Jump to content

User talk:PBS/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Hello PBS, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Expand short articles

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela. 21:14, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. See EB11. Mintguy (T) 08:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Hi Philip, Re: WikiProjects, don't hesitate to add yourself as a participant, if interested. It's not compulsory, of course. You don't have to "join" in order to do anything on the projects. Geoff/Gsl 23:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


Hi. I made your page Henry Hughes Wilson, 1st Baronet into a redirect to Henry Hughes Wilson, an existing article at a location that seems to be better in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. I put a copy of your text at Talk:Henry Hughes Wilson in case this might help in merging your text to improve the existing article. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC) ---

I am doing some moving with Thomas Henry Burke, as their is both an Irish Politician and an American one by the same name. I changed the redirect to a disambig page and am moving Thomas Henry Burke to Thomas Henry Burke (Irish Politician).

As a general note, I have never seen name (date - date) as an article title on Wikipedia. It makes searching very hard. I am moved the articles listed by that a listing the redirects on Wikipedia:redirect for deletion. Burgundavia 07:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

George Cross

Nice job on your expansion of the George Cross entry. -- Solipsist 17:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Rugby) football

Please stop making major changes to the various football/rugby pages, without consulting Wikipedians who have been working on those pages for some time. It's rude and it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Grant65 (Talk) 01:48, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Relax. I was in the middle of editing Football when you posted. No text has been lost.Grant65 (Talk) 12:29, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Indian Army

Hello .. I can see it might be useful to disambiguate between the Indian Army (pre-1947) and the later Army, But it very offensive to describe the pre-1947 Army as the 'British' Indian Army. Many people (for example, Wallace Breem!) joined the Indian Army in preference to joining the British Army because of that very distinction.

May I suggest a title such as: 'Indian Army (pre-1947)' or 'Indian Army (19xx-1947)'? mfc 19:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On your suggestion to alter the naming conventions of the Indian formations that I have written articles about, I would have to strongly disagree. You will notice in the articles about Indian corps that I wrote I deliberately included the post-independence history that I could easily find. It is irrelevant whether the post-1947 history is of interest to most users I would have to say since the units are clearly regarded by those in India as a continuation of the earlier pre-1947 units. Given that, there seems no sense in separating the sections out.

The XXXIII Corps of today is regarded as the same XXXIII Corps that fought in Burma, in the same way that the US V Corps of today is regarded as the same unit as that which landed on D Day in 1944. For example, take a look at this article [1], which is written by an Indian. To quote from it, "The Indian Army's first corps was XV Corps (Srinager) , raised during the first Kashmir War, and which had first seen action with 14th Army in Burma.", and also "…XXXIII Corps was raised to cover Sikkim, IV Corps area of responsibility being reduced to NEFA. This corps had also originally fought in Burma under 14th Army." Now, where there are formations in the Pakistani Army that also go back to pre-1947 units, since we are talking about different names, ie Pakistani IV Corps for example, then a separate article may well be in order, but with a note in the main article that it also draws its traditions from the pre-1947 unit and a link to the separate article. David Newton 20:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The thing about the British Army of the past was that it included or was associated with an awful lot of organisations that are now completely separate from it. The Indian Army is an excellent example of such a formation. British battalions did indeed form an integral part of the Indian Army, with one generally serving for every two Indian battalions. However the higher units were not under War Office control, they were under the Viceroy who reported to the India Office. I know for a fact that the corps HQs in Burma and Malaya were Indian Army formations. However, I believe that Fourteenth Army, 11th Army Group and ALFSEA were British formations.

One of the few examples of the old-style units now in British services is the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. It is a proud tradition that unit continues. Burma was also replete with such examples. The 11th East African, and 81st and 82nd West African Divisions are the largest examples of said tradition.

