Talk:Dudley Clarke

Todo
As a reminder: --Errant (chat!) 09:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1930's (might be tough, minimal coverage of this period)
 * 1943/44 needs fleshing out
 * Info on his love of the establishment/aristocracy (he wanted to be a quiet part of the higher echelons).

DYK
From the page of May 18, 2012 - 'On this day/Did you know...'

"... that Brigadier Dudley Clarke, despite having been less than a year old at the time, tried to claim the Queen's South Africa Medal (pictured) for his participation in the Siege of Ladysmith?"

Might need re-wording to say that although aged less than one at the time of the Siege of Ladysmith, as an adult Clarke tried to claim a medal for participation in the Siege.

Here are all those tildes Wikipedia wants, so as to identify me as me! - 220.233.10.130 (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I presumed it to be self evident that he would be grown up; although earlier drafts of the hook included the word "later" --Errant (chat!) 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Who ran Sentinel and Bertram?

 * Fascinating stuff. I'm a bit worried, though, by the claims that Clarke with the few members of 'A' Force (including the notably untruthful Jasper Maskelyne) carried off Operations Sentinel and Bertram for the 2nd battle of El Alamein. The account by Middle East Command's Director of Camouflage, Geoffrey Barkas, makes it clear that whatever Clarke did - presumably, suggesting deception to Alexander and Montgomery - the deceptions at all scales in both operations were devised and executed by Camouflage, in collaboration with the Royal Engineers (who built the trackways, etc) on the orders of Brigadier de Guingand (B.G.S. 8th Army), with plentiful support from many departments including R.A.S.C. and the Pioneers. Refs - Peter Forbes, Dazzled and Deceived, 2009, pp 163-169; Barkas, The Camouflage Story, 1952, pp 153-216; Rick Stroud 2012, The Phantom Army of Alamein, 191-203. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... "few" is not a good description, by that point they had a substantial staff. 'A' Force were in charge of strategic planning for deception in the region - so they would not have implemented anything directly, but all of those operations would have originated in their offices. 'A' Force tended to sketch out the skeleton for a plan and then liaise with e.g. Camoflage who would implement the details. I've tried to stick to using the word "planning" throughout to emphasise this role, but I will take another look and ensure that it is clear he wasn't commanding fake tank regiments directly (with that said, Victor Jones was directly responsible for some fake regiments during that period - does he feature in the sources?). The Barkas source I would take care with due to the date; very little of the deception material was released until the 70's so his account is almost certainly missing substantial portions, especially in the planning/organisation areas. The other sources I will look into :) --Errant (chat!) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The picture is not of Dudley Clarke
Don't know who it is, but Dudley Clarke it's not. 96.231.216.42 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that assuredly is not Clarke. It looks a bit like Mure, who worked for Clarke. 71.167.227.192 (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to go ahead and delete the picture. It is simply wrong (compare, e.g., the authentic picture of Clarke in civilian clothes later in the article), and should not continue to be displayed.71.167.224.131 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? The faces in the two photos look rather similar to me, but then I don't know what Mure looked like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely certain. Clarke never had a moustache.  He was not bald, or not so much as the man in the picture.  The man in the picture is simply not Dudley Clarke.  For a picture of the real Clarke, see e.g. the frontispiece of the book by Holt cited in the references.  71.167.224.131 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I was always quite unsure it was Clarke, but it got added during, I think, A-Class review, by another editor - and I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The photograph was part of a private archive (that I tracked down once it had been placed on the page) and the owner said he thought it was Clarke, but was a little unsure. I'm currently figuring out if that sketch in the cover of Holt is war art and crown copyright - if it is then I'll get that uploaded ASAP. --Errant (chat!) 10:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing. According to the credits, the Holt frontispiece is Imperial War Museum.  71.167.224.131 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is here: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/21684 But the copyright status of the image is unclear. I am not sure if War Art falls under Crown Copyright. --Errant (chat!) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it's been added.71.167.224.131 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Too soon after DYK?
As soon as I saw this article on the main page I remembered reading it from a recent DYK tag. Surely a bit of forward planning to prevent such occurrences is not too much to expect. What do others think? Downsize43 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Recent? 18th May 2012, so 8 months ago, give or take a couple of days.  That's not "recent" in anyone's book. Disclosure: I am one of the small team that chooses the articles that appear as "Today's Featured Article" (either following requests at WP:TFAR or off our own bat). I in fact chose Clarke's article for today, and yes indeed you are expecting too much when you say that TFAs should not have appeared on the main page in the previous eight months - we have quite enough to worry about in choosing a selection of articles from across the world and across the various topics in which Wikipedia has FAs without adding another arbitrary restriction.  