Talk:Youngest British soldier in World War I

Move
As mentioned in the discussion here at this article's DYK nomination, at least two of us are of the opinion that this article should either be divided between its subjects; moved to British child soldiers; or moved to Child soldiers during World War I. Compare, e.g., the other articles in Category:Child soldiers. — Llywelyn II   10:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with such an expansion of the article, I even think it is a good idea. However, such an expansion would be a substantial amount of work and I am not intending to do it.  If you are, you have my support, but I don't think the article should be retitled as it is with no intention of expanding because that is not currently its subject.  That I wouldn't support.


 * The article was originally a WP:CSD rescue. After rescuing it I discovered Lewis' story had very recently been (re)discovered so I added it.  That's as far as I intend to go with this but good luck to anyone else who wants to take it on.  Spinning  Spark  17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:PUS
pretty much crosses off the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail for use here. The Telegraph article is just written about having read the Times article, so you're really down to one source for most of this. Go ahead and remove the tabloids and make sure the ST article supports the info here. — Llywelyn II   11:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:PUS does not forbid the use of tabloids as sources, it only suggests that they should not be used if more respected source exists. Both the Mail and the Mirror have snippets of information that do no appear in other sources so there use is justified even according to WP:PUS, only an essay in any case.  The Mirror in particular is hard to exclude as it was this paper that reported the case at the time in 1916.  In any case, if multiple sources are demanded but only one broadsheet source is found then the logic of WP:PUS must be that tabloid sources are allowable under such circumstances.  I don't follow your argument that the Telegraph is to be excluded because it is reporting what someone else said.  That is the very definition of secondary source which is what Wikipedia is supposed to rely on.  Spinning  Spark  18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coverage
In its present form, this is also a somewhat misleading article. It seems to be mostly focused on who 'wins' the 'distinction' of being the youngest child soldier. In fact, military use of children is a generally sickening and (frankly) barbaric practice. There should be thorough explanation of the lengths the British went to to avoid the use of children and greater focus on ways some kids (and these miscreants in particular) circumvented those measures. (In the alternative, if the Brits were fine with kids or grew increasingly fine with kids as the war dragged on, focus more on that.) — Llywelyn II   10:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of recruiting practices at the time is that it was very much the case that rules were routinely bent to allow underage boys to sign up. Twelve and thirteen year olds were quite rare and probably recruiting officers would fish them out if they suspected they were that young, but nevertheless, underage soldiers were far from isolated cases.
 * This article is not currently about child soldiers in WWI, it is about the yougest soldier. As I said above, I don't have a problem with it being refocused, but that's a bigger job.  If we are just talking about Lewis (or his predecessor met by Maher) then the article exactly addresses the title.  You won't find a source on Lewis that focuses on anything other than him being the youngest soldier in the war.  Spinning  Spark  18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Developing this article
, I'm looking to expand this article to be a more general discussion of underage soldiers in the British army during the first world war and depending on it's size once that's done I may look at expanding it to cover child soldiers in ww1 more generally.--Llewee (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a different subject and should be a new page. This article has always been about the youngest soldier.  That can only be one person. The more general topic is an important (and horrifying) piece of history and is certainly something that should be written, but this article is a poor starting point for that. SpinningSpark 16:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)