# Talk:Colin Mitchell

The article states that he defied the Party (Conservative) whip to vote against Britain's accession to the EEC. However, I'm pretty sure that it was a free vote. Such strange bedfellows as Enoch Powell and Barbara Castle were equally opposed to entry.80.222.132.98 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The main Commons vote on EEC entry took place on Thursday 28 October 1971. The government declared a "three line whip" on its MPs to support entry and Labour MPs were instructed to vote against. In the event about 20 Conservative rebels (including Mitchell) voted against and about 60 Labour rebels voted in favour. The final vote was 356 in favour and 244 against - giving a government majority of 112. There was some sort of free vote in regard to the 1975 referendum and I wonder if that is what you are thinking about?. Izzy (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed. I apologise and thank you for the speedy replyJatrius (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the exact figure for Conservative rebels voting against joining the EEC in 1971 was 39. See :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7948612.stm
Izzy (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My statement that the 1967 population of the Crater district of Aden was 700,000 is clearly wrong. Witness one recent article in which it states :

".... Aden during its transformation from a derelict village to a city of major commercial and strategic importance, with a population, by the time of independence in 1967, of nearly a quarter of a million"
Thankyou to anonymous contributor at BL for the correction. Izzy 08:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Mad Mitch here for GA/Good article status. It's very informative, detailed, referenced and well written. In fact I think the writing quality is noticeably above average for Wiki. I'm not sure why it's rated as "Stub Class" in the biography portal and "B class" in the overall article category, but I think it's clearly a "Good Article."jackbrown 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Prose- Article's introduction needs expansion.  See Wikipedia:Lead section.  Titles need to be in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).  Quotes in the text could look more fancy.  Look at other articles like Bill Clinton for quote ideas.  Also, there is some Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid.
2. Verifiable-All facts need to be referenced with footnotes instead of the what is currently the first few lines of the reference section.
3. Coverage- Pass 4. Neutral- Pass 5. Stable- Pass 6. Image- Pass
Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe. Thanks for that. I will take a look another look at the article inside the next 48 hours. Izzy (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOSQUOTE specifically says not to use {{cquote}} (though WP:QUOTE does mention it as a possibility), which is why I changed all the quotes to {{quote}}.  David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
David. I agree that the {{cquote}} is "fancy" in style and not in keeping with an article on such a British topic. OK for Bill Clinton but hardly for Mad Mitch. But perhaps we can leave that for now and return to the matter later? Izzy (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Joe. I have addressed the substantive issues you raised. I have addressed most of the stylistic issues, but the slight problem here is that this is a very British article. Americans are more comfortable with stylistic flourishes than are Brits. The style of quotes used for Bill Clinton looks out of place here. But, take a look at what we now have and give me your thoughts. Izzy (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the long gap in response time.  I'm going to ask another editor to take a look at it.  You did a good job addressing my citation concerns.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My take on this is that WP:MOSQUOTE falls outside the good article criteria, which only include lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and embedded lists.  This leaves quotation style up to the discretion of the editor, which is especially true if MOSQUOTE is contradicted by WP:QUOTE.--jwandersTalk 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotes do fall under layout which is one of the four you mentioned. Quotes is probably more discretionary. The guidelines under layout for quote aren't specific. I think some special quote marks, especially for some of the long ones, makes the article look better, but I don't think every quote needs it.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Chaps. My own view is that the present quotation style (that suggested by reviewer calbear22) is not best suited to the particular nature of the article. But I don't think this is critical and it need not get in the way of GA status. Perhaps one of the reviewers would now jump one way or the other on GA status?. Izzy (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree.  I didn't put the article on hold because of that.  I'm just not sure.  I'll modify down some of the quotes.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, I saw the requst for a second opinion and took a very quick look. Looks like there's been some good review work above, and I think you're on the right track about the quotes...a good discussion to have, but not a direct impact on GA review. But I did notice a couple things about the citations that strike me as a little odd: (1) It seems to me that editors nearly universally put a pretty full citation of newspaper articles, including the headline and author's name in addition to the pub and date. I don't think WP:CITE is part of the GA criteria, but it does cover this topic: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide full citations. It would be good to fix this. (2) I suspect Brits are all aware what The Times refers to, but in America and maybe elsewhere it's a more ambiguous name. I'd suggest linking it, at least in the article and in the first citation, and/or calling it The Times of London. (3) This is probably just a style I'm not used to, but the citations I see have the title before the pub name, not after. But that's probably just a style I'm not familiar with, not an error. Anyway, good work, and good luck! -Pete (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've seen Pete's comments above, and agree with them, and I think they should be fixed. However, what with the huge GAN backlog and the fact that this article passes every other GA criterion, I'm going to pass it now. Please try and address Pete's issues above regardless, as ultimately we all want a better article! Oh, and I personally have nothing against cquote, having used it many times in my GAs/FAs. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calbear22, Peteforsyth, H20. Thankyou to the three of you for your time and attention. Your constructive comments concerning presentational style and referencing are appreciated and I will adress them during the next 10 days or so. Izzy (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sfan00 IMG. Wikipedia:Copyright includes : 
"Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material ..."
So far, so good. 
"However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work ..."