I cannot remember anyone ever complaining about this issue before, as it happens, so you perhaps ought to win a prize for finding a new ground of complaint about the TFA, at least... BencherliteTalk 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Complaint? Since when did a reasonable suggestion become a complaint? FWIW I can see your point, given that we are only part-time unpaid drudges trying to make the world a better place. Downsize43 (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you said "Surely a bit of forward planning to prevent such occurrences is not too much to expect" i.e. that there was no forward planning and that this situation should have been avoided. That's a complaint, based on a false premise of a "recent" DYK appearance, and based on (to my mind) an unreasonable suggestion that the timing of the appearance as TFA should depend on the date of any appearance at DYK.  But this is off-topic for this talk page.  If you want to copy this and invite further discussion from others as a new talk page section at WT:TFAR, please do so.  BencherliteTalk 10:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Has it been only 8 months! Wow, seems like a lot longer since I delved down this rabbit hole :D --Errant (chat!) 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That Clarke named the US Rangers is improbable
It is quite unlikely that Clarke originated the idea that the American special troops should be called "Rangers." The citations from Rankin do not seem to support the statement. The term was a well-established one in US history, including Rogers's Rangers, the Texas Rangers, Mosby's Rangers, etc.; see the Wikipedia article "United States Army Rangers". Some have said that Clarke, inspired by the movie "Northwest Passage", suggested the term to General Donovan, head of OSS. Even if he did so, Donovan had nothing to do with the Rangers - which were activated under that name as early as May 1942, see Wikipedia article "1st Ranger Battalion (United States)", while Clarke first met Donovan in October of that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Try Rankin pg. 317 (there are lots of varied copies of this book); Clarke met Donnovan in Jan 1941, and wrote for him a paper about commando tactics at the same time as suggesting the name. --Errant (chat!) 09:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I stand corrected as to first meeting.  But Rankin cites as source the Vivian Dykes diaries p.34, which doesn't seem to mention the Rangers, as least as far as is searchable on Google Books.  Just says they met with Clarke for an hour "about the Commandos, started after Dunkirk to regain the offensive spirit."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try and locate the source and see what I can find out. Thanks for pursuing this. --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not read the source in question, but the tone of the article gives me... concerns.  It very much gives the impression that rather than using this is one of multiple sources for a particular claim, it's often simply paraphrasing Rankin in (what's intended to be) editorial wikivoice.  That might be problematic both for verifiability and for style.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cutting the lead.
Having examined the over long lead I have decided to make a considerable cut to make the article look better. It's been my experience on the wiki over the past few years that the lead should only contain a brief outline of the body of the article. In this case it was like an article on its own and covered far too much of what could more easily and better explained in the main article. Others may disagree but if so then please let's discuss and find a way of condensing the lead rather than have a large preamble such as the one I removed. All for the good of the wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss then, as your cut was too extensive - WP:LEAD allows for a lead of several paragraphs for an article of this length, and I think the original lead served its purpose far better than your more spartan version. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe the lead is far too long.  Perhaps we should ask for other opinions from the Military History department?  SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, though I will note that you were reverted by another MilHist member. Is there a less drastic cut that might serve as a middle ground? I will take a closer look at that possibility. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's always a middle ground. I accept that my cut may have been a little bit too much for some, especially if they were involved in writing it. I hadn't noticed it was a MilHist member who reverted me.  SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi There. So worth bearing in mind this article has had a Featured Article review, so it's definitely worth checking through those comments (we discussed the lead, and possibly trimmed it, I don't recall - will check). I am a bit confused by your edit though. Leads should summarise the entire article (see WP:LEAD; "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview."); this one is what... 5,000 words/30,000+ characters so definitely needs a summary (WP:LEADLENGTH suggests 4 paragraphs). I've no issues if you believe the lead to be too lengthy and have sensible suggestions for trimming fat from it. However it looks like you removed the final three (of four) paragraphs which rendered the lead to contain barely any information. With a lengthy and mostly completed article the rule of thumb is, in general, for the lead to be copy-pastable as an overview article in its own right, which was my aim in for this article :) (I guess in short; I am asking what justification you have for such a drastic cut other than it being your preference?) --Errant (chat!) 22:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed that it had a Featured Article Review. I went entirely by what I felt were the aesthetics of the lead.  In retrospect perhaps I was too hasty but, given the interventions, no harm has been done.  I still feel the lead is too long but I will withdraw and allow the authors who achieved the Featured Article to re-examine and edit where necessary.  Thank you for your patience. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Operation Camilla
East African Campaign (World War II) Added a paragraph here yesterday from Rankin, who wrote of the deception being about British Somaliland not Italian as it is in the text here. Is it a typo? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Duff references
