# Talk:Ronald Skirth

COI Full Declaration: My name is Ruth Ward and I am the granddaughter of Bernard Bromley who, like Ronald Skirth, was an 'original' member of 293 Siege Battery RGA. Bernard, together with several other 'real' men is, seemingly, portrayed negatively in the original memoir, and in "The Reluctant Tommy". I have spent a lot of time researching Skirth's original memoir and my completed study ("A Study Examining the Authenticity of John Ronald Skirth’s Memoir") was accepted into the Department for Collections Access Library at the Imperial War Museum in 2014. Issue 17.3, 2017 of the "Canadian Army Journal" has published my article "The Satirical Tommy" which summarises the main findings of the study. *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the sources giev his precise date of birth/death and locations.  It looks as if his birth wasn't registered until the first quarter of 1898, so rpesumably he was born very late in 1897. At the moment the place of birth and death is only given in the persondata, really these ought to be given (and referenced) in the body of the article.  The birthplace is given as Bexhill-on-Sea, however the birth seems to have been registered in Chelmsford (there are some errors in the indices), is it rather that he was brought up in Bexhill?  Is there any information on what he did before the war?  Did he initially volunteer for service (making his resolution even more of a turnaround), or was he conscripted under the Military Service Act 1916?  David Underdown (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Have amended in response to these very helpful queries.  Dwab3 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox says he was demoted from corporal to bombadier. Is any information available on when, why, and how this happened?  --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Same rank surely? Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Have included some information on this.  They are not the same rank - as Skirth makes clear, Coporals wore two stripes, Bombardiers only one.  Dwab3 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No - they are the same rank (check the links) and officers do not have the power to demote has to be a court martial. The next lowest artillery rank is Lance Bombadier this I suspect is what he would have been demoted to. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Strike the above seems that this was only after 1920 and Corporals were senior to Bombadiers.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dwab, I was intending to help you add page numbers to this, but I'm not sure which citation style you'd like to use. You're currently using a mix of templates and manually written refs, and also a mixture of long and short.
It's your decision entirely which you prefer. What I would do is stick to manual refs, write out the citation in full in the footnote on first reference (e.g. Barrett, Michele. Casualty Figures: Five Survivors of the First World War. Verso, 2008, p. 67), and thereafter write Barrett 2008, p. xx.
Also, about that book title, I'm seeing it elsewhere as Casualty Figures: How Five Men Survived the First World War. Publication year 2007. Could be a different edition in a different country. Worth checking. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given an example here of how I would do it, and I tweaked the Casualty Figures title and year until we find out whether there are different editions involved. I'll wait to be guided by you regarding which style you want to adopt. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this - I was finding the referencing a bit confusing and I think that's partly to do with the templates that I copied from other pages, for example I can't get the Bexhill Observer ref to come up correctly.  Re the Casualty Figures book, I think the subtitle may have just been a mistake on my part, so well spotted.  However, the date is a bit puzzling, because I have seen it as 2007 and 2008 in different places.  My edition has 2007 on the copyright page though, so will stick with this I think.  Thanks again for your help!  Dwab3 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll continue to add a few page numbers in that case, assuming I can find them myself. By the way, I think it's fine to use the primary source. It's not a good idea to rely on it entirely, but given that the secondary source (Michele Barrett) is relying on it, it's okay for us to cite it directly. It's a preference issue in a case like this. The only thing is you wouldn't want an article sourced entirely or almost entirely to one primary source, because then notability issues kick in.  SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I see, ok.  If it helps, much of the information ref'd to the primary source is also mentioned in the various newspaper articles referenced in the article, in particular those in the Mail and the Sunday Express - presumably these count as secondary sources.  But will only replace the primary refs with these if it's thought necessary.  Dwab3 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The prohibition on primary sources is in part to make sure we don't create articles about non-notable people based only on their own memoirs. It's also to make sure we don't cherry-pick. But in this case the memoir is notable, and I don't think cherry-picking is an issue, because there's no issue of contention. What I do in these cases is add the secondary source to the footnote, if the latter is entirely dependent on the former. For example:
Smith, John. My Memoir. Routledge 2010, p. 1. Also see Jones, Paul. "Story about Smith's Memoir", The Times, 3 November 2010.
Just a suggestion. You can choose yourself which way to highlight things. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 I've added an alphabetical references section, in case you want one; if not feel free to remove it. Regarding your inline citations, the styles are still mixed up. Sometimes first name, last name; sometimes the opposite; sometimes date in brackets; sometimes at the end. In your shoes, I would ditch the citation templates because they look as though they're introducing inconsistency, and write things out manually. But however you choose to write them, it has to be consistent.
Sorry, I know it's confusing and niggly. Hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted on the face the article that it is based virtually solely on the subject's own memoir, which is sufficiently contentious for the Imperial War Museum to have indicated their intention to withdraw the memoir on the next revision of their catalogue. It further appears that the laudatory reviews were written on taking the memoir at face value, without any attempt to check any "facts", including unjustified pejorative remarks about other people.