I would say that having a separate article about the armed forces of the East India Company would be a good idea. However, if there are units that served in the East India Company and then transferred directly to the Indian Army after 1857 (and there were) then to break up articles into pre- and post-1857 pieces would, for the same reasons, not seem to make sense. Something I certainly would be very interested in would be articles about the armed forces of the Indian princely states during WWII. I know they served with distinction abroad, but finding information on them is somewhat tricky. David Newton 22:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, Brooke-Popham was CINC Far East over land and air forces only. ABDA was completely separate from India Command, and Wavell relinquished his control of India whilst CINCABDA. ABDA also superseded Brooke-Popham's command. ABDA was essentially dissolved when Wavell left Batavia. It might not de jure have been ended, but it certainly was de facto. As for administration and command, when I talk about going through the Viceroy and the India Office, I am, strictly speaking, talking about the peacetime chain of command.

The Viceroy was head of state for India. That meant he was commander-in-chief of the Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force. The Viceroy took his instructions from the India Office, meaning they effectively ran the Indian Army for the British Government. During the war, operational command of the Indian Army was delegated to the War Office for the duration, in much the same way as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa gave operational control over their forces to the War Office as appropriate. The difference with India was that it was still a Crown Colony, and not an entirely legally separate government. In Burma, the local forces were under the Governor of Burma as commander-in-chief, and he reported to the Colonial Office. Again at the outbreak of war operational command was handed over to the War Office.

During the opening months of 1942, Burma was swapped backwards and forwards between ABDA and India a couple of times. It depended upon which option seemed best. After then it remained under India until the creation of SEAC. SEAC took operational command of the forces in theatre operating against the Japanese. India was responsible for all the administration of the Indian forces, and much of the administration of the non-Indian units.

For a further perspective on matters, look for Kirby-Woodburn's five official history volumes on the theatre. They are available from Naval and Military Press at [2]. You can get hold of the American volumes on the CBI Theater on CD-ROM from the GPO. Alternatively, if you have a broadand connection, download the PDF files here [3], [4] and [5]. David Newton 14:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll

My query on the Indian Army poll is not what a poll is but how one can have a poll of the readership in a Talk: section of an article. It's like taking a show of hands of a meeting of 5 people to which no one else has been alerted :-).

And I still do not understand why one would want to disambiguate the flavors of 'Indian Army' in a way that's different from the usual means of doing it in Wikipedia, has no historical basis, and, moreover, is in a way that offends past and present members of both the British Army and the Indian Army of the time (not to mention non-military Brits like me :-)). A complete disregard for others' cultures!

(Got here via your User page .. excellent stuff there, by the way, I am just starting to write up the Battle of El Mazuco, and your Battles project is going to be extremely helpful. Thanks!) mfc

Ellis Park

A place of pilgrimage. Like Cardiff Arms, no? Pedant17 15:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand the meaning of yours text.It is a very double meaning sentence --Akhtat

Professional sports

I did a rather heavy-handed edit. Update boldly. Pedant17 10:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cheers

I was suprised by your edits on List of words having different meanings in British and American English and List of British English words not used in American English. "Ta" is most certainly used in the South, so I removed your edit to the former page, but I'm not sure about the use of "Cheers". Cheers is most definitely used to mean thanks in Ireland (North and South) and Scotland, as well as southern England. I'd be suprised to find that it may not be used in Northern England. Mintguy (T) 09:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you as someone who was brought-up in London and now lives in Sussex, that "ta" is extremely common in both areas. I have both used and heard "ta" all my life. We used to be told off at school for saying "ta". I've just asked my partner (who has lived in Sussex for most of her life) who uses it when talking to me and she says that she often uses it in emails at work. My parents are Irish, my father is from Leitrim, he almost always finishes his telephone converstations by saysing: "Cheers then. Bye". Mintguy (T) 21:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protected Persons vs. persons protected

Philip, see my comment at Talk:Laws of war. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirects

Good evening. You have recently nominated several redirects for deletion. If I may, I'd like to clear up a few points. In my experience, redirects are commonly created for two reasons. They are sometimes used as a way of preserving the edit history of an article that has been merged into another article. Perserving the edit history is a requirement of GFDL. This also preserves the path for the contributor(s) of the old article so they can see where their work went and can begin contributing in the new article. Redirects can also be created as navigational aids. They forward the links from the old article to the new article. Even if you clean up all the existing links, a redirect will forward any newly created links to the new article. After all, someone used the old spelling the first time - the odds are pretty good that someone else will do so again. Redirects are also a cheap way to populate the search engine with common misspellings and lesser known names for the same topic.