A lot of the page numbers for the Rankin reference are wrong. If I remember and can be bothered I'll start correcting them later this evening. DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At a guess, due to different editions? Kindle, hardback, and paperback eds all have different lengths.  OTOH the reference is by ISBN, so should be unambiguous as to which.  It might be useful to readers to include both HB and PH page numbers, but I'm not sure if there's any accepted or elegant way to combine those.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeh this will be differences in editions; are you using hard copy or digital? I'd suggest not using the digital edition as sometimes that can vary even across device. I can dig out my copy and verify the print date/edition to add to the bibliography. Errant (chat!) 23:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have either, just chiming in on the general point. If it's one or the other, HB is likely indeed the best choice.  If there's an elegant way to combine both, that'd be ideal, but I'm none the wiser as to how to do that.  (Assuming the earlier page-references aren't just completely wrong for some other reason.)  Let's make sure it doesn't end up stranded using a mish-mash of the two!
 * BTW, as you have and are evidently familiar with this source, any change you could check the article for over-reliance on it? If it's making dubious or over-excitable claims we might want to make sure we're not just copying from it in wikivoice, and make look for other sources in confirmation (or to counter-steer in the other direction, as appropriate.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and IPs, no, I'm using the same edition as specified in the article, with the same ISBN. It's on Archive.org. It's increasingly unusual for a paperback edition of a work like this to have different pagination anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just one IP. I'll bet good money that it's what's happened anyway:  that someone has used the PB page numbers, even though someone else (or even they themself) have used the HB ISBN.  And as I say, they very clearly are different in this case.  That will vary, as you might have a "trade paperback" ed with the name page layout as the PB, or a small-format paperback with a completely different one.  Sometimes even both successively for the same title.  Anyhoo, if everyone editing the article at present is working from the HB edition, and that's what's cited, the point's fairly moot, and we should use that.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the sort of thing one imagines would be checked as part of "good article" assessment, but as I have seen on many "good articles", it very obviously isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A _featured_ article, no less. Though one that was actually assessed quite a while ago, so possibly "when we knew better, we did better".  But just as the edits are made by whomever turns up, likewise the assessments.  With their feet of clay and whatever else.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the refs have been done using refnames which are then defined in a separate section. The refnames incorporate the wrong page numbers. It seems to be the most obnoxious possible way of using short references. The quickest fix will be to change the Rankins to sfn, but last time I tried that on an article I got reverted by a WP:CITEVAR fan. So do we want correct refs that aren't strictly in accordance with the MOS, or wold we rather have incorrect ones which are? DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi folks! So I'm saddened to see the tone here; and I don't think we need anything radical. The refs are correct, I think, but the bibliography is wrong - probably just a copy over from the "original" article before I expanded it and missed on review. 90% sure my copy is HB from 2009, but we just moved so my library is in storage. Hopefully I can check in a few weeks. That said describing a perfectly OK referencing format as "obnoxious" isn't really helping. I put 100's of hours into researching and writing this article, and several well respected reviewers helped check and improve it over 10's of hours. In fact I am certain we discussed Rankin in detail on someones talk page as part of it. Driving by and finding errors is much appreciated as you can see in my first comment - but snarky commentary isn't especially friendly and rather undermines your assisstance... For the referencing - if we do get to changing the actual pages then I gently suggest that Find/Replace will far more quickly and efficiently fix the issue.:) --Errant (chat!) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like Google Books has the 2009 Edition on preview, which appears to marry up to the right pages, so I am 99% certain that's the one. Errant (chat!) 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I look forward to you fixing your errors. You may want to check the rest of your refs. I don't feel inclined to offer you any more help, except to say that what you call "driving by" is what I call "reading". Try to think of the reader, not your hundreds of hours or your "well-respected" reviewers. If I bought a book with errors like those I'd want my money back. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those in glass houses Errant (chat!) 09:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

To the point in question; I've confirmed that this is just the fact that the book seems to have been published several times between 2008 and 2010 under different names by different publishers (and in several different formats). I've corrected it to the right Edition and cross checked. I haven't checked if there is any meaningful difference between the two, but I suspect the main thing is UK vs. US publication. --Errant (chat!) 10:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to either excoriate the FAC process (or indeed the GAC one) or to valorise it as definitivising the current version. I think it's much too reliant on this single source, which is a considerably larger issue than page numbers. But on either, please let's keep it civil. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)