Talk:Hugh Wrigley
Latest comment: 14 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic A couple of sources
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugh Wrigley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
A couple of sources
editI've found a few extra sources for this individual:
Interestingly, though the WW2 Nom Roll, AWM and NAA list his year of birth as 1898, as opposed to 1891 as mentioned in ADBO. The AWM entry also indicates that he may have received the OBE also. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- p. 110 of the NAA service record is interesting, though. It states that on enlistment into the AIF on 17 August 1914 his age was "22 years and 8 months". This would confirm his birth year as 1891, which probably makes more sense than 1898 as that would have made him only 16. It is strange though as every other official document found online seems to indicate his birth year as 1898. This page also states that prior to enlistment in the AIF he had served 3 years and 3 months in the "Colonial Forces, Permanent". Does anyone know what this was? Based on the paperwork, it indicates that the Colonial forces were separate to the Militia. I've heard of the term as applying to the individual state militaries, but I though these ceased to be in 1903. This throws up some strange questions that I'm not sure can be answered. For one, does it indicate that his position as a military clerk was a uniformed role? It might explain why he went straight to staff sergeant upon enlistment in the AIF. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)