, that should be good enough for Wikipedia. David, presumably you would be able to dig out the Commission's report and cite it? Philip Trueman (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a brief look, the catalogue records certainly confirm that a claim was made for search results (though both Dreyer and Pollen appear listed in the claimants list for some of these). The ODNB article on Pollen refers to Parliamentary papers for the details of the claim, which wouldn't be at Kew. David Underdown (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Pollen made two major claims - one which was dismissed straight away in 1922 if memory serves, and one which resulted in an award being made to Pollen in 1926. The Arthur Pollen was started by someone who read Pollen's son's apologia The Great Gunnery Scandal which was dismissed when it was published as being full of inaccuracies before even getting the gunnery aspects of A.J.H. Pollen's life. Presumably anyone actually interested in the subject can pay 20 pounds and buy Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland by John Brooks, which cites at length from the proceedings of the R.C.A.I. in relation to the Pollen case. The Claims files and the minutes of proceedings are in the P.R.O. apparently. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Claims files etc are what I've linked to above. I'm now happy to accept the removal, but the use of terms like "slander" really wasn't helpful for a good faith edit. (see also some additional discussion under a similar title on Harlsbottom's user talk). David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Tell the truth about Dreyer" wasn't helpful either, since to anyone who knows anything about the subject it isn't the truth. The proceedings are under T.173/547 parts 1-19. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but it's also easy to see (as this discussion demonstrates) why someone coming across Pollen first might think it was the case. More explanation up front, and avoiding terms which mcould be taken as personal attacks would have got this resolved more easily. David Underdown (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazette search results[edit]

London Gazette entries:

Image copyright problem with File:CB military badge.jpg[edit]

The image File:CB military badge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


I've had the following comment on my Talk Page which raises important issues and should more appropriately be discussed here:Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I respect the amount of work you're putting in to the Scott article, his memoirs are, to put it mildly, self-serving. And it comes across rather alot in the article as it now stands, the formula being "Scott did this, but everyone else said that" etc. It doesn't help that Peter Padfield's biography is just a rather poor re-hash of the memoirs and basically rubber stamps everything Scott writes. Andrew Lambert's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is far more even-handed, but still fails on a detail level in places. All I would suggest is don't go overboard using his memoirs when sooner or later many of his contentions will be directly contradicted. —Simon Harley (Talk

— Library). 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I accept much of the above. However, Scott was clearly a bit of a character who had important ideas, a skill at improvising solutions, and an energy to see things through. This was clearly highly valued but he also seemed completely to lack political skills which did nothing for his relationships with his superiors resulting in an on/off love/hate relationship. I determined therefore that a fuller article than the one that existed was appropriate (and would be interesting) but that left me with the problem of sources. Scott's autobiography could indeed be described as self serving, certainly the tone of it for the most part is pretty much so. However, I haven't so far been able to find much else so I've used this source, trying to extract facts (he did go to so and so, he did install such and such equipment, it had a demonstrable effect, it got general acceptance but did take a long time etc.) while eliminating the polemic. I may not have succeeded entirely in this and I accept that the article is currently imbalanced in terms of an unhealthy reliance on one source (I'll put in a {{one source}} tag) but you have to start somewhere....Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)