Talk:The Reluctant Tommy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional content[edit]

COI Full Declaration: I am Ruth Ward 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 completed "A Study Examining the Authenticity of John Ronald Skirth’s Memoir" and in 2014 it was accepted into the Department for Collections Access Library at the Imperial War Museum. Issue 17.3, 2017 of the "Canadian Army Journal" has published my article "The Satirical Tommy" *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears not to have been updated for some time and I think the following additions would improve the balance of content.

At the end of the paragraph under the heading Publication please add: Publication of the hardback edition drew substantial criticism prompting the editor to revise his introduction to the paperback version (published in 2011) in order to address some of the concerns raised. (See pages xxi - xxiii of the paperback edition)

A new section needs to be added to the article: Fake Memoir & also inserted in the Contents. I propose that the new section contains the following: "An article published in the Canadian Army Journal summarises the main findings of a study which examined the authenticity of Skirth's original papers and concluded that they comprise a literary hoax. "Through thorough analysis and the use of independent, reliable sources, my study has shown that Skirth's war memoir was not a genuine account, or a semi-fictional one, but a satire that subtly and implicitly ridiculed many of the British Army's shortcomings that in some way impinged on his World War 1 military service. This satirical war memoir was superficially disguised as a semi-fictional autobiography, arguably to facilitate its entry into the Imperial War Museum's collections, where it could deride the British Army in perpetuity. In fact, Skirth's papers amounted to a literary forgery. In trying to persuade the reader that he was, for the most part, honest and sincere in describing his experiences and, therefore, that they were authentic, he practised a deception, trying to deceive the reader into believing that the stories were something they were not. My study has also shown that, insofar as Skirth was concerned, publications such as The Reluctant Tommy, Casualty Figures, The Cross and the Trenches and the documentary Not Forgotten appeared to be very unreliable, and therefore the credibility that they have apparently given to the memoir's authenticity is largely unfounded.[...]" Citation: Ward R.; The Satirical Tommy; Canadian Army Journal; Volume 17.3; 2017; Pages 132 - 153). (Apologies for not formatting properly - I'm new to wikipedia) *ptrs4all* (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the Canadian Army Journal is Volume 17.3 2017. The article is The Satirical Tommy See page 7 and pages 132 - 153. It can be viewed online. http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/docs/en/canadian-army-journal/caj-17-3-en.pdf The Journal is the official publication of the Canadian Army and all articles are peer reviewed.

Thank you *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 17-OCT-2018[edit]