As a policy, we don't create redirects just in case someone might misspell a word. But once an article or redirect exists, we give it the benefit of the doubt and let it stay until there is a substantial reason to delete it (for example, to make way for a different article or a pagemove). Redirects are cheap. Rossami 23:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you do nominate something for deletion, please leave the content intact so others can see what they are voting on. Page blanking is generally considered bad form. Thanks. Rossami

Sorry, but deleted.

I'm sorry, but until World War II European western front has at least one sentence, it's got to be completely empty. Otherwise, no one will now to write the article. -- user:zanimum

Warsaw Uprising

You're reading Norman Davies currently, aren't you :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jungle warfare

Are you planning to expand this? It's verging very close to being a speedy deletion candidate, and I'm sure an experienced Wikipedian with your knowledge can do better than that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Ambi 13:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. Excuse my wariness about these - there's been a sudden spate of them over the last few months that haven't been expanded, even by experienced Wikipedians. Looking better already. Ambi 13:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Redundant alternate terms for war

Hi Philip:

Your addition a couple of days ago to the introduction to "War" duplicated similar material in the "Limitations to war" section, so I condensed your paragraph to a reference. I'm not sure "Limitations to war" is the best place for alternate terms, but I strongly feel that the introduction is not the best place for a detailed description of why alternative terms arise (e.g., avoiding a formal declaration). Perhaps tomorrow I'll revise to add alternate terms to the introduction, sans explanations. Any thoughts? --NathanHawking 02:35, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Arthur Travers Harris

Hi there, hope you are ok with my edits. Still seems to be a "hot" topic. In Germany it caused a big scandal when some historian published a book in which he qualified the bombings as war crimes, many people calling him a Nazi and a revisionist. I cannot quite follow that kind of thought. The legal text is straightforward and qualifies any intended killing of civilians as a war crime. The text was written before the war, was and still is binding. I can understand that people who think that the bombings were the only way to win the war without much bigger losses by the Allies see it as legitimate. Even though I personally do not think that the bombings were extraordinarily helpful from a military point of view. And whatever you think about ethics does not change the legal facts. What I cannot understand at all is when people call the legal qualification "revisionist". If I call the crime of a second person a crime, does that mean I have to use it as an excuse for the primary criminal? Who could have the sick idea to downplay the guilt of the war of aggression or the holocaust with allied bombings at the end of the war? Get-back-world-respect 15:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my talk page is already a bit long, I prefer to talk about articles at article pages and delete comments on my talk page once I have dealt with them in order to reserve a bigger part of my page for the learning project. Get-back-world-respect 23:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

THE THING-UMMY-BOB

I've taken you last comment on Talk Harris and put it here as my reply is not really on topic for the BH page.

I appreciate your edits and am not annoyed at all. I furthermore completely agree that we cannot call him a war criminal as there was no trial. It is however important to mention that the intended killing of civilians was a war crime as this is the main point why there is such a debate about the person. And yes I do think that the whole cabinet was guilty of that crime, as are all governments since who engaged and still engage in deliberate bombings of civilians. Unfortunately they usually get away with it. At least nowadays most governments have signed the ICC treaty and it is theoretically possible to trie them at The Hague. Get-back-world-respect 17:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In war killing civilians may be a war crime, it depends on the civilians and how and why they are killed. For example spies can be civilans and they can be executed in times of war. That is why without a trial one can no decide. In a total war between two first world countries how do you distingwish between combatants and nonecombatants? Particularly if they work in a military-industrial complex which in times of total war means 50%+ of the economy. As technology progresses less and less frontline troops (as a %age of population), use weapon platforms which need more and more civilians to build them. In the words of the WWII song And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil/ that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob/ that's going to win the war. So is that girl less of a legitimate target than the soldier who uses the thing-ummy-bob?

