Talk:Orde Wingate

message: I disagree on this point.
# Knowledge is held by people in their heads based on their life experiences.
# Not everybody is an author to write or publish their knowledge.
# Knowledge if it is not captured dies with the people who have it.
# Some other organisation needs to publish original thought online.
# Otherwise what is in Wikipedia is just a regurgitation of existing published knowledge and add to nothing.
If it is not Wikipedia then someone else needs to document all this knowledge which is vastly more then all knowledge that has ever been published and publish it. If it is inaccurate then it will be disputed and can be removed. Pop goes the we (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a key house rule here, so if you don't like it, choose another house. If you like 'dim lights, thick smoke, and loud loud music', choose an old-style night club. If you like verifiable facts, choose Wikipedia. Up to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct, Chiswick Chap. Unverified information need not be challenged for accuracy. It will be removed, per WP:V and WP:OR. HLGallon (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to him he did quote a reference which you deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.73.149 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he copied and pasted a sentence and cite from a subsequent section in the text. The cite does not support the speculative sentence I deleted. HLGallon (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: No, the tag states that the lead needs to be changed to reflect the content of the rest of the article, which is correctly cited. When a lead just summarizes the rest of the article it does not need to be cited again. It is not legitimate for the lead to introduce new uncited claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comment

message: ; I've done what you guys requested and I found the references I need to justify my additions to the article.
I hope you guys approve. Pop goes the we (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The article is now seriously unbalanced towards the view, which is highly disputable, that Wingate was a military genius. You've beautifully illustrated why I have serious doubts about the viability of the Wikipedia model. --Yaush (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed, under NPOV rules. HLGallon (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That allegation says more about "many of" the officer Corps of the British Army, or the individual making the allegation for I suspect it is untrue. That those "many" have contempt for a successful attack on a military HQ, or that they lump the Haganah and Irgun (actually responsible for the King David bombing and condemned by the Haganah) as one Jew entity. 86.180.20.107 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The references are still inadequate. A page number is required for the Thompson work; it is not enough to point the reader at a book and require him or her to read it from cover to cover to confirm the single-sentence assertion which it cites. The other reference requires a subscription (£23 or so, no mean sum) and cites only the peacock phrase "He was a successful military strategist and an expert in military tactics", which is questionable no matter what sources are provided. I will review the Wikipedia rules on sourcing and citation, but these two cites and the text they support may yet be removed under WP:POV and WP:V. HLGallon (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, any claims to genius, etc, need the most careful treatment. We could say "The Nobel committee chairman praised Einstein as "a genius of modern physics" if we had such a quote and could cite it, but it remains someone's opinion. Otherwise it's totally out of bounds (as are almost all adjectives - good, notable, inspired, excellent, etc - they're all basically WP:OR and unencylopedic. Basically we mustn't let the article be derailed. Evidence, or delete. And we should completely replace the lead - I'd do it but I'm not sure where to put the citations in the current lead (perhaps here on the talk page). The lead should be a pure summary of the article with no editorializing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims for successful Army officer

message: The article on the Gideon Force states "The Gideon Force was officially disbanded June 1, 1941. Wingate returned to Egypt".
Col David Stirling founder of the SAS was in Cairo at that time. I wonder if he and Orde Wingate ever meet in Cairo and if Wingate passed on his ideas about special forces and guerrilla warfare to Stirling who later formed the SAS ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.165.20 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that this page is not a forum. It is the talk page for a Wikipedia article only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Wingate ever meet David Stirling in Cairo in 1941 ? 

message: Their religious affiliations and courtship are discussed, but neither is given a name. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wingate's parents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orde Wingate. 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/20140219051715/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-139/841-the-strange-case-of-the-prime-minister-and-the-fighting-prophetRaymond to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-139/841-the-strange-case-of-the-prime-minister-and-the-fighting-prophetRaymond
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orde Wingate. 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/20110622112825/http://members.cox.net/dale_robinson/air_commandos/COCHRAN.pdf to http://members.cox.net/dale_robinson/air_commandos/COCHRAN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204222426/http://www.wingatekravmaga.com/orde-charles-wingate-the-friend/ to http://www.wingatekravmaga.com/orde-charles-wingate-the-friend/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified