Talk:Hector MacDonald

homosexuality
We need more discussion on his alleged homosexuality. If the allegations were fabricated then why did he not contest them, instead of committing suicide? Having a wife and son does not refute this. PatGallacher 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is all in "Fighting Mac: The Downfall of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald" by Trevor Royle. Or any other bio of him. I cannot believe that that is "not good enough" for Wikipedia. Claiming him as an LBGT is simply a political act and an outrage. Read the bios of him!


 * Why is it an outrage? What have you got against LGBT people?  Are you simply assuming that a British general of his ability cannot have been gay? PatGallacher 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What have you got against straight people? In a previous message you stated that it was "suspicious" that someone said MacDonald was married. Do some research on Hector MacDonald, read the EVIDENCE and then come back and contribute. (Unsigned)

It is outrageous to claim someone is unfaithful to his wedding vows, when he is not. Also, underage sex is statutory rape, whatever the sex. This article needs a little more discussion of the evidence.

Was he railroaded? Or caught? His suicide could fit either case ( innocent because of the weight of the disgrace involved, guilty for obvious reasons.). Putting him in the homo/gay/GLBT category makes a definite decision. Is it correct?

I would also like to know more about this supposed message from the King. On what authority does it rest?

This modern novelist who writes about Mac's meeting with a young Crowley, he must have a view. We could put that in, for a start. 68.108.171.141 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

rancor...
Ouch, y'all! Either he's gay or he's not - there's no need to get uncivil about it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that MacDonald had an affair with the son of Governor Ridgeway is the first time that I have heard that one - and I have done a lot of research on MacDonald. I went to the claimed source and Judd does not source his claim at all. It is just stated as being "widely believed". I'm an academic and that is simply not good enough as a source. The claim that he "seems to have cultivated loving relations with boys" again is not sourced. In fact, the expert on MacDonald, Kenneth MacLeod states that there is absolutely no evidence to support the allegations against MacDonald (The Ranker, 1976; A Victim of Fate, 1978). In addition, his principal friend wasn't Alaister Robertson the "Glenalmond schoolboy from Aberdeen". Robertson was simply a pen friend and MacDonald, as a major hero of the Empire at the time, particularly post-Omdurman, corresponded with numerous people who wrote to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I agree with the anon on this one, SqueakBox 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on his contribution, as it is has no bearing on the material presented by Judd, material which, unlike his musings, IS a proper source for an entry here. However, I think we should take into consideration the repeated comments of this individual, evincing aggression, bigotry and a chip on the shoulder. The comments, rather than his message, invalidate his argument. Let no one be surprised if I revert material inserted by this type of individual. Haiduc 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, this is a logical fallacy. The comments on your contribution are fairly sourced. It is the message that needs to be acknowledged, not where or who they come from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

There is a Family in Australia whose Family History suggests that it was not Hector McDonald's body that was found in Paris, but one used as a cover up.

Their records show that Hector McDonald managed to return to South Africa using a false name, married a young woman, and later sailed to Australia. The name he became known by was Reginald (after Hotel Regina) and they named one of their Sons, Hector McDonald -. I will not give the surname in order to protect the living Family.

In "Reginald's" Family, paedophillia was rife, and many of his current day decendants are also gay and/or child sex abusers.

Reginald did not use the surname McDonald, but had a Family Bible which stated his Parent's Names and details, which match Hector McDonald....

There is absolutely no record of this Reginald - being born with that name, nor any Boer War Records in that name, but he was most certainly in it.

Does anybody know any details about the letter that was held in Trust to be opened after 100 years had passed, in regards to Hector McDonald? Apparently, when the 100 years was up, the letter was opened but resealed as they did not want to reveal the information contained. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who really knows? (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

POV - Whitewashed article censoring evidence of homosexual interest
While I have no objection to all points of view being presented, I will not agree to deletion of material documenting MacDonald's interest in boys on the basis of spurious opinion and OR. Haiduc 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"MacDonald's interest in boys" has no evidence other than unsourced secondary material. Or your fantasies. Not good enough. The official report exonerated MacDonald but over a hundred years later someone interested in paedophilia knows better? Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 19:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, and it would help if you stopped hiding behind anonymity. What's wrong with using secondary sources? We should not treat the official enquiry as gospel. PatGallacher 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith? This guy's interests are in pederasty i.e. paedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 20:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion on this issue. However your hysterical tone and ad hominem attacks do not convince me that the allegations of sodomy etc. against MacDonald can be regarded as conclusively disproved. We are supposed to aim for a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. If the discussion continues in this way I may raise a Request for Comment. PatGallacher 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem against a perverted paedophile with a track record on other web sites? You bet. If one looks at Haiduc’s history on Wikipedia, it is clear that his whole agenda is to insert references to paedophilia into irrelevant articles (e.g. the Happy Prince by Wilde, Batman etc). There is also a lot of discussion about his activities on other websites.

