Talk:Richard Meinertzhagen

message: "The British colonel Richard Meinertzhagen,
primarily a soldier and a globe trotter, also tried to 
be an ornithologist, and in the last role he was 
fraudulent. In words of Rasmussen (as quoted by 
Barbara, 2005) “There are hundreds and probably 
thousands of fraudulently catalogued specimens. 
This was going on for the better part of his 
(Meinertzhagen’s) life”.
In "Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 16 (January 2006)"
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/shs/EJAIB/EJAIB12006.pdf.
there is a reference to Nature to proove this. 
Barbara, Santa, 2005. Ornithologists stunned by collector’s
deceit. Nature, 437 (September 15, 2005): 302 – 303.
I THINK THAT THE LAST EDIT BY 68.225.254.171 IS BIASED TOWARDS RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, CHANGING 'WELL KNOWN FOR KILLING PEOPLE' TO 'WELL KNOWN FOR KILLING ENEMIES'
There is mention of his having suppressed a tribal rebellion in East Africa in 1905 by shooting the "witch doctor" (a curiously dated term). This obviously refers to his role in what came to be known as 'the Nandi Incident', the Nandi being Hamitic pastoralists in northern Kenya. According to Meinertzhagen - and I heard him claim this in 1957 - he had arranged to meet a prominent Nandi laibon to discuss his people's acceding to the establishing of British authority; but Meinertzhagen had only a few askaris (African troops) with him, and in his version the laibon, with a band of tribesmen, launched an assault which led to shooting, the laibon's death, and subsequent difficult relations with the Nandi. The nascent British administration held Meinertzhagen to be at fault, and he was dismissed and deported in 1906. In view of his later involvement in other instances of illegal or precipitate behaviour, it would seem that the administration was justified.
Some comments on above paragraph.  "Witch doctor" is not a curiously dated term as suggested by writer of above paragraph commenting on the article.  Witchdoctor is exactly what a Laibon (the person killed by Meinertzhagen) is!   A Laibon is not a chief, but a soothsayer who's job is to supposedly predict the future (by reading the runes, animal entrails etc.) and put curses on someone unfortunate to fall out of favour with him or other influential people in the tribe (such "curses" are mumbo-jumbo of course, but just the mere fact that the victim sometimes believes they have been cursed, is enough for them to give up, go into a stupor and effectively die of terror).
Then, as now, the Laibon's status as "witchdoctor" comes from the very fact he was seen as a supposed "prophet" (which is what he is becoming to his increasing number of worshippers) amongst believers for his supposed "psychic" predictions, such as that of of the coming of the "iron snake" (the railway) in a dream.  I think the fact that he (a master propagandist, like many a sangoma and court crones) and his followers believe in such superstitious twaddle confirms that he was a "witchdoctor".  So describing Koitalel as a witchdoctor is not an archaic term from a detractor, but semantically accurate - and the very reason his admirers then and now hold him in high status.  A Laibon IS a witchdoctor.
Sirikwa (22 Mar 2006)
::This "witchdoctor" debate is nonsense. It used to be a beautiful analytical notion by the standards of 18th century Britain. But sometimes there is something like progress. Witchdoctors don't get the role of a political leader; the simple fact that there are (were) societies in which the highest authority is a "Laibon" is not at all explained by this uninformed witchdoctor "twaddle". This is just shameful for wikipedia! --Kipala 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The New Yorker mentions the "Haversack Ruse", which supposedly misdirected the Turks and enabled England to win the war, as Meinertzhagen's most famous deed. So why no mention here? Can someone fill in the blanks? — Adam Conover † 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haversack Ruse

message: While most of the charges against Meinertzhagen are apparently true, the language of this article is unacceptable.  The introduction is especially awful.  It is not supposed to read like the prosecutor's summary to the jury.  --Zerotalk 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, hopefully. Shyamal 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV language 

message: the only way I have heard about Meinerthagen is the cracked article
http://www.cracked.com/article_18811_5-real-macgyvers-who-won-battles-with-improvised-weapons.html
that links to this book, 
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QzbW2vDJOMwC&pg=PA229&dq=turn+around+run+like+hell+sheria&hl=en&ei=LIOnTI70FIvFnAfIrtGvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
claiming that Meinertzhagen dropped opium laced cigarettes on the Turkish defenders of Sheria on 5 Nov 1917 - given this will probably send many people to this article, could someone double check it and add something about the story to this article?
----------------------------------------------------- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of many, many such stories Meinertzhagen told, and like most is thought to have been invented, as discussed in the article. —innotata 01:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracked article 

message: Hi innotata, Shyamal, and Zero. I have been asked again by the family member to have the section on Garfield addressed (and similarly in the article on his deceased wife).  There was recent talk about a) reworking it into the article and/or b) addressing whether its claims are 'speculation'.  I know we don't work on deadlines, but to be honest, I could really use someone to take a look at this next week or next.  
I am very much getting the sense that this is not legal pressure, just a family member looking for dignity and closure.  I know and have made clear that we can't change history (or historical scholarship) and given Garfield's work's positive reviews that it is unlikely to warrant removal.  However, if we can at all handle this more professionally and encyclopedically it would go a long way.  So, please ping me if you can commit to working on this by early February.  
Thank you, sincerely, Jake Ocaasi t | c 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to Garfield claims

message: I doubt very much that the Meinhertzhagen were second only to the Rothschild as a banking family. They are frankly obscure. This entire article reads like an attempt to promote Richard Meinhertzhagen and his family.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the Meinhertzhagen family? 

