Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frank Buckles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Buckles

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because at present all the historical information we have is on the page, but it might not be enough to pass FA, but enough for A-Class, from what I am told by more experienced editors. A biography is being released about the subject of the article sometime in "late 2011 or early 2012", so we would have more information then, information that would more than put the article into FA territory. With the information from news sources, the US Census, old newspapers and other information is the best we currently have. The article passed GA and I think it is A-Class quality, hence my request for review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ

[edit]

Brad101

[edit]

The most glaring problem atm is the references. You must have publishers, authors, page numbers, publication dates and retrieved on dates. See {{cite web}}. It would be nice to see this article on the main page as TFA on November 11 of this year. Don't know if that's possible. Brad (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Cite, retrieval dates are only recommended when publication dates are unknown. Most of the sources in this article are from newspapers, and for those sources WP:Cite recommends:
(1) name of the newspaper in italics
(2) date of publication
(3) byline (author's name), if any
(4) title of the article within quotation marks
(5) city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
(6) page number(s) are optional
So, I think we did a pretty good job.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In most of the refs (if not all), we have the newspaper or magazine, or website, the date it was published (in most cases, the retrieval date is within a week of each other on most), the author's name (though some newspapers don't give an author's name, just "Staff" or nothing at all) and the title of the story. We have done that with almost (again, if not all) refs. As AYW said, I think we did a pretty good job with the almost 100 refs on that page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if you want to take it beyond GA, and certainly if you have any hope of going to FAC, you'll need the publishers and access dates. I wouldn't worry about locations, because that's more hassle than it's worth and the information will be accessible by clicking through to the paper's article if it's notable. Also, you should format your dates consistently—why do you use mdy in the body and ymd in the references? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the YMD/MDY thing, that is kinda how I thought the references were supposed to look. Personally, I would rather have the references as MDY and the dates in the article as MDY, but I thought the refs were supposed to be in YMD version. I can change that. As for the access dates, I don't know them off the top of my head anymore, so I could just put down today's date en masse. The publishers are on each one, in some cases as the newspaper (which is the publisher) or news network, etc. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today's date is fine as long as the current version of the webpage backs up the material you're citing it for. As for publishers, just the title of the publication isn't enough—for example, you need to state that the NYT is published by The New York Times Company or the Daily Mail by Associated Newspapers. This is especially important for less well-known publications like the Nevada Daily Mail. The likes of CNN and Voice of America should be OK, because they're not newspapers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie, let me see what I can do. I will work on the dates as well. I just finished tracking down a couple sources that had gone 404. Gotta love CheckLinks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are done in MDY form, checked with Wehwalt to make sure that was right on citeweb rules. Working on the publishers now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking. Many wikilinks are repeated; in some instances twice within one section. Link the first occurrence only. The exception to this rule is to not count the lead section. ie Arlington National Cemetery should only be linked twice in the entire article. This applies to the references as well; ie the first occurrence of The Washington Post and never again. Brad (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just got on Wiki, working on both points from HJ and Brad. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - Finished both the delinking of the references and in the body of the article. Also, fixed the references to have the "work=" field as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Not done by any means. Just scanning the article I've seen The Pentagon and Pershing linked at least twice in the body of the article. The references are still a mess. ancestry.com and United States Census are linked multiple times. Wikilinks are supposed to help a reader learn more about a subject related to the article. Therefore linking to things like Speaker of the House and The White House is not helpful. The main subject of this article is about World War I events and persons related to it. Brad (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The purpose of wikilinks is to allow the reader to gain a better understanding of something, like Speaker of the House, they might not be familiar with but without clogging the article up with explanations. No non-American is going to understand something like Speaker of the House, so that's a valuable link. Repeated linking isn't really an issue in the references section—it's common even in featured articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Brad: Actually, I think the subject of the article is Frank Buckles, not World War I, he just served in that war. It has a place in the article, but isn't the subject of the article by any means.
