Talk:Breaker Morant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A Wikipedian removed Breaker Morant from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: 5 December 2006 |
 |
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. | ||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||
|
More information...
|
|||||
|
Related task forces...
|
|||||
 |
Breaker Morant is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| A | This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
Movie details were not dumped; I moved and included them in a stub.Quill 00:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great article! Just some clarifications though:
- "Daisy reportedly threw him out after he failed to pay for the wedding and then stole some pigs and a saddle." Who reports this?
- "On the return journey to the fort, Morant's unit stopped for the night at the store of a British trader, Mr Hays, who was well known for his hospitality. After they left, Hays was raided by a party of Boers who looted everything he owned, even dragging Mrs Hays' wedding ring from her finger. When they arrived back at Fort Edward, they learned that a convoy under Lt Neel had arrived from Pietersburg the previous day, just in time to reinforce Capt. Taylor against a strong Boer force that attacked the fort. During the encounter one Carbineer was wounded and several horses were shot and it was at this time that Taylor had a native shot for refusing to give him information about the Boers' movements. Neel and Picton then returned to Pietersburg and" - and what?
- "But according to Nick Bleszynski, the order was common knowledge among the Bushveldt Carbineers and other regiments well before Morant's arrival at Fort Edward in mid-190 and it was widely known among the troops that several other units of the British forces in South Africa had shot Boer prisoners." - mid-190? What date is this meant to be?
- "There have been claims that they were destroyed, or that they were sealed in the British Army archives for 100 years, or that they are still in South Africa and were never sent back to England." Who claims this?
Apart from this, the story needs wikifying and fixing of the linked date and a run through a spell checker. It could also do with some images. Otherwise, this is as fine a story I have ever seen on Wikipedia! The authors are to be congratulated on their excellent prose, their holding to NPOV and the representations of both points of view, and the obviously large amount of research they have done in putting this story together!!
Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This has been improving all the time, but I've still got some comments -
- no one's managed to find a picture of him yet?
- this article is really in need of breaking down with Wikipedia:Summary style - I think about three or four articles could be broken away from this one, at the current length
- we still need to watch the opinion here -
- there's a definite judgement at the beginning ("handsome, roguish and talented Morant has become a larrikin folk hero", "romantic but elusive")
- most of the article seems to be reasonably neutral, but the ending seems to make the judgment that Bleszynski is correct
Apart from that, this is looking really good. Ambi 14:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] re: comments
REALLY appreciate your feedback and advice folks. Thank you for the incredibly generous comments! I'm honoured.
re: preceding comments:
I think "handsome, roguish and talented" is a reasonable statement:
- the 1900 picture in Bleszinski's book shows him to be a very handsome, debonair guy
- he was certainly reputed to have been both a ladies' man and a booze-hound, and he evidently had a chequered past -- in other words, a bit of a rogue.
- he was a published poet and a friend of or known to some of the most famous Australian poets of his day; he was also a renowned horseman who had been trained by one of SCOTLANDS best - he was talented.
I also believe the conclusion is fair, given the balance of evidence. The trial records have never been produced, and if the British cared to close the matter for good, and their evidence proves Morant's guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, why not produce them? In their absence, we are forced to rely on Witton's book. I have it before me now and I assure you that he goes into such lengthy, precise detail that he clearly either compiled it from very accurate notes, or he's making the whole thing up.
I stand by my view that there are HUGE questions over almost every aspect of the case: evidence, conduct, verdicts, the lot. Morant admitted killing Visser and the Boers; the question is why. He says he was following orders. There is so much room for doubt on just about every facet of this case -- if it was a civilian trial and I was on the jury, there's no way I could convict -- there is just too much flimsy, conflicting or tainted evidence.
Consider this:
- the prosecutor and TWO members of the court were suddenly removed and replaced -- DURING the trial, without explanation. If that happened in a civiliian trial, it would be aborted in a heartbeat
- lots of the prosecution evidence was hearsay, crucial bits were uncorroborated or contested -- by contrast there was plenty of corroboration of Morant's version of events -- yet the court accepted this evidence without any further investigation.
- testimony was taken and accepted from witnesses known to have been antagonistic to Morant, e.g. he Hesse case. So many dodgy aspects to this one. For this one a whole new court (???) was constituted to hear it and it was heard in camera. Why?
Hesse was carrying a pass from Captain Taylor -- why would Morant kill him? Surely the Boers had better reason, if he was so obviously 'approved of' by the local British commander, who also happened to be, surprise, surprise, the local British intelligence officer?
Another witness (Sharp) said that Morant he saw Morant talking to Hesse, who then left, and then Handock supposedly rode after him -- but the same witness testified that Handcock didn't even take the same road!
No-one saw who killed Hesse, Morant had no obvious motive, Sharp as good as admitted that he hated Morant, admitted that he went out of his way to find a supposed eye-witness and (says Witton) admitted telling another trooper that:
"... he [Sharp] would walk barefoot from Spelonken to Pietersburg to be of the firing party to shoot Morant"
and this was followed a sequence of circumstantial evidence from other witnesses that IMO wouldn't have convicted Hitler if he'd been in the dock!