message: Could an editor try to find the source for this paragraph and quotation from the Character section?  The Family has requested the excerpt from the diary be removed as a copyright violation.  I leave the copyright question up to you folks, but we at least need it to be cited properly if it remains.  Cheers, Jake
:Meinertzhagen himself traced the "evil" side of his personality to a period during his childhood when he was subjected to severe physical abuse at the hands of a sadistic schoolmaster when he was at Fonthill boarding school in Sussex. He was apparently also traumatized by the indifference of his mother to his plight:
: 
Thanks, Ocaasi t | c 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is from Meinertzhagen's book Diary of a Black Sheep and can also be reliably cited via the biographies of Cocker and Capstick. I have all three books but I'm in a different country from the books this week. I'll add a proper citation next week if nobody gets to it first (after checking that the quotation is accurate and its introduction is fair).  I don't believe the claim of copyright violation—it is a short quotation well within the fair use provisions of copyright law. Zerotalk 10:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Mark Cocker's book, all of this is on page 22. Shyamal (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  The first part of the quotation is from page 161 of "Diary of a Black Sheep".  I can't find the second part.  It does not seem to be on the same page or the next four pages.  However there is something similar on page 158: "I recount my life at Foothill in full, as the treatment to which I was subjected had a profound influence on my character and my subsequent life." Zerotalk 07:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The undeserved beatings and sadistic treatment which were my lot in childhood so upset my mind that much of my present character can be traced to Fonthill." - p. 22 in Mark Cocker. Shyamal (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, it comes from "Diary of a Black Sheep" page 173.  It is bad practice to hide 12 pages in an ellipsis, although in this case it isn't particularly misleading. Zerotalk 10:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm adding it back citing both pages.  Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citation (OTRS) 

message: :Pinging innotata, Shyamal, and Zero:
Because there was consensus that this article needed general improvements for encyclopedic structure, in particular around Garfield's book, I have made an attempt to integrate that section as well as to align the lead with the body of the text.  As an OTRS member, I am generally averse to making such changes myself because of my close communications with the family member.  Despite my strong effort at capturing your concerns evenly and professionally in my revisions, I would appreciate a close reading of the article from top-to bottom, particularly the lead and the character section, to see if it is an improvement.  If you disagree in any way, please revert it and/or make an attempt at a better version.
While I kept all of Garfield's views intact (while presenting them more in line with the flow of the article), I could not verify this claim:
:While in India he killed one of his personal assistants in a fit of rage and had the local police officer cover it up as a death due to plague. REF: http://web.archive.org/web/20030301024533/ and http://www.africa2000.com/IMPACT/drought0611.html
I appreciate the consultation you have already taken and ask you to go through one more time to check the work.  Going forward, changes that would continue to improve the article would involve integrating the entire "Character" section (which is more like a litany of 'criticism' or 'controversy') throughout the article.  Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes, as far as ornithology goes, it is not a case of "doubt" but a well-established case of "fraud". I empathize with the relatives of Meinertzhagen but I am afraid history cannot be rewritten. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to article (OTRS) 

message: Hello, Zero0000, about this diff, I added the cite from The Economist to the Richard Meinertzhagen article to try to give a reference within the article for the term "bumf," which is defined in Wiktionary and, of course, the OED. I thought of The Economist, as a publication, to be a reliable source, not original research and that the explanation within the article might be helpful to others. "Bumf" as a definition doesn't deserve its own article, so wikilinking was not an option. Linking to Wiktionary is contra to the Manual of Style and the OED is a paysite. Still and all, is there a better way to include an explanation of the term in the Meinertzhagen article? It could be helpful to those for whom the term is not at the top of their everyday parlance. Geoff |  Who, me? 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections at all. I agree that the article does need work and I'm supportive. I got the sense that the prior editor may have been trying to refer wrapping the planted book in sandwich wrappings as part of the deception effort. I was just focusing on the term itself as perhaps benefitting from some reference and I was interested to see it being used in a fairly recent Economist article. I'm not wedded to the use of the term, though, as the sense of the story doesn't really need it. Cheers! Geoff |  Who, me? 16:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to simply advocate for the use of the word 'bumf' in general, which I wouldn't have heard were it not for this article. I highly approve of this word. Thank you for your time and attention.173.217.205.130 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bumf? 

message: RM is supposed to have killed some Germans with one, according to Lawrence. 
When? Where? 86.176.83.11 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Knobkerrie

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Meinertzhagen. 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/20060613053236/http://special.newsroom.msu.edu/rasmussen/documents/Rasmussen%20New%20Yorker%20article.pdf to http://special.newsroom.msu.edu/rasmussen/documents/Rasmussen%20New%20Yorker%20article.pdf
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) 19:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The description here is in contrast to Meinertzhagen's "Kenya diary, 1902-1906" (published 1957), available online at https://archive.org/details/kenyadiary1902190000mein . His official report is on pp 234ff; pages from 220 describe his posting to Nandi country, his dislike for Koilatel about whom he hears that he wants to kill Meinertzhagen and whom he wants to either arrest or kill. The incident itself is described as a planned meeting with 6 persons on each side, both sides arriving with larger numbers in the back but the meeting itself being with 5 directly by Meinertzhagen and 22 with Koilatel, and hostilities being started by an arrow shot at Meinertzhagen (who was prepared to arrest or kill Koilatel). The description of the ensuing fight does not support the claim that Meinertzhagen just shot when his opposite stretched out his hand.  I am now not in a position to judge whether there is gound to dispute Meinertzhagen's version of the story, but at least it should be given some space. Kipala (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Killing of Koitalel

message: It sounds like he's more well-known for his military career than his scientific career so shouldn't this article instead have a military person infobox with a scientist infobox imbedded into into it? Charles Essie (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the infobox 

message: On the killing of Koitalel, the article says "Initially, he had been able to orchestrate a cover-up and was commended for the incident." but it doesn't say what the cover-up looked like or how it was discovered that it was a cover-up and not a factual report. Nakonana (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koitalel cover-up