There is a danger that using law to limit war helps hawks justify war by pretending that it is a dule between warriors and it never effects inocents. "The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori."

I'll watch this page so you can reply here PBS 19:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The law is clear cut: Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime, does not depend on the civilians nor on why they are killed. Spies cannot be killed simply because they are civilians of the enemy but because they commit a criminal act (treason) or because they are a direct danger (e.g. while engaging in sabotage). If they are captured, they cannot simply be killed, I guess they would have to be treated like prisoners of war. But while a spie in action who is uncovered can easily be distinguished from innocent civilians, when bombing

A spy need not be a civilian of the country spied upon, if they do not, it is not treason. A spy is not a sabotor, they are collecting information useful to an ememy. If they were a civilian of another power engaged in the struggle they would have to be held under GCIVart5 until found guilty at a regular trial, but if they are a citizen from neutral power or the power spied upon, they do not have protection of GCIV. (GCIVart4: ...Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons.... The point I was making is not what the status of spys is, but that the "Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime" is not true a true statment, it depends on what the civilians are doing so without a regular trial it is not possible to say if a person has committed a war crime by killing civilians.

civilian houses it is unpreventable to kill children as well who have no means to decide what they are doing, who do not understand what war is, and are no threat to anyone. In suggesting that this is just you are propagating genocide.

I am not suggesting anyting I am saying that the killing of civilians may not be a war crime. However genocide is a very diffrent thing from bombing civilian houses. The Allies at the end of the war had targeted civilian property to help win the war. But to say that they were trying to commit genocide debases the word. If genocide had been their intention then, as they had won the war unconditionally they could have done it.

If you have a look at Hage

  • Art 23 To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. The allies argued that destroying property by arial bombardment was an imperative and necessity of war.
  • Art 25 "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." Germany was protected during World War II by fighter bombers and lines of anti-aircraft guns and radar as defence against bombers.
  • Art 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. Private property is not mentioned as part of all necessary steps should be taken to spare.
You are right in that many soldiers may not want to fight either but still have to be killed. The difference is that killing them is most often the only way to eliminate the danger of the weapons they use. By targeting their weapons one usually cannot prevent their death. Weapon factories can be targeted without targeting the housing of the workers.

Today "Weapon factories can be targeted without targeting the housing" but in 1940 with night time bombing the RAF were so inaccurate that the Germans had problems working out which town the target was in let alone what the target was!

The danger is not that using law to limit war helps hawks justify war by pretending that innocents are not effected. The danger is that hawks interpret the law such that it fits them best and they even start wars of aggression, a crime others have been hanged for. Get-back-world-respect 00:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only people found guilty of war of aggression were those who came from a country which had signed theKellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.

Now that I have provided you with some of the law of war that the allies could have used to defend the policy of stratigic bombing (They would have argued that any civilians killed was a side effect of bombardment not the policy). Please provide me with the law which says that bombardment of civilian areas in a war is a war crime and also the law which says that the "Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime" because I do not know which laws cover this. PBS 10:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I knew that the Nazis who were hanged for waging a war for aggression were bound by international law that had been established before the war. It is still in practice, so in my eyes Bush, Blair, Howard and their administrations should be tried according to it (cf. [http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

this link for an analysis of why the Iraq war was illegal]). I am very puzzled that it is possible in democratic countries with an otherwise working legal system to break international law and not even get a trial for it.