Haiduc has been previously asked: “You think I should support your efforts to insert references to homosexuality into what seems to be every article on Wikipedia?... I've seen your posts to Passion Histoire, read your comments across the Internet about pederasty on the strangest of websites (the Hindu forums?) and noted that your Bebo account's friends are all under 18. You and I both know why you edit pederastic articles and it's not because of your concern for their welfare.”

And in April 2007 he was asked: “It is precisely because I am "head of the gay pages" that I am trying to make you see what damage you are making to our cause. Your desire to insert pederasty into everything should be curbed because it's not there and it's making us, and Wikipedia, look bad…you are merely forcing pederastic ideals onto other articles. Surely you can see the difference between fighting to include verifiable information and trying to force inappropriate content, images and categories onto articles? And I simply don't believe you when you say that these accounts on other sites aren't yours. They claim to be you, and they write like you, and they provide the same information you have provided here. They demonstrate the same single minded obsession with pederasty, claim to be writing a book on the subject and hold your job. FYI, I certainly do not go hanging around on sites that discuss pederasty in French, I background checked you when you made several dodgy comments over the NAMBLA thing and I got concerned…Basically Haiduc, I am asking you to please cease adding suspect content, images and categories to non-pederastic articles."

But we should "assume good faith".......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 21:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am still slightly suspicious of anyone who gets into Wikipedia controversy while hiding behind anonymity. If you have complaints about Haiduc's behaviour generally then raise an RFC about it, or on his talk page. Just because he raises issues of pederasty on several articles does not mean that all his edits are illegitimate. PatGallacher 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we should stick to the topic. It does not matter who or what I am. Personal attacks only open you to scrutiny, as in: why are you so invested in covering this up??? If the information is valid then it belongs, if it is not then I will be happy to discard it. Let's not get attached to pro or con, it is a waste of time. Haiduc 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a paedophile who has been exposed as relentlessly pushing a paedophile agenda on Wikipedia and inserting false references about the non-existent paedophilic tendencies of subjects on a variety of pages. This is but one of them. I beg to differ that it "does not matter who or what you are". What "pros" are there about abusing children, incidentally? I can think of plenty of cons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.105.46 (talk) 21:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * I am here to edit, and my edits live or die by their merits. That is all. I am sorry you are so worked up, and I am sorry you feel the need to project concepts upon me which are alien to me. Please join us in editing this encyclopedia on the basis of the rules which we have developed here - if you coupled your passion with your reason you would probably become an asset here. Haiduc 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been no attempt for some time to add to this discussion, or justify the NPOV flag on this article. I will remove it soon if nobody objects. PatGallacher (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed so far but by all means remove the NPOV flag. I'd personally recommend Eachann nan Cath by Friseal. A, Gairm, Glasgow 1979 (Eachann = Hector) to anyone interested in his biography because it take the Gaelic sources into account as well (which are often ignored in spite of the fact that he was a Gaelic through and through). Probably not that accessible to most people but informative nonetheless. Eachann would have been pleased to be able to be open about his sexuality. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has been flagged on LGBT board. Please let's not get into ad hominems here. If there is good evidence that secondary sources address the issue of his sexual behaviour then it should be added. As far as I know there reallty is no surviving evidence substantiating the allegations. That does not mean that they aren't true, just that nothing in writing survives. Bring the sources and address them. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I've just checked the source. It is very straightforward. It says the following:

"The essence of the accusations that had led Macdonald to the brink of a court martial was that he was a pederast. His ruin had begun some months earlier when a British tea-planter had discovered him in some sort of sexual activity with four Sinhalese boys in a compartment of a railway carriage in Kandy...A number of damning charges were laid before the Governor, Sir Donald Ridegeway. Ridgeway became convinced that MacDonald had taken advantage of the relatively relaxed Sinhalese attitude towards homosexual activity to become systematically involved with, possibly, scores of local boys. Some of these, Ridgeway ruefully noted, are the sones of the best known men in the colony, English and Native".