Two attempts at adding a comment dealing with this matter have been unilaterally expunged, without comment, apology or explanation. How can the endorsement "good article" still stand?
Mountdrayton (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have twice deleted article additions which were talky, signed by Antony Kozlowski of Glasgow, and based on internet bulletin board discussions, The Great War Forum. Forums such as that one are not reliable as sources. Talking about the article in the article is not what Wikipedia is about. Talk entries and signatures go on the talk page. As well, Kozlowski did not provide a link to any discussion or any IWM statement, so his assertion was unsupported.
Wikipedia is about published sources—reliable and verifiable ones. The problems you bring up are perfectly appropriate to introduce to the article if they are supported by published sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not base my critical reaction "on internet board discussions". I stated the fact that the veracity of Skirth's memoirs was debatable and the fact that such debate was currently taking place on the GWF - leaving it to readers to follow that if they wished. Such factual statements do not need "support". Antony Kozlowski Piorun (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. GWF is not one of them, per WP:RS. To get the criticism into this article about Skirth, your best bet is to find a way to publish the criticism in a magazine, journal or newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

These are equivalent ranks, where the latter is used by the artillery (ie, a corporal in the artillery is called a bombardier). This therefore makes no sense. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Reading a little more, it may be an anachronism - in that the RA at the time had both corporals and bombardiers, where the latter was a substantive rank equivalent to lance corporal. If this is the case, the "apparent" inconsistency should be address, so that it does not appear to be an error. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a comment on one of the Casualty forms for Arthur Starr No.96717 who was with 293 SB. It says he (Starr) was "Appointed A/Corporal vice Skirth reverted", as of 3/5/17. I understand "vice" means 'in place of'. I know this cannot be used, as it is "own research", but thought it might help. *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Skirth’s unit, '293 Siege Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery' needs to be included in the article. In support of this the editor of 'The Reluctant Tommy' (p.xix) identifies a postcard addressed to Skirth at ‘293’ SB. Some of the names of Skirth’s characters correspond with those of his fellow soldiers in ‘293’ SB e.g. Snow/Snowdon, Jock Shiels/John Shiels, R Bromley/B Bromley. My research is based on the unit & brigade war diaries for ‘293’ SB.  However, Skirth maintains throughout his memoir that he served with ‘239’ SB. The Imperial War Museum’s Content Description (online) for Skirth’s papers states “…recording his service with 239th Siege Battery RGA…”. The author of 'Casualty Figures' which includes a profile of Skirth states that he served with “239” SB (p.67). (Skirth’s WW1 military service record is not available, but he has a Medal Index Card, so his unit might be given on the Medal Roll). A note needs to be included somewhere to convey this discrepancy to the reader.*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done sounds like original research. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If Skirth's actual unit is not given in the article, how can anyone verify anything in it?  The Royal Garrison Artillery is not a unit. Most of the information I have provided can be verified either in The Reluctant Tommy, Casualty Figures, or the Imperial War Museum's contents description of Skirth's papers. *ptrs4all* (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC) 2.120.124.104 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC) 2.120.124.104 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a quote from The Reluctant Tommy (h/b p.xix): "Some of the facts in his story Skirth changes deliberately though perhaps out of a sense of propriety more than anything else. Throughout, he claims to have been a member of '239 Siege Battery', but a postcard from his Italian friend Giulio gives the game away: it is addressed to 'Bombardier Ronald Skirth 12033 RGA 293 Siege Battery, Italian Expeditionary Force'. The Officer Commanding 293 was not 'R.A. Snow of Skirth's account, but a near namesake, Major H.S.R. Snowdon." (My emphasis) *ptrs4all* (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The confusion over Skirth's actual unit can be sourced to p. 147 of the Canadian Army Journal article. The article was written by the COI editor, but the publication qualifies as a reliable source. I have no opinion on whether this level of detail needs to be added to the article or not. Factotem (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of wiki articles about notable men who served in WW1 & their units are given.*ptrs4all* (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Please could you suggest the exact wording of the content you wish to add? Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In the side panel headed 'John Ronald Skirth' & against 'Unit' please add '293 Siege Battery' so it reads: '293 Siege Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery'. A note needs to be added: (Ward, Ruth (2017) "The Satirical Tommy", Canadian Army Journal 17.3, p.147 ...) This reference already exists, but I'm not sure how to format it in the note. Thank you *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please can you make the following edits? Note 15 needs updating & the online link is broken. It provides the source for the information about Skirth's medals. Note 15 also provides a source for the information in the first sentence of the first paragraph, so needs to be attached there too. The title of the document is: "Medal Card of Skirth, John R. Corps: Royal Garrison Artillery. Regiment No. 120331. Rank Bombardier...". It is held at the National Archives, Kew. The reference is WO 372/18/97284. (Pay to view details in full. Can be accessed online) *ptrs4all* (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Could you also update Notes 39? The current link does not work. This is the link for the 'Private Papers of J R Skirth' at the IWM: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030008853 If you decide to put a more general link to the IWM, you may need to advise the reader to use the search term "Skirth". The search terms 'John Ronald Skirth' & 'Ronald Skirth' do not bring up Skirth's papers.*ptrs4all* (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC). Also, Notes 40 & 43 - both links are broken. I have nothing to replace them with. *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC) *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to close the request template above for the following reasons:
It has been superseded by subsequent posts which, while it may have been properly placed at the time, have now relegated the COI edit request to the middle of the page. This, and the fact that it was not placed under its own level 2 heading, implies at first glance (incorrectly) that it is an older COI request of unknown origin when it is actually a newer request.