Do we know that the Web site is carrying copyvio material?. If you insert an image then you have to establish that it is copyright compliant. But the onus of proof on links is the other way round. If you do not know the status of a link then that is good enough. Izzy (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the way the External Links policy is worded, see WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites we only link to videos where we are sure the copyright status is OK.  As I recall the video in this article was reproduction of BBC news footage, which is certainly copyright the BBC.  David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
David. 
I believe that the videos are the cut down version of a BBC documentary broadcast in 2007 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the pull out from Aden. I don't know whether or not they amount to a breach of BBC copyright. Their YouTube form is a reduced version of the original in both size and definition. It amounts to a series of screen shots and does not impact on the marketability of the original. If the BBC doesn't like it then they will ask YouTube to pull the videos - and this has not happened. 
As regards the Benoit video, you have got to admit that he can play the fiddle. This contrasts with 90% of the garbage that people put on YouTube. Witness The Barren Rocks of Aden Izzy (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything I have seen policy wise suggests we should err on the side of caution, unless there is a clear release of rights allowing release on to youTube don't link. It is possible for bodies to create official channels on youTube (for example the British Monarchy did so around last Christmas, the Queen's speech was put up on youTube at the same time it was broadcast, and various things relating to unbrodcast footage of the coronation and similar bits and pieces were put up at the same time).  It is not good enough for us to wait for the BBC to object-they have (I hope) better things to do than to monitor youTube all day. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
David. I guess it is possible that Mad Mitch video 1, Mad Mitch video 2 and Mad Mitch video 3 are in breach of copyright. Izzy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has recently been modified by the addition of a more detailed account of the allegations of brutality made against the Argylls during their 1967 service in Aden. Those allegations were made at the time and later, but it should be noted that they were just allegations. I don't believe that anyone was ever charged or convicted for the kind of acts that are mentioned. The only source cited for the allegations is a 2010 article from 'the Socialist Worker', which cannot be viewed as being wholly neutral. Izzy (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the only cited source is an far-left magazine then I would support removal. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The Socialist Worker just claimed that “...veterans of the Aden conflict came forward in the Scottish media to admit to atrocities they had seen or participated in.” It is those reports that need to be quoted in support of the claim. Otherwise it should certainly be deleted. Valetude (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
PS. If they’re saying ‘...allegations were made and admitted’, presumably that means admitted by the MOD. So we should also need to know their official verdict. Valetude (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
BBC News says, "...Mitchell's reputation has been tarnished by allegations of brutality... [Mitchell's tactics] did little to endear him to the local population in Crater - or to his superiors in the army and High Commission, with one official describing the Argylls as a "bunch of Glasgow thugs."[1] In a review of Aaron Edwards' Mad Mitch's Tribal Law: Aden and the End of Empire, John Newsinger writes: "the Argylls set about dominating the town by a policy of "no-nonsense toughness" that once again had the enthusiastic support of the right wing press for whom Mitchell could do no wrong. Accusations of brutality were routinely dismissed... [Edwards] acknowledges the use of torture by the British: "A preferred technique was apparently to place the detainee in a chair…then slap both his eardrums." Medical records "frequently noted" that detainees had burst eardrums. The Fort Morbut Interrogation Centre was apparently known to the Adenis as "the fingernail factory"... In January 1981 a number of Argyll soldiers were convicted of involvement in the brutal killing of two Catholic civilians in Northern Ireland, the so-called "Pitchfork Murders". This led to ex-soldiers coming forward to tell the Glasgow Sunday Mail of similar conduct in Crater. Eventually a dozen men signed statements detailing the shooting of unarmed civilians, the shooting of prisoners, the killing of wounded prisoners by morphine injection, the unprovoked bayoneting to death of a teenager and widespread theft and looting. When these revelations appeared in print, more ex-soldiers came forward to corroborate the stories, including some who had originally denied any such conduct."[2] In Newsinger's own book, British Counterinsurgency, he writes (page 133) that the Sunday Mail ran the story on 26 April and 10 May 1981, and that the men gave affidavits alleging theft, murder and robbery of civilians.
The allegations didn't come entirely out of the blue: as early as 1966, Amnesty International was reporting British torture of detainees, "including stripping detainees and making them stand naked during interrogation; keeping prisoners naked in supercooled cells; keeping them awake and forcing them to sit on poles directed towards the anus; hitting and twisting genitals; and extinguishing cigarettes on prisoners' skin." The Times, on 27 July 1967, carries a dispatch from Aden regarding a petition submitted by leading Adeni citizens to the British High Commission, alleging brutality by British troops. The acting High Commisioner, John Wilton, "did not refute the allegations". Keri (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This behaviour was the norm for colonial enforcers: as they were fighting the ordinary people of the land, they did not follow any Laws of War or Geneva Conventions. Hence their commander is better equated to an Obersturmbannführer than an Oberstleutnant. NRPanikker (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19947. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Did his mother have a first name? It seems a little odd to only say she was a "Glaswegian woman (née Gilmour)". Green Giant (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If he is already the primary meaning of Colin Mitchell, do we need his middle name in the title? PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Probably not. Keri (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colin Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331131155/http://www.halotrust.org/index.html to http://www.halotrust.org/index.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.argylls1945to1971.co.uk/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)