Consider also:
- crucial witnesses were conveniently taken out of the country
- all the British troops involved escaped serious penalty; only the Australians were convicted,
- Capt. Taylor was involved in virtually everything that happened, was (as the ranking senior officer after Hunt's death) technically responsible, but he was aquitted.
Remember: this fellow was an army intelligence officer who was in effective command of the entire district and admitted the same in court. Hunt and his detachment worked under Taylor's overall command. He knew everything that was going on, was given reports about on everything that happened ... was known to have summarily shot an African for refusing to give him information ... and his nickname among the Africans was "Killer" ...
I think that adds up to a lot of very serious questions about the validity of the court-martial. Not to mention the fact that Witton was eventually pardoned by the king and released. Why pardon a guilty man?
I think the only conclusion from the available first-hand evidence is that Morant should have been reprimanded or cashiered at worst. The case is full of holes.
- It may well be the most logical conclusion based on the evidence, but at the same time, it isn't our place to be making conclusions - simply stating the facts. I think you've done a fine job of handling the disputed facts, which can be rather difficult, but in the conclusion, we really should be stating all sides, and leaving the innocence or guilt up to the reader. I hate to be painful about this, but if I don't pick up on it, someone else will.
- It's the same again in the intro - he probably was "roguish, handsome and talented", but it's not a neutral statement. Rather, can we show the picture, instead of stating it? Who said he was a ladies man? We could quote them. Instead of saying "talented", why not put this sentence (he was a published poet and a friend of or known to some of the most famous Australian poets of his day; he was also a renowned horseman who had been trained by one of England's best) in the article. It could be good to add which poets, too. It says the same thing, but based on facts rather than conclusions. Ambi 23:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] re: comments (2)
Thanks for the excellent feedback/criticism -- I agree with the points made and will revise accordingly.
Major problem is length (it's a boy thing haha). Can we split this into summary style as suggested? I think that's probably the best idea -- I have a great deal more information about the trial especially, which I think needs to be included, but is far too detailed to include in the current article, which is already way over size. Many thanks!
- What info is it? Perhaps we could put this information into their own articles and wikilink in our main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think every single one of the sections here could just about sustain a seperate article on them, particularly if Dunks has even more information. The trials would be the easiest to seperate, as they're the most clear-cut. Ambi 07:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed - I certainly think the trials can be split off - dunks
-
[edit] FA standard?
This article is pretty fantastic, and very comprehensive. Would anyone be willing to guide it through FAC? I might suggest this at AWNB as potential subject for a "feature article drive" (or "work up" as in the Canberra Project).--cj | talk 15:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Facts of the execution
Nice Article, but I have a problem with the following paragraph dealing with the facts of the execution:
"Shortly after 5am, Lieutenants Harry Morant and Peter Handcock were led out of the fort at Pietersburg to be executed"... "Witton, who was by then at Pretoria railway station, heard the volley of shots that killed his comrades."
Pietersburg is a considerable distance from Pretoria (approx. 250 km). If Morant and Handcock were executed in Pietersburg, it would not have been possible for Witton to hear volley of shots from Pretoria. Morant and Handcock must have been executed in (or near) Pretoria.
Witton's book states "Leaving Pietersburg on the morning of 21st February, we arrived at Pretoria the following day"... "With the exception of Major Lenehan, who was sent on to Capetown, we were driven to the old Pretoria Gaol"... [27th February] "at the Pretoria Railway Station I distinctly heard in the clear morning air the report of the volley of the firing party". Bleszynski's book also states that they were taken to Pretoria several days before the execution, and "were shot on a lonely veldt outside Pretoria at dawn".
I believe the paragraph in the article should be changed to remove the reference to "the fort at Pietersburg", and possibly substituted with "the old Pretoria Gaol".
[edit] Great article
I think this article is well done and on it's way to FA status. --Bad carpet 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
Preahps Witton would have been aquitted unless he had the following strikes against him:
- 1) He was a "Colonist" and not a native-born Englishman
- 2) He was a ranker and not a member of the "Gentry Officer Corps"
[edit] Divergence
Though generally excellent, I think the article wanders away from encyclopedia and into comment when making glib statements about "thousands" of Anzacs being "needlessly slaughtered". Indeed many were lost and the outcome, as with just about any military campaign in history, might have been different if certain decisions had gone the other way. But it should be remembered that for all its Anzac connotations, about 75% of the troops at Gallipoli were British, such a landing on hostile shores had never been attempted on that scale in modern warfare before; and for all the mistakes lessons were learned, and learned relatively quickly - look at how successful the British were on D-Day compared with the Americans.
[edit] Reverend Hesse
Numerous references are made to a German missionary, Reverend Predikant C.H.D. Hesse. The Reverend's surname is in fact Heese.
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
-
- (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).
LuciferMorgan 08:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Delisted good articles | Failed requests for military history A-Class status | Australian military history task force articles | British military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | A-Class Australia articles | Mid-importance Australia articles | Military work group articles | Unassessed biography (military) articles | Unknown-priority biography (military) articles | Military work group articles needing infoboxes | Biography articles needing infoboxes | Unassessed biography articles