The formatting of the request makes it difficult to read. For some reason, the COI editor's signature is duplicated almost each time it has been placed, thus the post carries no less than nine signatures from the COI editor.
The result of the first two points above means that the edit request appears as a full block of unreadable text with no line breaks. There is occasional bolded text indicating which notes are to be changed, but some of the directions, such as "both links are broken", do not offer simple solutions.
For those reasons I am closing the request template. Please note that this is not meant to discourage the COI editor from making the request. On the contrary, the COI editor is urged to place a new {{request edit}} template at the bottom of the page under a new level 2 heading to address any actions deemed as unresolved by my closing of this template. The COI editor is also kindly reminded that formatting of the request is important, in the hope that they keep an eye towards readability and accessibility of the request itself by ensuring that the request is properly formatted in a "please change x to y using z as the reference"-type style which easily allows other editors to review and implement the request. Thank you for your time, it's much appreciated! Regards,  Spintendo  07:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I will remove the tags recently added to two sources in the bibliography section for the following reasons:

The Daily Mail is used only to source that fact that the book received coverage in the Daily Mail. Don't see how that is problematical.
The Canadian Army Journal is very slow to load, but not dead (I just checked it).
Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies the dead link should have been on the http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=5381810 link which displays the message "DocumentsOnline has closed - you can now save your searches in Discovery, our catalogue".Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to question whether Casualty Figures is a reliable source for verifying information given in this article. Ian McCulloch (Canadian Forces College) reviewed the book in 2008 and was quite critical of it. In particular he felt it was “poorly researched”. The review can be read in full here  [1]. My article in the Canadian Army Journal critiques Ronald Skirth’s ‘biography’ in Casualty Figures and comes to a similar conclusion. Does anyone have any views about this? Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've read the review but not the book being reviewed, and I've looked through the statements sourced to the book. My feeling is that, for the statements made in the article, the book is an acceptably reliable source. The review is made in the context of scholarly works about the effects of battle on those who fight it, and concludes that this book does not stand up well against them. However, the article is not written with the same objective, and the book's use for basic facts seems reasonable to me. Just my 2p. I took the liberty of re-formatting the initial query in a separate, new section. None of the content of that original post has been changed. Factotem (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your thoughts Factotem. I take your point about the different objectives of the review and the article, but never-the-less the review identifies a clear ‘lack of biographical detail’ about e.g. Captain Darling, that ‘more in-depth research’ could have been done and her treatment of the men would have benefited from her using ‘a multitude of credible sources.’ Most of the information Barrett gives about Skirth in CF is stated as fact and yet very little if any of it appears to be substantiated. For instance, she refers to his unit as 239 SB RGA – an actual unit that was not sent to Italy and invalidates her work on Skirth’s service there. His real unit is never acknowledged making one wonder how and even if she has corroborated parts of his story. (See CAJ p.147) Skirth’s service record is not available, so it is difficult to check some statements e.g. that he was a Battery Commander’s assistant, or the reasons given for his demotion, but there are the unit and brigade war diaries covering most of 293 SB’s service and plenty of other reliable sources that seem not to have been used including History of the Great War – Medical Services, by Macpherson. One of the most concerning errors in Barrett’s treatment of Skirth is the apparent assumption that Jock Shiels did die in November 1917 in the way Skirth describes. John Shiels, the only Scottish casualty who served with the battery, died on 18 July 1917 and therefore Skirth’s account of Jock’s demise and his own concussion can only be fictional. (See CAJ p.145-148 & p.149) If Barrett has not used e.g. CWWGC records to verify a basic casualty detail crucial to her profile of Skirth in CF, how can we be sure that she has used reliable sources elsewhere and that what she states as fact is fact? *ptrs4all* (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
As well as evaluating Michelle Barrett's work against a different standard, the review only explicitly criticises her research into Captain Darling. Whilst I agree this throws the entire work into doubt, it would be a synthesis to assume that the same failures were made in her treatment of Skirth. There's just not enough to make a solid case for excising Barrett as a source for the article. What we can do is balance the information sourced from her work with reliably sourced information which discusses doubts about the reliability of Skirth's account. I think the article already does this to a large degree. I think it would be legitimate to add a footnote to the first reference to Barrett's book along the lines of "In a review published by the History Department of Michigan State University, Ian McCulloch of the Canadian Forces College described Michelle Barrett's Casualty Figures: How Five Men Survived the First World War as "poorly researched"". Factotem (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Your suggested footnote seems appropriate based on what you have said. *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Factotem (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)