Denis Judd, Empire: The British Imperial Experience, from 1765 to the Present, 2001, p.171-2. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Governor in of Ceylon in question was actually called Joseph West Ridgeway, which casts doubt on how reliable a source this is. PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It casts doubt on how reliable my powers of rapid typed transcription are. I happen to know of someone else called Donald Ridgeway, and so accidentally mistranscribed it. You will see that I gave the correct version in the article itself. You can consult the book yourself via Amazon preview. I would have looked at the other main book, Fighting Mac, but that is not availible for preview, nor is it in either of my local academic libraries. However, I did at make an effort to reliably source and footnote, somthing absent from most assertions in this article. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, My sole knowledge of McDonald before today came from the Independent newspaper, which had an article about him a couple of years ago, occasioned by a change in the design of the label for Camp Coffee, which was said to be based on him. It might be worth mentioning that somewhere. Unfortunately I don't have the article any more. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually there is primary material. Hector had a long running relationship with a chap called Alexander whom he met in 1898 in Aberdeen with whom he exchanged many letters. I only have the Gaelic text, he signs off one with a request for news and everything about yourself, you being my most beloved (translation by me). The source for the original letters in print is given as Montgomery, J. Toll for the Brave, Max Parish, London 1963. They were still writing to each other in 1900 when he was in South Africa, from where Hector sent Alexander chocolate while he received photographs of Alexander (same source). I would say fairly conclusive unless someone can give me a good reason why he'd call a young lad "most beloved"... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny - people in Aberdeen don't speak Gaelic and haven't done so for 400+ years. They speak Doric. Somehow, I don't believe you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.92.223 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well look it up in the book that has been referenced openly here rather than making empty accusations on such feeble grounds. There were no Gaelic speakers ever to be met with in Aberdeen? Paul B (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, go ahead, if you make reasonable edits to this article based on this material then they will be considered on their merits. Actually, at present I'm inclined to think the allegations against MacDonald were probably true, although I am open to persuasion, but all points of view should be given reasonable mention. PatGallacher (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary material should be treated with caution. I've no idea what the phrase my most beloved may imply, especially as it is a translation from Gaelic. We would have to have evidence that it's more than a mere expression. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, 1) Gaelic is spoken in Aberdeenshire. 2) Hector was from Dingwall and is known to have been a fluent Gaelic speaker. 3) The unsigned remark is a bit beside the point, I never said that he actually wrote that in Gaelic. The quote is from a Gaelic biography ON him, not by him. Hence the Gaelic. 4) I agree with Paul that such material has to be treated with care, especially since it was written in English (I doubt Alex spoke Gaelic), translated into Gaelic for the book and then re-translated by me. On the other hand, the phrase used is NOT one you would use for a simple friend in Gaelic. Not even your brother.


 * So yes, it's not "explicit" but this was the 1800's, being gay was illegal. He was hardly going to put a Graham Norton style explicit coming-out statement into any of his writings, was he? I think it's the best "evidence" we're ever going to get. Perhaps it could be worded in such a way that there is material, including the later court case, that points towards him being gay indeed but that it's difficult to say with total certainty. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories 'Category:LGBT people from Scotland' and 'Category:Modern pederasty'
I have removed both of these for the following reasons 1 we cannot really have both without an implied and unwarranted slight on the LGBT community 2 there is no good encyclopedic source for either his pedarasty or gay sexuality 3 what is known is referenced in the article and since it includes a vindication of his reputation by a commission of enquiry as well as some suggestion he was persecuted by the English establishment it seems invidious to categorise him thus in Wikipedia.

I hope the community will agree this is a reasonable and sensible thing to do and will not indulge itself in yet another bout of essentially barren discussion as above, much of which was contributed by an editor plainly with an axe to grind regarding his valorisation of pedarasty and whom I notice has now been banned from editing Wikipedia by an arbitration committee.138.199.79.149 (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored them. For starters, it's better to debate such changes first. On the pedarasty, I could be swayed either way as to some extent that depends on your definition of a minor in that period. But there are very good sources that confirm him being gay - I'm not entirely sure what your bone with the existing sources is. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Rather my position would be for you to justify including these categories. I can't improve my points by repeating them and shall let a debate run a while before seeking arbitration.138.199.79.149 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't really made a point. You said there is "no good encyclopedic source for either his pedarasty or gay sexuality" but you fail to state what your objection to the existing references is. Eachann nan Cath explicitly refers to it and I assume so does Judd. So what's your gripe with those? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality is the relevant policy here:


 * For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.


 * For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such.


