Talk:John Leach (Royal Navy officer)

Recent edits
Edits to Wikipedia must be cited via published sources or they will be reverted. Constant attempts to edit articles without citing sources is vandalism.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC) See the tag at the top of the article page: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."Damwiki1 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Cited sources must support your edits. Since neither source mentions a letter dated 28 May 1941 I reverted them. Wikipedia requires that cited source must specifically support your edits.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Churchill and the Admirals cites Kennedy as a source for the court martial claim, but Roskill makes no mention of whether he agrees or disagrees with Kennedy, therefore Roskill doesn't support your edit, and in footnote 35 (page 123) Roskill states " See Ludovic Kennedy, Pursuit (Collins, 1974) for the most recent and impartial account of this famous saga, told from both sides' point of view." so Roskill praises Kennedy's account as being impartial. The article as it stands includes Roskill's claim of a court martial threat and the footnote merely balances that with Kennedy's own reservations as stated in his Epilogue. Therefore I am removing your edit, although I will add Roskill as a supporting citation for the court martial claim.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. A footnote doesn't give priority to information in the article. A footnote is used to clarify or provide additional, sometimes contrary, information without disturbing the flow of the article. As the Leach article is expanded the footnote will shrink in prominence. Roskill cites Kennedy and nowhere in any of Roskill's published works does he state that he disagrees with Kennedy. The footnote in the Leach and Wake-Walker articles accurately summarizes Kennedy's statements on the matter. Wikipedia requires citing reputable published works and unpublished private letters in an archive are not acceptable, and even if published the letter would have to specifically, explicitly, state that Roskill disagrees with Kennedy's concerns in his Epilogue to Pursuit. I don't quite understand your concerns here as there are no published sources, that I am aware of, that express concern with Kennedy's comments in his Epilogue. I know that wikipedia can be frustrating at times when you feel that something isn't right but it just isn't the proper place to insert original research into a particular topic, as wikipedia forbids that. I would suggest that you expand the article, using published sources which, in turn, will make the footnote less prominent.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for addressing me here (I'm new editing Wikipedia and I get a bit lost in "talk" function. Thanks also for explaining me that only published works can be cited in Wikipedia and not public archives documents such as letters. I will do as you suggest as soon as I can (and as soon as I can understand how to use the editor), updating the text and citing the sources that, in addition to Roskill support the court martial menace. The letter of May 28 from Pound to Tovey, as well as Tovey answer on May 31, 1941, in ADM 178 Admiralty repository, is referred to by R.Brodhurst in his biography of Admiral Pound when he says that the menace was also in writing (and not only verbal, during the phone call mentioned by Roskill and Kennedy).

Also, just for your info, Roskill wrote a letter to Kennedy in 1973 (when the latter asked him to review his "Pursuit" before publication) suggesting him not to trust Paffard, becausae Tovey visited him several times between 1952 and 1960, speaking very lucidly about naval history and accounting for the court martial in a way that Roskill considered reliable. Tovey also wrote in 1961 to Roskill detailing the court martial menace. As a result, after Kennedy publication, Roskill published twice the court-martial story in his books (Naval Policy between the wars, vol.2 + Churchill and the Admirals) providing the ADM 205/10 admiralty file as the proof of the menace and its outcome (until Churchill decision: "Leave it"), thus implicitly disproving Kennedy. All following historians (Correlli-Barnett, Rhys-Jones and Brodhurst among the others) cited Roskill version and not Kennedy one. The only reason why Roskill cited Kennedy, despite having been the source of the story for him, is that Kennedy published it first, adding the disclaimer about the memory against Roskill advise. Thanks again for your hints. Best wishes --Navhistory (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)