User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2009[edit]


Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Operation Eagle Attack, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Operation Eagle Attack was changed by (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-09-21T14:05:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Your edits to the Alan Clark article are problematical and it appears that you are letting your frustration at being corrected override an appreciation of the issues. The statement you added to the lead states.

Clark was heavily critized by historians for The Donkeys, which has been dismissed as a myth. Historian Michael Howard called it, "a pretty deplorable piece of work".[1]

Your edit summary said "readding more deleted information. Pathetic to label this POV when it comes from two academic sources."

Firstly it needs to be said that the criticism has been by "some" historians - there are others who supported him and many who did not criticise. Hence one-sided POV

Secondly myth is as odd term to use for a war in which many millions died and it needs a citation if you wish to call the whole book a myth. Reviews of Corrigan refer to dispelling some of the myths, which is slightly different.

Thirdly, your link to Michael Howard refers to the former leader of the Conservative Party, and not to the historian.

Fourthly your quote from Howard is a selectively negative one. Howard also wrote "his descriptions of battles and battlefields are sometimes masterly" ie not a myth. There are other quotes that support the work, particulary from people who served in the war. So a one-sided quote is also POV.

The fact that he wrote the book is what should appear in the lead. The two or more sides to the argument are covered in the section about Donkeys. In view of your comments, the lead was edited to state that the book was contentious and that should suffice. It may be appropriate to add Sheffield and Corrigan to the discussion, but as Haig apologists their views have equally been criticised.

Further, issues concerning the derivation of the quote are covered more fully in the related article.

I commend you to read The Donkeys, if you have not, and Clark's Official biography

Regards Motmit (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Douglas Haig: Architect of Victory. Reid p. 10.