  Wider consensus required  

  • Although Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, there is much evidence here which deserves the attention of the wider community, and your request would benefit from its added input.
  • My suggestion is that you raise this issue with one of the WikiProjects which govern the article (shown at the top of this talk page). In this case, MILHIST would be an excellent choice to make, as that particular project has a good reputation, and it's served by some of Wikipedia's most experienced editors. Please feel free to begin a discussion about these issues with the editors there at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  10:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of problems here:
  • I can't verify what the paperback version actually says - GBooks only previews the 2010 edition. Does the revised introduction explicitly state that the "hardback edition drew substantial criticism" which "prompted the editor to revise his introduction to the paperback version"? If not, then that first suggested amendment strays into original research or possibly synthesis.
  • The Canadian Army Journal seems to be a reliable source, but the issue linked to is proving reluctant to load for me. I would like to read what's written there before I can comment in detail. Based on the extract quoted above, it might be appropriate to add some text along the lines of "According to Ruth Ward, [insert her interest here - I believe she is a descendant of a n officer comrade who is criticised in the book]..." and then summarise the key issues she highlights. I think this would be better tacked onto the existing "Critical reaction" section. The suggestion to create a "Fake memoir" section seems to be based on a point of view, rather than an established fact.
I would also point out that the existing criticism is very poorly sourced, to what I believe is the magazine of the BBC TV show Who Do You Think You Are? (UK TV series). It would appear that "34 May 2010" given in the ref refers to issue #34. The ref has been tagged for over 7 years with "page needed", and the online contents for that issue give no indication the issue contains an article titled "The Reluctant Tommy – Ronald Skirth's extraordinary memoir of the First World War",
HTH Factotem (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paperback version of TRT states: "Since The Reluctant Tommy was first published almost a year ago, its harshest critics have claimed that Skirth is either a liar or a fantasist [...] Perhaps unsurprisingly they have uncovered a number of discrepancies between the memoir and other historical records, which they believe undermine Skirth's credibility [...] Other differences between Skirth's account and official records must perhaps be put down to artistic licence. [...] Perhaps the most significant area of disagreement between Skirth's memoir and historical sources is in his description of a fatal gun accident [...] Again there appear to be factual errors in Skirth's account of the incident, [...] Gore Vidal writes that 'a memoir is how one remembers one's own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked'. Skirth's narrative certainly falls into the former category - it is not a history book, and if taken as such it is rightly viewed as 'unreliable', to the extent that the Imperial War Museum are currently reviewing its status within their archive. But taken as an intensely personal account of one man's experiences at the most pivotal moment of his life, I believe it more than stands up to any criticism levelled against it. [...]" (p xxi-xxiii) *ptrs4all* (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think then that the first amendment should be something along the lines of "In a response to criticism received after the initial publication which accused Skirth of being a liar or a fantasist, the editor revised the introduction to the paperback edition. He recognised that there were discrepancies between Skirth's account and historical sources which made his book an unreliable history while still recognising its value as a memoir of one man's personal experiences." Factotem (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the link to the Canadian Army Journal, sometimes it is easier to go to the journal & then click on the link for Volume 17.3. It does take a while to open the pdf document, but it does get there in the end. An alternative & quicker route is to go to [http:// www.293siegebattery.webplus.net ] & view it from there - it's much quicker for some reason. (You will have to click on one of the menu items on the home page - can't remember which one off the top of my head). *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now. Just had to be patient. I've read through it once, but not enough to fully appreciate the nuances. My first impression is that there would be no problem using it to source the salient points made in that article, but we need to handle it with care. It can't be written as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Whatever is written based on this source needs to clearly flag that it is based on the unpublished research of a relative of someone who is not represented well in Skirth's account. Whilst it seems fair to highlight the historical discrepancies, I would be wary of describing the book as satire on the principle of exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Whatever is added should also be part of the existing "Critical reception" section, not a new "Fake memoir" section per my comment above. I'll look into this some more tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the reference to the Whodoyouthinkyouare source, I did not add this source, but I can try & track it down and find the right information. *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could. At the moment I'm inclined to suggest deleting that part of the article because as currently referenced it is unverifiable. Even if it was properly referenced, I have my doubts about the reliability of such a magazine as a reliable source. It would depend on what's actually written there, but a magazine published as a supplement to a TV show does not strike me as a good source for military history. Factotem (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source details for the WDYTYA? article are as follows: the article is a book review on page 90 of Whodoyouthinkyouare? Magazine; published in May 2010, the 34th issue; (headline/strapline on page says 'Guide Reviews' & the article comes under the heading 'Books'). It is written by Phil Tomaselli (who is a family and military historian with a number of publications under his belt including one about the Western Front in WW1 I think). At the time the article was published the publisher was "BBC Magazines, Bristol a wholly owned subsidiary of BBC Worldwide". The title of the article is 'The Reluctant Tommy by Ronald Skirth (ed. Duncan Barrett)'. Some of Tomaselli's publications can be viewed here: https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Phil-Tomaselli/a/799 Hope that helps. *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC) The information included under the WDYTYA? mention is a quote from the review itself. *ptrs4all* (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's grand. Thanks. I've added the relevant info to the ref and remove the "page needed" tag. I don't like using book reviews as sources for military history, but this article is about a book, so it seems perfectly legit to use a review as a source. Factotem (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the edit. *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ward's article in the CAJ was a response to a glowing book review of TRT written by a very experienced army officer which had appeared in a previous issue of the journal. This is mentioned in the editor's intro to the current addition. A copy of Ward's study (those parts not subject to copyright restrictions) was sent to the previous editor for his assessment). It must say something about Ward's article for the Canadian Army to print something which flies in the face of the review and is, potentially, embarrassing for the officer concerned. Would it help if I could find the book review? *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link for the book review which prompted Ward's article: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mdn-dnd/D12-11-16-1-eng.pdf It was written by Colonel PJ Williams, CD. 'The Reluctant Tommy: Ronald Skirth's Extraordinary Memoir of the First World War'; published in the Canadian Army Journal 16.1 Spring 2015 under 'Book Reviews' p141-143; (at the bottom of the page it gives:www.ARMY.FORCES.GC.CA/CAJ *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has a decision been made as to whether, or not to merge the two articles? Do I have permission to make any edits that are suggested, or do they have to be done by someone else? (New to editing, so not sure what I can & can't do). *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea for you to edit pages on which you have declared a COI, per WP:COIEDIT. You can propose/discuss changes here on the talk page (TP). There's been no discussion I have seen about merging the pages. That's usually an obvious process which usually involves a formal proposal and discussion before it's implemented, so assume for now that the articles will remain separate. If a merge does happen at some point in the future, then the relevant information from both should be retained. Haven't had a chance to look any more into the CAJ article today. Sorry. Will do so at some stage. If you like, you can write out what you think should be included in the article here on the TP, and we can take it from there. Otherwise I will go through the CAJ article sometime and produce something myself. Factotem (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And hopefully a helpful tip - when replying to a post on TPs, you can use colons to indent the text so that it is obvious that you are replying. Multiple colons produce multiple indents. It structures the TP conversation and helps make it easier to follow. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tip & the advice. *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit needed. There is a minor error in the info box about the book. It was originally published in hardback in 2010 & in paperback in 2011. *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
edit done Factotem (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit needed. There are a number of typos in the quote from Tomaselli's book review: "- though" needs replacing with 'but'; "forward they" should read 'forward that they'; "Register" should be 'Register,'; "Italy" should be 'Italy,'; "guns as late" should read 'guns as late on as'; "April 1918" should be 'April 1918.'; "yet" needs deleting; "the" should be 'The'; "diary" should be 'diary,'; 'on the other hand,' needs inserting & "numerous" needs deleting & adding further on to read: 'The war diary, on the other hand, records them firing bombardments on numerous occasions.' Remove [...] (end of quote). I have a copy of the book review *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Factotem (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing edit.*ptrs4all* (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading Publication could the following information (summary & quotes from a news article in the Sunday Times) be added?
Following initial publication of the book, Ruth Ward, the granddaughter of Bernard Bromley who served with Skirth, sent some research relating to the memoir to the Imperial War Museum for consideration. Anthony Richards, head of documents and sound, wrote back to her stating that Skirth’s journals would be removed from their “collection” due to the “many inaccuracies” identified and that “much of it is clearly fictional”. “After hearing the story would be made public by The Sunday Times, the museum backtracked on its pledge, and insisted it would retain the memoir, but include a caveat and a copy of Ward’s research.” (Article: Reluctant Tommy book ‘clearly fictional’; published in The Sunday Times (online); 27 March 2011, 12:01am; the original ref was [1]. Currently, for a fee, it can be viewed at [ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/reluctant-tommy-clearly-fictional-5nsncr85btw ], although the first part of the article is visible. I can give the original ref for the article, but don't seem to be able to insert the link onto this page.