As the Harris article says "Professor Lindemann's paper put forward the theory of attacking major industrial centrers in order to deliberately destroy as many homes and houses as possible. Working class homes were to be targeted because they had a higher density and fire storms were more likely. This would displace the German workforce and reduce their ability to work. His calculations showed that the RAF Bomber Command would be able to destroy the majority of German houses located in cities quite quickly. The plan was highly controversial even before it started, but the Cabinet thought that bombing was the only option available to directly attack Germany," So your excuse of collateral damage is invalid. And no matter how valid it is, only a court could have decided, but this never happened. The international law that prohibited the deliberate targeting of civilians was established by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). The full text is linked, I have forgotten which paragraph it was but I am sure you can find it. You can alo conclude it from what is written at war crime: "It comprises such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide..." I guess you agree that a firestorm massacre and nuclear bombings that went on killing people even many years afterwards are something like a "mistreatment". Get-back-world-respect 22:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know the text you are quoting from Harris because I wrote it!

You are mixing up those parts of Hague which now days are covered by GCIII GCIV which are both to do with "protected persons" under the control of a "power" (POWs and civilians in occupied lands) and civilians in enemy territory who are not covered by GC. Did you read what I wrote in my last reply to you? I quoted sections from Hague which state that bombardment is part of war. The British could use Art 23,25,27 to justify what they did (and I also provided the link to the article Hage). They never targeted civilians just their property. Which article in Hague are you saying makes their actions illegal under the international laws of war? This is not the first time I have asked this question, so I think that you are prevaricating. If not then please quote the Hauge or the section from any other treaty that you think the aerial bombardment by any of the powers in World War II broke.

Also you say The international law that prohibited the deliberate targeting of civilians was established by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). Which article are you referring to because I have just read both treaties again and I can not find the article which says anything like this if they are still in enemy controlled territory. NB Please don't drag in current events because I am not interested. Please just answer my two questions I have emboldened them to make them clear. BTW "Article" means "Section" in the case of these treaties PBS 23:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess prevaricate means evade, so while I search for the article I bold my question as well 8^p
  • I guess you agree that a firestorm massacre and nuclear bombings that went on killing people even many years afterwards are something like a "mistreatment"?
  • Is it anything else than absurd to excuse "deliberately destroying as many homes and houses as possible." with "they never targeted civilians just their property."? Would you accept it if the Nazis had argued they were just targeting the non-aerian clothing of Polish and British civilians but not the people themselves? Get-back-world-respect 00:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Article 23

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--

To employ poison or poisoned arms;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

  • Atomic bombings: poisonous (radiation)

Article 25

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

Article 26

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

  • No warnings allowing evacuation of civilians were given neither in Hamburg nor Dresden nor Hiroshima nor Nagasaki. On the contrary, it was intended to kill as many civilians as possible with the firestorms and nuclear devastation.

Article 27

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

  • Destroying whole cities meant complete ignorance of this rule.

Get-back-world-respect 00:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The articles you quote from Hague are the ones we had already talked about and which I first pointed out to you with the arguments which the Allies would have used in court to justify their position so I will not repeat them. The none specific lines you have used like "To make improper use of a flag of truce" are nothing to do with arial bombardment and if you think that they are then you have less understanding of international law than I thought that you did.

Also you said The international law that prohibited the deliberate targeting of civilians was established by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). I asked Which article are you referring to because I have just read both treaties again and I can not find the article which says anything like this if they are still in enemy controlled territory. You have not mentioned an article.

I really do not see any point in continuing this conversation as you have not been able to show me a clause from any treaty which says that:

  1. What the Harris did was likely to lead to his conviction as a war criminal. (Other than articles 23 which is not relevent in this case, and 25,26,27 which are articles I had already put the allies position)
  2. Any treaty that prohibits the killing any enemy civilian, not matter what they are doing or where they are is a war crime.

So unless you do please don't bother to reply. PBS 09:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to see that the points I marked with a point show that the allies committed war crimes I guess we have to agree to differ. Your argument that the actions were necessary in order to win the war would probably have been used in a trial. However, the trial never happened although the view that the allies committed war crimes is widely held, so we can only guess what would have been the outcome. I would also like to point out that if those actions were necessary to win a war the allies should not have defined them as war crimes before. In my eyes the use of nuclear weapons is the most striking example. I hope you go on having fun with wikipedia and engage in fruitful exchanges of ideas. Get-back-world-respect 15:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PBS/Archive_1&oldid=839272117"