Talk:Thomas Snow (British Army officer)

Butcher?
Someone on Gab today was calling him a "Butcher". It's a huge stretch, and I'm just adding 1 + 1 here, but I wonder if the reason for this allegation isn't because he was one of those Officers that recklessly sent men into battle in the trench warfare, particularly just before the end of the war, in an effort to "fluff up" is military record. If this is completely wrong, please feel free to delete. Mentioning it because, if true, that would add and interesting dimension to this article.2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * - what is "Gab", and do you have a link to the allegation?  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * GIYF. "Gab" purports to be a "free speech" alternative to Twitter.  I don't have a link to the "allegation". Mostly posted it here out of curiosity.  If true, maybe something could be mentioned, and if false then the discussion on whether or not it should be addressed and "debunked" should happen, IMO.2605:6000:6947:AB00:11DD:A43D:6F9:D330 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Snow left front-line service and returned to England in 1917, so on the face of it any idea that he was trying to boost his record at the end of the war seems questionable. He was one of the older Generals regularly derided as 'donkeys' due to their performance at the Somme etc. but Gab is not a reliable source so I'm not sure we can add anything to the article based on it.--Shimbo (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of pro
The length of this article seems out of proportion to the notability of its subject. I would suggest it should be cut to about a third of this length. Valetude (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there is no Wikipedia policy that supports your suggestion. Snow is automatically notable as a general (see WP:MILPEOPLE, which states "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they... held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer...". Also, there's nothing in WP:LENGTH regarding less notable subjects requiring shorter articles. Unless you can point to a policy reason for removing content then it shouldn't be removed. --Shimbo (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Another relevant policy is WP:REMOVAL which gives the following reasons for removing information from articles: Unsourced information, Inaccurate information, Information moved to another article, Irrelevant information, Inappropriate content for Wikipedia. None of those reasons seem relevant. --Shimbo (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shimbo that there is no case for the article to be shortened. As a Corps commander, Thomas Snow was a key individual in the First World War. Dormskirk (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The length seems to me to be entirely appropriate - it is easily short enough to read in one sitting, and quicker still if you just skim it. Any decent biography is the "life and times" of the person in question, shedding light on events through which he lived (Le Cateau and the retreat thereafter, the diversionary attack at Gommecourt on 1 July 1916, the purge of older corps commanders after Cambrai - even his charitable work with what were known in less politically correct times as "crippled" boys). But as I'm one of the principal authors (36% of the text according to the page stat pie charts I would say that.Paulturtle (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)