It is very unusual for the Imperial War Museum to withdraw, or consider withdrawing an item from its collections making this a ‘notable’ event - hence the newspaper article.

(Please note that Ward’s research mentioned at this point is not the same research currently held at the IWM).

Before the IWM made its decision, the paperback edition was published which also mentioned that, with regard to the memoir, the IWM were “currently reviewing its status within their archive” (TRT, 2011, p. xxiii)

The Times article also mentions that the publisher stated that a new section was being added to the introduction to explain the difference between a memoir and a factual autobiography, and that Jean Skirth, Skirth's daughter, "declined to comment on the controversy". *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest another edit. The first sentence of the article: "The Reluctant Tommy is a book written by Ronald Skirth..." (my bold) is somewhat misleading. The editor states in the introduction that he had to abridge the five ring binders 'considerably' reducing "Skirth's 185,000 words to a more manageable length." (p.xv), although he doesn't say what TRT's word count is. Also Skirth did not write the introduction; that is the editor's considered opinion. I think it would be more accurate to state something like: "The Reluctant Tommy is an abridged version of Ronald Skirth's original memoir held at the Imperial War Museum, London."*ptrs4all* (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to read "The Reluctant Tommy is a book compiled by Duncan Barrett from the memoirs of Ronald Skirth..." Factotem (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the edit. *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the article seems fine except that the Battle of Asiago Plateau should be included with Messines & Passchendaele. The chapter in the book called 'My Five Hours War' describes his experiences in this battle and it is also mentioned in the IWM's content description of Skirth's papers which you can read online at the Museum's website https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030008853 . So, perhaps: "His experiences during the Battles of Messines, Passchendaele and Asiago Plateau were detailed in this book."*ptrs4all* (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

