Talk:Court-martial of Breaker Morant

Untitled

The intro has no context as to when the trial took place, the background etc. GraemeLeggett 11:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be agreed that it is rather dubious to quote from the dialogue of a film or play when the court records are unavailable for verification. And how about linking a few passages from the text to the references cited at the bottom. Ever heard of footnotes?KhProd1 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a poor effort. Biased and unsupported. Where is the evidence to educate people about this important and interesting story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.175.38 (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge content from James Christie (soldier)

G'day all, while doing some clean up in Category:Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles needing attention to grammar, I came across James Christie (soldier). I'm not sure if that article has sufficient notability to stand alone (I could be wrong, though), so I am left wondering if a merge/redirect might be the best solution. What do others think about this proposal (i.e performing a merge from that article in to this one and then leaving the Christie article as a redirect). Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anotherclown, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, Nick-D, Ian Rose, Newm30, and Socrates2008: G'day, do any of you have any opinions on this proposal? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems his notability relies almost entirely on his being one of the BVC complainants. I would suggest merging any usable material into this article and leave it as a redirect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, how much would you suggest adding in as part of the merger? To be honest, I don't know much about the Morant case, but it seems from reading the Christie article that perhaps the allegation/complaint made by Christie and the other BVC members led to the court martial. Is this correct? @Anotherclown: Do you have the BVC history? I seem to recall that you might have it on your shelf? A quick google books search seems to imply to me that the Woolmore book might provide adequate referencing. [1]. Also, should the text of the newspaper articles be reproduced here, or do you think it would be too much? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Gday, yes I have the BVC history. Christie is briefly mentioned on a few pages, and there is a 1/4 page biography of him on page 167. I would say given the limited coverage I don't think much more than a mention is warranted. I say this because he isn't even listed as a "Principal Character" in Nick Bleszynski's Shoot Straight, You Bastards! (although this source probably needs to be used with caution). This said, whilst I have these books I wouldn't claim to be across the material or remotely qualified to give much advice about what weight should be given as I haven't got around to reading either of them yet (and its been quite a while since I read both Wallace and Wilcox's books on Australian involvement in the Boer War). If you like I will transcribe the entry from Woolmore here though so others can make an assessment of what, if any, they want to use from it. Anotherclown (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If James Christie's only notability is the court martial and he was not awarded any medals or any notability in post-war life, then I dont not believe an article is warranted and a redirect should occur to the Court martial. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that three entirely different matters have been unintentionally conflated in the initial posting by AustralianRupert; namely:

• (a) Does the individual identified as James Christie (soldier) warrant his own article?

My response is an emphatic NO.

• (b) Are the items from two separate New Zealand newspapers of such vital importance to this particular article for their entire (unedited and unchallenged) text should be included?

My response is an emphatic NO.

• (c) If the James Christie (soldier) is removed from the Wikipedia, and if the newspaper articles, although of some "peripheral" interest, are not of sufficient standing to warrant inclusion in this article, is the removal of any trace of the articles in question from the Wikipedia a biassed act of censorship?

My two-part response is an emphatic NO to the censorship question.

And my second, associated response, is that, despite the removal of the article, the material can still be made available to the interested reader via (a) the placement of the text (and the biographical description of Christie) into "WIKISOURCE" and (b) links within the article to that stored information — see Wikipedia:Wikisource for instructions on how to do this.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr Yeates. I will look into the Wikisource option. At first glance, it looks a bit complex, though. I'm a simple man, and all I really know is how to break things... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, I think that the simple edits I have made to the article — see "External links" — have solved all the issues of concern (and, also, I believe, mean that the fiddling round with either a "Merge" operation, or with the labour intensive process of loading the text up into "WIKISOURCE" is entirely un-necessary).

It is now up to you to decide whether any specific reference should be made to (a) either of these news items (the texts of which are now freely available to anyone who chooses the click on the links), and/or (b) "James Christie" within this article.

And, also, I believe that the direct linking of the two newspaper items to this article gives you the freedom to consider completely deleting the James Christie (soldier) article — an article which is, by now, certainly surplus to requirements. Best, Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, but just in case anyone still has any use for it the text from Woolmore, p. 167 is as fols: Quote "CHRISTIE, James, Trooper No. 160 (BVC/PLH): Born Dunedin, New Zealand on 5 January 1869. Claimed 5 years service in the New Zealand mounted Rifles (pre-war) but no evidence of any previous Boer War service was found. Enlisted in BVC at Durban on 19 April 1901 - age 32, stockman, height 5'6", 11 stone, blue eyes, fair hair, scar on nose. NOK: Mrs W. Christie, Keithmore Farm, Weipa, Otago, New Zealand. He served for a short period from 1 June 1901 with the BVC detachment at Strydpoort and Chuniespoort after which he was transferred to the Spelonken. He became a member of Sergeant Frank Eland's Troop and was one of only three of that troop with Eland at the Duivelskloof action when the Sergeatn and Captain Hunt were killed. He and the other two troop members escorted Frank Eland's body from the Medingen Mission Station to his farm, 'Ravenshill', for burial. Christie was one of the 15 BVC members who signed the letter of complaint to Colonl Hall which instigated the inquiry into the actions of BVC officers at Fort Edward in the Spelonken. After he became due for discharge, he was detained in Peitersburg as a possible witness at the courts martial. He was finally discharged form the PLH on 17 February 1902 and no subsequent Boer War service was found. He qualified for the QSA medal with clasps Transvall, SA 1901 & SA 1902." End quote. Anotherclown (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, AC and Dr Yeates, I will look to simply redirect the Christie article here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Floris Visser (Boer War) into Court-martial of Breaker Morant

I'm just not positive there's enough for a stand-alone article here. The article, while of a fair length, relies entirely upon one source, which doesn't exactly make notability clear. I think it could be reasonably covered at this target article with no major omissions, but could be mistaken. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support merge as per WP:1E. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Lieut Handcock willingly lent himself out as the principle executioner of them

"Principle is incorrect, it should be "principal"." but is it a literal quote? 188.76.175.230 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

POV fork

This article has a huge section regarding a series of trials regarding the defence of superior orders. That effectively makes this a POV fork of other related articles like those of the defendants and the pardon article (which is itself a POV fork). There is a level of mission creep around Morant and his accomplices which probably has a lot to do with those who want him pardoned. Some serious trimming and scope definition is needed right across all of these articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)