            • @HJ: I agree, we need to link things like Speaker of the House and such, for those who are from other countries to better understand. Like if we were talking about a Brit, we would link to Speaker of the House of Commons. Just makes things more understandable for non-American readers, just like we would do for non-British readers and the like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is overlinked and I will not support its promotion to A-class until this issue is resolved. If you have plans for A-class and eventually FA, this is what needs to be done. Brad (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the document I read is much less stringent than you're making it out to be. I disagree that the article is overlinked and invite you to provide specific examples of links you don't think are useful. I'm also going to take this to WT:MILHIST to get other reviewers' opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of taste, to some extent, but I think it might be slightly overlinked. The ones that stood out to me were:
  • driving ambulances - in a fairly heavily linked article, I'd be inclined to leave this one out.
  • Corporal, General of the Armies, Vice Chief of Staff and the other military ranks. Corporal is going to be widely understood by English-language readers, and the other ranks usually occurred alongside a specific example of someone famous for holding that rank (e.g. Pershing); I suspect that anyone who didn't know what the General of the Armies would probably click on Pershing to find out, without the rank being separately linked.
  • financial services - wasn't sure this added much.
  • "Japanese, and was also fluent in German, Spanish, Portuguese, and French" - I don't think you need to link each language, as they're common English words, but that's a personal opinion.
  • Amphitheater of Arlington National Cemetery - two links here, when one would probably do (the ampitheater one goes to an Arlington specific page anyway)
  • candlelight vigil - didn't add much for me.
Hchc2009 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just delinked "White House", because it was EGG'd to George W. Bush, because the source didn't mention Bush, and because just about every reader will know what the White House is, especially with the clues provided in the article. I'm not in favor of delinking "Speaker of the House"; I think a lot of readers outside the US won't know what that is. What other links are a problem, Brad?
It might be a good idea to figure out how many of our writers prefer to link things just once in the text (not counting the lead); WP:Linking says it's okay to link more than once, but a few reviewers at FAC are against it. Personally, when I'm skimming an article to check for links, I can remember whether something has already been linked; I generally can't remember how many times it was linked, so as a writer, it's easier for me to verify that I linked everything exactly once. I don't have a preference for how others handle it, and I generally don't review links. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just unwlinked some more stuff. Per WP:Overlink: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first...." So if something is wlinked in the first section, I think it's okay to wlink it a few sections later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, NeutralHomer has just unspoiled unwlinked some more stuff, so nothing is wlinked in one section and then again in another section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC. Brad (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to Brad's talk page, in pure frustration, with this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Comment. I've asked over at WT:MHC#ACRs for closure if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. (Although with this article, that might be a while.) If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, please edit when are ready, we can always use another pair of eyes and hands working on this article. The more the merrier. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm covering a lot of articles at A-class and FAC, it's easier for me if the article is in approximately the same state both places, so I like to do the A-class copyedit late and the FAC copyedit early, if that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, just let me know when you are ready and I will make sure you have a non-EC page to work with. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trek