 * Other examples spring to mind: Leonardo da Vincy,  Baden-Powell,  Montgomery of Alamein. All these people have articles mentioning the possibility of gay or pederastic inclinations but none categorise them thus.


 * I note the world has not rushed to your defence here (no doubt in part because of 138.199.79.149's point it implies a slur on the LGBT community). I ask you to delete these categories failing which I shall do so myself and if necessary go to arbitration thereafter (but please don't waste the community's time over this). FightingMac (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (added) pace your 'assumption' about Judd see above (which I should have hoped you had read)
 * The claim that MacDonald had an affair with the son of Governor Ridgeway is the first time that I have heard that one - and I have done a lot of research on MacDonald. I went to the claimed source and Judd does not source his claim at all. It is just stated as being "widely believed". I'm an academic and that is simply not good enough as a source. The claim that he "seems to have cultivated loving relations with boys" again is not sourced. In fact, the expert on MacDonald, Kenneth MacLeod states that there is absolutely no evidence to support the allegations against MacDonald (The Ranker, 1976; A Victim of Fate, 1978). ...
 * The fact is there is no scholarly consensus about his sexuality and there is a cogent and respectable body of opinion which represents him as persecuted by the English establishment. What is at stake here is not the inclusion in the article of notable issues regarding his sexuality but his categorisation as having a particular sexuality. Please remove these categories as their inclusion is clearly against Wikipedia policy. FightingMac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
 * A lot of people have been persecuted by the "English establishment" but accusing people of being gay was hardly a commonplace thing, otherwise there would be thousands of cases like Eachann's. I'm getting the feeling that it's actually some editors who somehow feel that talking about this aspect of his bio is somehow a slur on him. There's a fine line between trying to be historically accurate when sources we would deem reliable today are scarce and trying to airbrush LGBT people off the historical record. We don't have any proof in the sense of a medical record or a picture catching Alexander the Great in flagranti either... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat (wearily): 'What is at stake here is not the inclusion in the article of notable issues regarding his sexuality but his categorisation as having a particular sexuality.' FightingMac (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Alexander the Great you raise, that's yet another example where notable issues of sexuality are discussed in an article yet the sexuality itself isn't categorised. I ask you to try and concentrate on the issue here. FightingMac (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Categories are there to help people find articles relevant to a topic. If one is interested in cases of "modern pederasty", then one goes to the category pages and looks at the articles in it. Removing this article would diminish that function. Categories are not labels. They are tools to help users of the encyclopedia. This article clearly addresses those issues. So it's really not a question whether the charges were true or not - ultimately of course we cannot ever be sure what really happened - but whether the article significantly addresses the topic. There are always ambiguous cases. You mention Baden-Powell and Montgomery. In both those cases the supposed "pederasty" is nothing more than showing an interest in the future of various boys. This was considered entirely normal and proper at the time. There was never any allegation of any sexual acts at all. That's one reason why I find Hyam's comparisons, quoted in this article, to be completely ridiculous. In the case of Gordon and Montgomery this "protection" by the "loyalty of their staff" is completely imaginary: because there was nothing that needed protecting. So it's arguable that it would be inappropriate to include those articles. In this case, I think there can be no such argument. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed the LGBT people from Scotland category since there doesn't seem to be consensus for inclusion, maybe if more folks would chime in, that could help. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Supported. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support the inclusion of the categories. They are there to help people identify articles of interest. They're not about setting things in stone. I don't know why people get so worked up about categories! Anyone coming to the article could read about the nuances.Contaldo80 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyam
I note that PiCo has reverted my changes. First, it is simply inappropriate to insert a quotation without attributing it to an author in the main text. That is normal editorial practice. Second, it is not "historical fact" that there were comparable rumours regarding Gordon and Montgomery (I know nothing about Auchinleck). There were no such rumours at all. Show me any evidence of rumours about group sex with boys, or any kind of sex at all. Note that I did not remove what I personally consider to be a preposterous analogy. I merely attributed it to the actual individual who makes this claim. Again, this is normal editorial practice. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't revert your changes so much as reject them - you introduced a change to the existing text, and it was rejected ("reverted"). The appropriate action for you to take, if you still think your edit is a good one, is to argue for it on Talk, not start an edit war.
 * Second, it's not true that direct quotes are normally attributed in the article itself. They're normally identified through a reference, which is what is done here.
 * Third, I don't have to produce evidence, I only have to quote a reliable source, which Hyam is.