The general tenor of the edit requests above seem reasonable to me. Although Ruth Ward's research is clearly rooted in a COI, she has done the right thing and both declared the conflict and refrained from editing the article directly. Her research is discussed in two reliable sources – The Sunday Times and the Canadian Army Journal, and I have added a paragraph about that research based on those two sources. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and adding the paragraph. I will need to read it through carefully before discussing it here.
In the paragraph you have added there is confusion about Ward’s research. In the CAJ article Ward makes it clear that she decided to do a new and separate study into the authenticity of Skirth’s memoir following the failure of her “initial research” (submitted in 2011) to produce acceptable outcomes. The completed ‘study’ was submitted and accepted in 2014. The following is a suggested revision of the first part of that paragraph, although it still needs work:

In 2011, the The Sunday Times reported that Skirth had been "...exposed for character assassination..." and that the Imperial War Museum, which had held Skirth's memoirs since 1999, "...has admitted they are mostly fictional". The report was based on research submitted to the Museum by Ruth Ward, granddaughter of Bernard Bromley who served with Skirth and whose character Skirth had besmirched.[13] The Museum stated that Ward’s research, had identified “many inaccuracies” in the memoir and that “much of it is clearly fictional.” The IWM initially stated its intention to remove the memoir from its collections, but later reversed this decision. The Museum “insisted it would retain the memoir but include a caveat and a copy of Ward’s research.” (Sunday Times article). (The 'would' in the quote is important because it indicates the future - an intention, not something that had already taken place). Apologies for referring to myself as 'Ward' rather than 'I' - thought it would be easier to follow & it helps me to be objective.*ptrs4all* (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading through the new paragraph added under Critical Review again and suggest this revision, although still not quite right (repetition of "...mostly fictional"):
"In 2011, the The Sunday Times reported that Skirth had been "...exposed for character assassination..." and that the Imperial War Museum, which had held Skirth's memoirs since 1999, "...has admitted they are mostly fictional". The Sunday Times article was largely based on research done by Ruth Ward, the granddaughter of Bernard Bromley, who served with Skirth and whose character Skirth had besmirched.[13] Ward's research which was based on “historical records” was shown to the Imperial War Museum. Following this, the Museum stated its intention to remove Skirth’s memoir from its “collection” citing the “many inaccuracies” Ward had identified and stating that “much of it is clearly fictional”. The Museum later reversed its decision. (ST)"
Please note - there is nothing in TRT to verify that the changes the editor made to his intro are as a direct result of any criticism or research they may have received from Ward. *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main differences between the existing and suggested versions are the removal of your conclusion about the satirical nature of Skirth's account, and the museum's intention, later rescinded, to remove Skirth's memoirs from its collection. For the first, that seems a fair summary of your conclusions as reported in the CAJ. Have I misread something? Is there any reason why it should be removed? For the second, I'm reluctant to add anything about the museum removing Skirth's memoirs simply because at the end of the day they haven't. Discussing it would be straying towards giving undue weight to something that didn't really happen. I would also add that if the museum originally intended to remove the memoir citing its inaccuracies and fictional nature, does their subsequent decision to rescind that intention also mean they rescinded their opinion about the work? Finally, it's already stated in the first sentence that the IWM admits the memoirs are "mostly fictional", so there's no need to restate that at the end. Factotem (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did draw your attention to this (repetition of "...mostly fictional")*ptrs4all* (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existing paragraph starts with a reference to the Sunday Times Article, but then adds info from CAJ (& TRT?). It reads as if it is all from the Sunday Times. My most recent suggestion separates the info in the ST article from that in the CAJ. The initial research given to the IWM & the study summarised in the CAJ are two very different beasts and should not be confused, if at all possible. I haven't had time yet to suggest a paragraph re the study in the CAJ and am still trying to get my head round how to discuss things on a talk page. I accept your reasons for not including the IWM's decision to withdraw/not withdraw the memoir and am happy for it not to be included. *ptrs4all* (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've clarified that the ST article was based on research "...begun by Ruth Ward as part of a campaign to clear the name of her grandfather, Bernard Bromley, who had served with Skirth and whose character Skirth had besmirched." And that "Ward's research, which was lodged with the Imperial War Museum when it was completed in 2014, identified significant discrepancies in Skirth's account." This accommodates the idea that the research was conducted over time, that in its initial stage it prompted the ST to state that Skirth had been "exposed for character assassination" and the IWM to admit that the memoirs "are mostly fictional", and that in its final form identified errors in biography and historical events. I'm reluctant to go into any greater detail because the article is about the book, not the research. I think what's written now fairly summarises the important points. Fair? Factotem (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph is much better, but I'm still not happy with part of it. I have revised it here to include the overall conclusion of the study and deleted the detail. My revision is in italics. "In 2011, The Sunday Times reported that Skirth had been "...exposed for character assassination..." and that the Imperial War Museum, which had held Skirth's memoirs since 1999, "...has admitted they are mostly fictional". The report was based on research begun by Ruth Ward as part of a campaign to clear the name of her grandfather, Bernard Bromley, who had served with Skirth and whose character Skirth had besmirched.[13] Ward's research, which was lodged with the Imperial War Museum when it was completed in 2014, reached the conclusion that Skirth had written a fake memoir. She stated that Skirth’s account of his war experiences, which he had insisted throughout were honest, constituted a satire that had been disguised as a semi-fictional autobiography. The satire poked fun at British Army failings that had had a bearing on Skirth's military service and especially his battery’s omission from the Official History, Italy (Edmonds).(CAJ)*ptrs4all* (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given your statement at the end of the CAJ article that "...it is now time that Skirth’s war memoir be publically acknowledged as a fake by the publishers and directors concerned and by the Imperial War Museum...", I'm concerned about any impression that Wikipedia is being enlisted in such a campaign, and therefore reluctant to use the words "fake memoir". The article already states your conclusions that the memoirs are "not a genuine account, or a semi-fictional one, but a satire" designed to "ridicule the shortcomings of the British Army", which is basically what your latest suggested amendment asks for and is, I think, a fair summary of your conclusions as published in the CAJ. Maybe User:Spintendo or any other page watcher could weigh in on this. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding an earlier comment urging caution about describing the memoir as a 'satire', - the editor of TRT has acknowledged that the memoir is 'unreliable' & that Skirth has fictionalised his material for dramatic advantage. The IWM believe much of it is 'clearly fictional' with 'many inaccuracies'. Professor Barrett, author of Casualty Figures which includes a biography of Skirth based on his original memoir/papers states: "His autobiography is based on a factual record that has been worked up, almost turned into a novel."