Talk:William Henry Strahan

Paragraph about Strahan's son
This edit restores a paragraph about Strahan's son, Herbert Elwell, that I had deleted in a previous edit.

I don't believe that paragraph belongs in the article, because the article is about William Henry, not his son.

(When I deleted the paragraph, it was a single edit including several other edits, all commented "copy-edit", so it's plausible that, thought I removed the paragraph by accident, and was merely fixing my perceived error.)

Can I have a few other opinions on whether the paragraph should stay or go. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Its common WP practice for articles to include information on a persons children/parents where it has a connection with the subject. Ignoring that practice as his son the information does belong here, his poem/song bugle call is significant in that it reveals how Strahan thought about the war and ones duty... Despite his father being killed in action his son enlisted this is another significant link in how those beliefs endured through his family and the influence that had. Gnangarra 06:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Is The Bugle Call a poem or a song?
Is The Bugle Call a poem or a song? The article doesn't tell us. It previously said "Strahan wrote a The Bugle Call ...", which I've changed to "Strahan wrote The Bugle Call ...", so its grammatically correct, although no more informative.

The article refers to lyrics and there is a chorus, which suggests a song, but I can't find any mention of music. The only mention I can find anywhere of poem or song is which says Strahan was a "poet". (Everything else says "verses".) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to read anything into the utterances of my dyslexic fingers, starting an article I spend a lot of time rewording sectioning and developing the lead occasionally I'll miss inclusion/removal of a word when rewording. The sources I have found were very unclear about whether it was a poem or song I do lean towards it being song by the use of terms like lyric and chorus in more sources yet as you pointed out the only sourcing says poet. Hoping that up coming events will shed some light on finding an answer. Gnangarra 23:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of possible refs:
 * http://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/7219820 - says "poetry". It links to http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57802043, which says "poem". Does anyone have full access to AustLit, thus possibly more information about that entry?
 * http://issuu.com/northernvalleysnews/docs/nvnmay2013 (page 17) - says "poem" (perhaps it's worth trying to contact the author?) - this ref is already in the article (for other reasons)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * as I said there isnt a clear answer to this, yes some sources use poem but what was actually originally published appears suggest it to be more of a song, though no musical tune was ever associated with it at that time. I'm working on establishing clarity on this but it aint going to be an over night solution and it may be one of those instances where clarity will never be established. Gnangarra 17:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone familiar with Eric Bogle's songs regarding the first world war will realise the ease of transition of poems to a song - regardless of whether anyone has evidence or not. satusuro 00:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If they were used as marching songs - they tended to be brief so as to be easily repeated - see http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/songs-of-war-patriotic satusuro 00:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

King George V does not belong in lead
I don't believe that this sentence:

belongs in the lead section. It's not one of "the most important points" of the article. Any objections to its deletion? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the upcoming DYK can mention the King without requiring that the King be mentioned in the lead section of the article. WP:DYK (3a) requires that that fact be "mentioned in the article" (my emphasis), not that it be mentioned in the lead section. Mitch Ames (not currently logged in) (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.66 (talk)
 * the Kings response was a significant factor in it being republished after his death and again in the 1940's all of which contributed to his notability. The fact that the King commented about something written by a non-commissioned soldier in "the colonies" is significant for the time period. Gnangarra 08:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Response's author

 * We might need to reword the text (lead section and The Bugle Call section), because the King did not write the response, his private secretary did. I accept that the secretary might write - in general - on behalf of the King but the wording of the letter does not refer to the King in the first person, nor (based on the newspaper's transcript, in the absence of an image of the letter) is it signed by the King or per procurationem. Thus the statement that "King George V wrote ..." is not verifiably true, with the current source(s). Even if we suppose that the King dictated the letter ("wrote" in the general sense) and the secretary physically put pen to paper, that is WP:SYN based on the letter's wording (one source), and knowledge of secretarial practice (a second source), and possibly regal practice of referring to oneself in the third person (if they did). If one reads the letter - as quoted in the newspaper - literally, the secretary wrote it, not the King. Likewise for
 * While Stamfordham's letter explicitly says that the King read the verses, and "appreciates fully the loyalty and patriotic sentiments", it does not say "The King says/responds that the writer [of the verses] acted [gallantly]" - it merely states "... the writer [acted gallantly]" without explicitly indicating whether that opinion was that of the King or the secretary.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This change removes the explicit (unverified) statement that the King opined that Strahan had "acted up ... to the spirit of his utterances", while still keeping the regal response. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This change removes the explicit (unverified) statement that the King opined that Strahan had "acted up ... to the spirit of his utterances", while still keeping the regal response. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of ranks
I propose that the ranks sergeant major, sergeant should be lower case (not capitalised) per MOS:MILTERMS, because they are not proper nouns in this context. A search through the articles about those ranks for the term "rank of" illustrates that in the context "rank of ..." capitalisation is not required. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill/Will
Following on from User Talk:Mitch Ames and User talk:Farmnana - it would probably be worth citing the postcards as a reference for "Will". As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, the source need not be easily accessible for it to be used as a reference. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I've added an inline cite (in the infobox) for Bill - a new one can be added for Will. Eg

(With dates etc, as appropriate) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)