[edit]

Comment A minor point on Hitler, which happens a lot with coincidence. If Hitler had turned out differently, would anybody remember what Buckles had said? That is, wasn't it pure luck? It's being made out like he had some special foresight. (I'm also not sure how an encounter on the stairs is notable in itself.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a interesting encounter, and is notable to an extent since he was a POW in WWII, though by the Japanese. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it & I'd take it out, myself. I wouldn't demand it be removed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about we did this: "In Berlin, Buckles had a chance encounter with Adolf Hitler, bumping into him on the steps of a hotel." It has a source and doesn't give the "warning" at the end. Kind of a one liner. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the warning is the only thing saving it. How many people had chance encounters with Hitler? Had he not turned out how he did, would we care? I'd want it to be more than passing him on the stairs, which this appears to be. Otherwise, do we mention when Joe Average passed a teenage Obama at the supermarket? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Watchlisted this pending outcome.)[reply]
You do have a point there. So, after rattlin' it around in my head, I removed the mention about him "bumping into Hitler". Please do let me know if you see anything else that needs tinkering. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed anything else, or you'd have heard before now. ;p Nice work, btw. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of omitting Hitler, how about putting it in parentheses? Like this: "he listened as his German and British passengers expressed fears about the Nazis, and Buckles witnessed anti-semitism and its effects upon his Jewish friends firsthand while ashore in Germany; he warned acquaintances in Germany that their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler (whom he met by chance at a German hotel)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, except it comes back to "prediction": if Hitler hadn't become notorious, who'd care? Being lucky isn't notable in itself in this instance IMO. If Buckles was Winston, FDR, Hull, Dewey even, I'd say, leave it in, 'cause they were (or would be) in a position to make a difference (depending on when the encounter was...). Buckles doesn't rise above Joe Average. I'm looking at this like I would if somebody predicted Amelia Earhart would disappear. If she hadn't, who'd remember the prediction? If Lindbergh did, maybe they would, 'cause he'd have some grasp of the issues & of her capabilities (presuming he'd met her, which IDK offhand). Can I call it "undue weight"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler was notorious when Buckles encountered him. As Buckles later recalled, Hitler was with his advisors, and Buckles was surprised that he was not more heavily guarded. Buckles was warning people that Hitler would bring down Germany. Anyway, the rest of that paragraph (aside from the parenthetical) seems okay, right? So I don't see that the very brief parenthetical does any harm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hitler was notorious" Not as he was later (or now). I still find it too much "lucky guess" & I don't see my view changing. It isn't, however, something I'd demand be removed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda have to agree. I got an email from Barack Obama before he was president and was named Time Person of the Year for 2006, but these aren't things that would get mentioned for a second if I would ever become famous as they were chance happenings. So, it really should be taken out I feel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hid the parenthetical for the time being. But note that Wehwalt wants to keep it.[1] Did Obama send you a mass mailing, or was it personally to you? Anyway, I think it's pretty amazing that Buckles met Hitler (not just received a message from him).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a mention of the meeting only you want to keep, I'd say keep it. (Meeting Hitler or meeting meeting Mick Jagger, famous is famous.) It's the added remark about the ruin that's bugging me. I don't see the connection between a casual contact & the prophesy, which Buckles doesn't seem specially-qualified to be making. As I said, if it was Winston or FDR, whose political judgement about Hitler I'd take as astute, it would be a different matter, nor do I see how Buckles' casual contact equals enough depth of understanding to make that call. Leaving that in is pure lucky guess. Does that sound pissy? I feel a bit like I'm complaining about nothing, & I confess, I'm not sure if this makes me sound like I'm on both sides of the issue. (Yes, I also have issues with being a fussy perfectionist. ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't call it a lucky prophesy at all. Buckles had a deep knowledge of war (he and Hitler served on opposite sides in WWI). In the 1930s, Buckles spoke with German Army officers who said Germany was re-arming. His friendship with a Jewish antiques dealer was cut short when she came under Nazi surveillance. He observed Mein Kampf prominently displayed in everyone's homes. He attended the Olympics in 1936 and observed how the Nazis removed their antisemitic signs for that occasion, without any real change of the antisemitic attitude. He listened as passengers on his ship frequently cried about the rise of Hitler and the impending wars Hitler would cause. So, when Buckles warned German acquaintances in the 1930s that Hitler would bring down their country, Buckles was about as qualified as anyone on Earth to deliver that warning, IMO. True, his brief encounter with Hitler probably did not contribute very much to Buckles' understanding of the danger Hitler posed, but parenthetically mentioning that brief encounter doesn't seem to imply that that was the basis for Buckles' warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss all of that in the page? If so, I was badly wrong. If not, put it in, 'cause you've just made your case. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks. I've tried to explain better in the Wikipedia article. More details are in the two cited sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett

[edit]

Comment "While on board Carpathia, Buckles spoke with crew members who had taken part in the rescue of RMS Titanic survivors five years previously". Is it me or does that read as bloody obvious. Without apparently anything coming of the interaction, it reads like padding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was greatly interested in talking with those who had taken part in the Titanic rescue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As no doubt did most everyone else who sailed on the Carpathia. Like bumping into Hitler, what light does this shed on the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a neat tidbit instead of saying "Buckles sailed on the Carpathia, which had rescued people from the Titanic years before, to Europe." That's just a sad, one line blurb. The other has a little something interesting for the reader to take away. We don't want reading Wikipedia to be drudgery and something boring, we want them to get these little tidbits they won't get anywhere else. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you'd need to establish a prior interest in Titanic, or rescue at see; otherwise, it seems like "passing the time on the way". Did he select Carpathia deliberately, so he could talk to crewmen? Or did he just take time to talk to them, because they didn't have Internet service? ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that one. I am not sure if the Army put him on that transport ship (the Carpathia was being used to transport US Soldiers from the States to England as part of WWI) or he got on it himself, I really can't tell you. That, I don't believe, is given in the references, just said he was on the ship. I will look though, so stand by. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I was able to find was this: "He shipped off to England in December 1917 on the RMS Carpathia, the ocean liner that had rescued survivors of the Titanic in 1912." That's it. That's all the reference says. :( So...yeah, that is just "passing the time". I had heard he was interested in talking with the crew, but I can't find a direct source and still, if he wasn't on that ship, it would be a non-story. So, remove it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. You're right, it might be interesting, but... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part about him talking to the crew, but left "Later that year, he embarked for Europe aboard the RMS Carpathia, which was being used as a troop ship." as it kinda leads the paragraph, how he got to Europe, etc. Think that is OK or should the whole thing go? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think mention of the ship he went across on is in-bounds. IDK if a parenthetical mention of her in connection to the Titanic rescue is OK (it seems a trifle OT), but I'd add a fn, myself. (Some on WP frown on those for info, like this, tho... :/) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just left the mention of him taking the Carpathia to Europe and no mention of the Titanic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class:

  • What's the relevance of McKinley being president at the time of Buckles birth? We already know that he lived a long time from the lead, and this seems unnecessary unless there was some kind of direct connection.
    • Good point. Removed. - NH
  • The paragraph on Buckles' ancestry ("In 1702, the first American ancestor named Buckles..." seems unnecessary - everyone has families. The military service of his ancestors appears unremarkable - pretty much all young men would have participated in those wars.
    • I think we were trying to tie together his ancestors to him being a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Also, we were giving the tidbit about his family moving to Charles Town, WV, because that is where he moved (and even said he moved for that reason) in 1954. - NH
      • Was it unusual for men of his generation to be members of these organisations? If not, I'm not sure what the special relevance is (and if he was a member of these organisations, it's self-evident that his ancestors had fought in these wars). Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For someone of his age, yes. For his generation, no. In this area (I live south of Charles Town in Virginia), there are still plenty of young members of both groups. - NH
  • The sentence which begins with "As the interwar period began... " is covers a lot of ground and should be split into two sentences
    • Split. - NH
  • How did Buckles manage to get captured in Manila on 8 December 1941? - this was the first day of the Pacific War on that side of the date line, and the Japanese didn't capture the city until January 1942
    • I can't answer this one. This information was taken from a Library of Congress interview with him in December 2001. - NH
      • With respect to Buckles, the statement that "On December 8th, just one day after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese invasion took control of Manila." which is attributed to him in the vva688 newsletter is simply wrong. I'd suggest not using this as a source for anything - we normally don't consider autobiographical material to be a good source of information, and material written by a 108 year old or one of his carers seems particularly unreliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like this was changed previously as I don't see it on my end. - NH
          • It was there when I checked a while ago. The claim that Buckles was captured in Manila on 8 December 1941 and use of this source are the only things stopping me from supporting this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I corrected this mistake that I made. Buckles never claimed he was captured on December 8. He said in the Library of Congress interview that the Japanese attacked on that date, which is true. They bombed Manila on December 8. Then MacArthur declared Manila an "open city" just as Buckles said, but that did not really make the city or its residents safe. Buckles said he was captured 3 years and 2 months before his release on February 23, 1945. That's about right. He was captured when the Japanese occupied the city at the beginning of January, 1942. I'm sorry about this error I made. It was mine, not the subject's. I've added a further footnote, which says he was captured in January 1942. With regard to the Vietnam Veterans newsletter, that source is not now used for his date of capture. In that newsletter, he said: "On December 8th, just one day after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese invasion took control of Manila." That's an oversimplification, in that the invasion began on that date but was not completed for a few weeks. Anyway, we're not using the Vietnam source now, except for a direct quote from Buckles that is verified in a reliable newspaper article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've tweaked this - the bombing of the city on the first day of the war doesn't seem very relevant - it's the Japanese invasion which led to Buckles' ending up an internee Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Buckles freed as a result of the Raid at Los Baños? - the dates match up and that article says that he was present (though this is uncited)
    • Put it in and sourced it. - NH
  • What's a "high profile record"?
    • It is a record of people with celebrity status. Jimi Hendrix's Army record would be one. Oddly, on this list, I can't find Frank Buckles' name. Trying to confirm it by a source from say CNN or a newspaper provided fruitless. So, I have removed the sentence for the time being. - NH
  • The amount of detail on Buckles funeral and the various memorial services seems greatly excessive - this could probably be spun out into a separate article Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is so much sourcing there because there was so much information that came out that day. I know, I was up for 26 hours getting all that information. We could move that section, but then we would have a broken article and it would be even less than GA class. So, I feel moving it would be a bad thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of the information is of pretty marginal interest in an article focused on Buckles - for instance, which non-notable people attended which service, what the music was and its order isn't very relevant. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took the one section out about the music and order it came in, should I remove the section about the Blackfoot as the honor guard? - NH
          • I've taken the liberty of removing the detail I consider unnecessary for this article - please feel free to revert some or all of it back in. I really do think that this topic would support a separate (and very interesting) article. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I figured that the Blackfoot was part of it, but I wanted to make sure before taking it out. For the moment, I am trying to get A (and FA eventually, one day) before I start hacking the article up into other articles. It's a good idea though. - NH
  • As another thing, Buckles was an internee during World War II, not a prisoner of war (see [2]) - POWs are military personnel and received even harsher treatment from the Japanese than internees. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed it up, added Civilian Internee, but left "prisoner" in two sentences as I am not sure where the POWs and just regular internees were, not sure if they were together. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm okay with those changes. But, please note I'm not 100% convinced that all civilians taken prisoner in war are "civilian internees" under the Geneva Conventions. The article on prisoner of war says: "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, PsW) or enemy prisoner of war (EPW) is a person, whether civilian or combatant, who is held in custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever the exact legal definition is, 'internee' is the common usage and the Japanese treated civilian and military prisoners differently. If he'd been a prisoner of war he'd have had a much lower chance of surviving the war (POWs were used for heavy labour and fed less and were moved around in unescorted and unmarked ships which were attacked by Allied submarines). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. As a final comment though, if you're planning to take this to a FAC I'd suggest that you review the article and sources first for material on the less successful aspects of Buckles' life - at present the article is all about his successes and adventures, and no-one passes through life without stuffing things up occasionally. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the very good comments. Regarding his failures, I think he regarded being in Manila in 1941 as not the smartest or most successful move he ever made.  :-) Plus there's his failure to get approval for a World War I monument, which is discussed extensively in the article. There might be other failures in his personal life, but I haven't read about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Frank_Buckles&oldid=1146518967"