 * I think we need to take this to an administrator, since you evidently have a lot of personal emotion invested in Macdonald. PiCo (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Restoring the original by removing alteration is reverting. That's what the word means. So I fail to see any distinction whatever. And of course I have brought it up on the talk page. Indeed I brought it up on the talk page (see section above) before I made the changes. Yes, it is true that direct quotes are normally attributed in the text. It is very bad practice to just have a "floating" quotation and a footnote, since we don't know whether the words are quoted by the footnoted author or were written by the footnoted author. It is much better to attribute in text. All discussions on reliable sources and attribution I have experienced have taken this view. If you think otherwise then I suggest that you take the matter to the Reliable sources board OR board or any other appropriate venue. By all means take it to an administrator. I am confident he/she will agree with me in this instance. A reliable source is not the same as a source in which all opinions expressed are to be accepted as absolute facts. Reliable sources regularly disagree. I have no emotion invested in Macdonald and I notice that you have not provided any evidence of comparable "rumours". Paul B (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely the rumours about Montgomery and Gordon are common knowledge. What's the problem here? Contaldo80 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What rumours? tell me what the 'rumours' are and when they originated. Then I'll tell you what the problem is, since you seem to have difficulty with the explanation above. I don't actually think there is anything ambiguous about what I wrote. Perhaps you have not read the section above. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh they're pretty common. I've seen them referred to in several documentaries on the BBC etc over the years. Try this for a start http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/26/books.booksnews I'm also surprised that Kitchener wasn't included - I'm pretty sure there are widespread suggestions of either his homosexuality or pederasty (I can't remember which). Contaldo80 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yawn. The point that I made is very clear above. There are innumerable "suggestions" that various figures may have been gay, or "repressed" homosexuals etc etc. These suggestions are often based on vague stories about having close male friends, being unmarried, or showing an interest in boys. The point is that these so-called rumours are - in the specific cases mentioned - fairly recent, or at least that they post-date the career of that actual individual. The link you provide proves my very point since it refers to the claim being made after Montgomery's death. In his lifetime Montgomery was mostly notorious for his homophobic comments. In other words Hyam's claim that he was "protected" by his staff from rumours is simply untrue. There were no such rumours at the time. I think the same is true of Gordon. I don't know about Auchinleck. In Macdonald's case we are talking about the suggestion that he was caught in sexual acts with local youths. In other words Hyam's analogy is simply spurious. Now reliable scholars make mistakes or come up with silly arguments all the time. We can still report their arguments. All I was pointing out is that this argument is particularly feeble and that we should simply state that it is his argumrnt. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Yawn". How incredibly patronising you are. If anyone has been childlike in this debate it has been you. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to not to be patronising when one has to explain simple points over and over. I have only ever made edits to improve this article, maintain balance and argue against simplistic and exaggerated claims by both "sides" on this talk page. I have never used dishonest edit summaries, or made silly pointy edits. I have explained this difference already in the section above. The fact that you apparently cannot understand the huge difference between a claiming that someone may have had repressed homosexual inclinations and claiming they had group sex with boys in a railway carriage is not my fault. So, yes, it is tiring having to repeat the same point over and over. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only part of the text I take issue with is how to characterise what Hyam says about the rumours about Gordon et. al. "Asserts" is loaded - it implies that Wikipedia doubts that such rumours existed. But Hyam is a reliable source, and it's not for us to second-guess what he says. So I've changed this to the more neutral "notes". PiCo (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents, but isn't using "notes" means that he is reporting or repeating a fact (not saying that it isn't a fact)? Can't we use "says" or something like that so we are just reporting what he said? That seems more neutral. These type of newaunces(sp) happen alot but hopefully wise heads will chime in and prevail as they usually do :). Thank you...--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I'll make the change. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The very change I made some while ago, but which PiCo himself reverted in an especially infantile edit . Paul B (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean you suggested this????? I'll change it back! PiCo (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have behaved like a child throughout this discussion. You have added nothing to the debate and have also used spurious and disingenous edit summaries to promote a POV which I suspect you know to be questionable at the very least. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth
There are two different dates of birth in the six language versions of this article: 4 March 1853 in the English ('4 March'), Polish ('4. marca'), Swedish ('4 mars') and Irish ('4 Márta') versions, and 13 April 1853 in the Scottish Gaelic ('an tritheamh là deug dhen Ghiblean' = 'the thirteenth day of April') and German ('13. April') ones. Can someone find out which date is right and arrange for the necessary changes to be made? I've also posted this comment (in English, with apologies!) on the talk pages of the other five versions.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)