(p.68) The factual record that she alludes to is Skirth's pocket diary part of which Duncan Barrett suggests is fictional& possibly a narrative device. So there seems to be general agreement that the memoir is unreliable in terms of its historical accuracy and that much of it is fictional. As satire is a form of fiction, I would question whether describing the memoir as such is, as you suggest, such an 'exceptional' claim. *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This process of "the memoir is a fiction" and "satire is a form of fiction" therefore "the memoir is satire" is a classic example of synthesis which, per policy, must be avoided. I have revised my opinion slightly on this and included discussion of your conclusion that Skirth's work is satire, but have been very careful to ensure it is presented as your view, not a consensus that can be found in a survey of reliable sources. Factotem (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That "the memoir is a fiction" and "satire is a form of fiction" therefore "the memoir is satire" is not what I was saying at all. That is clearly illogical. I was questioning whether calling the memoir fake/satirical was 'exceptional' when it was already agreed the memoir was unreliable & semi-fictional. Is the gap between the two 'exceptional'? I don't know whether it is or not.*ptrs4all* (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the revisions to the last paragraph. I appreciate your comments & understand your concerns about 'weight' and so on. However, I still have some concerns about the wording particularly the use of 'discrepancy' which implies insignificance & I feel demeans Ward's research. This is a suggested revision to the latter part of the current paragraph. "Ward's research, which was lodged with the Imperial War Museum when it was completed in 2014, identified significant differences between Skirth's account and historical records.[15][16] In 2017 the Canadian Army Journal published an article in which Ward summarises the main findings of her research. In her opinion "...Skirth's war memoir was not a genuine account, or a semi-fictional one, but a satire that subtly and implicitly ridiculed many of the British Army’s shortcomings…”.[18] *ptrs4all* (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm not sure how the existing narrative does not already convey the same information. I'm also not sure I see the distinction between "discrepancy" and "difference". On p. 134 of the CAJ article you write yourself that " My initial research into Skirth’s memoir identified what I thought were some significant discrepancies...", and the article narrative uses both words. I have copyedited it a little, but this seems to be a simple case of prose style rather than any issue of accuracy. Factotem (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment that the article is about the book not the research, Ward's research/study is about the book and presents a considered and alternative view to that of the editor. However, I do agree that reference to it should not be excessive. This article is still unbalanced in my opinion in that it contains numerous references and quotes from positive book reviews saying pretty much the same thing. Until recently it read more like promotional material from the publisher's.*ptrs4all* (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's response to criticism about TRT should be in a separate paragraph I think.*ptrs4all* (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Done. Factotem (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you*ptrs4all* (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Express is mentioned directly under 'Critical Reaction' and the article referred to is actually written by Duncan Barrett (editor TRT). It adds very little, if anything, that isn't already in his introduction. Is that appropriate?*ptrs4all* (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)*ptrs4all* (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That line is mainly about the coverage received in the press, so seems relevant to include the Sunday Express, but I have edited it to make it clear that the book's editor wrote the article for the Sunday Express. Factotem (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's clear. Thanks for doing the edit.*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find Jonathan Gibbs review at https: //www.ft.com/content/8a78719c-532e-11df-813e-00144feab49a . The old link doesn't seem to work any more. The quote given in this wiki article is accurate. *ptrs4all* (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Re making posts on the talk page, is the policy always to make them at the end of the page, or is it better to insert them at the appropriate point in the discussion? *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a part of an ongoing conversation, insert the post at the appropriate point with another level of indent. The main thing I try to do with TP posts is not interrupt the flow - it should be possible for anyone to follow the conversation and know who is saying what. Factotem (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence under the heading 'Publication' mentions Jon Snow. While I can see that mentioning him gives the book some credibility, I'm not sure the quoted text adds anything useful?*ptrs4all* (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I've just been looking at the wiki article 'Ronald Skirth' and wonder why the suggested paragraph Factotem made on this page recently has appeared on it.*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that article mirrors the discussion in this article about the critical reception of TRT, so should mirror all aspects of it. Factotem (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you.*ptrs4all* (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence under 'Critical Review' might be improved as follows: "The Reluctant Tommy received largely favourable reviews including one by Richard Holmes in the Evening Standard[7] and another by Jonathan Gibbs in the Financial Times,[8] as well as coverage in the Daily Mail,[9] Socialist Worker[10] and, in an article written by the book's editor, the Sunday Express.[11]" In the original it reads (to me) as if the two reviews were the only favourable ones it got, when in fact there were lots of positive reviews.*ptrs4all* (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the discussion and identified the edits that still need sorting out: 1.the wording of the last para under 'Critical Review'; 2.inclusion of 'Battle of Asiago' in first para of article; 3 relevance of quotes by Jon Snow?; 4 new link for Jonathan Gibbs review needs inserting?; 5. first sentence under 'Critical Review'needs improving for clarity.*ptrs4all* (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Addressed above
ok, thanks*ptrs4all* (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Does Skirth actually call it the Battle of Asiago? The problem here is that the Battle of Asiago was fought in 1916. The battle in Italy which started 15 June 1918 appears to be the Second Battle of the Piave River.
Skirth refers to it as "Battle of the Asiago Plateau" - p.173 p/b (Edmonds in Military Operations, Italy 1915 - 1919) calls it "The Battle of Asiago, 15-16 June 1918. In his notes Edmonds states: "The official name of this engagement is 'The Fighting on the Asiago 'Plateau'" but the battle-honour 'Piave' was awarded to it. (There is more about the Italian nomenclature for it)*ptrs4all* (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not sure about this.
I think the quotes say more about Jon Snow's relative than they do about Skirth. Is that statement there because it adds to the content in some way, or because mentioning Jon Snow gives the book added credibility?*ptrs4all* (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. The existing link seems to redirect to the link you provide anyway. A subscription, which I don't have, is required to read the article, so I'm reluctant to change it myself.
Leave it then.*ptrs4all* (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Done Factotem (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you*ptrs4all* (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Reluctant_Tommy&oldid=1206100730"