Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2013/Op-ed

An intriguing question here, one I don't think any of us have a firm answer for. Thank you, Errant. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While secondary sources always err to a greater or lesser extent, an anonymous or pseudonymous editor here simply cannot be the peer of a reputably published secondary author. What makes us competent to assess the meaning, veracity, or appropriate weight of primary sources? More to the point, how would we demonstrate to readers that we all have such competence? Any mechanism for doing that would be the end of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". So yes, we must wait for a published secondary source to challenge the faulty one before we take issue with it, even when we know better. That said, if we know of such failings, there is no reason we can't publish them elsewhere, just not on Wikipedia. If such publication is credible, independent editors on WP can cite it. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a really interesting article. As ErrantX notes, the quality of sources on intelligence topics vary wildly, and there can be considerable inconsistencies in the 'facts' they provide. Much of this is due to the 'cloak and dagger' nature of the topic, which leads to records being deliberetly not kept, destroyed or declassified long after the event (some WW2-era British intelligence files are apparently still not available to historians as they would identify possibly still-living people). However, the authors of books on intelligence matters are also often at fault: many approach their subject either with an axe to grind against the wickedness of spies or with the deliberate goal of writing a positive 'puff piece'. The trope of the intelligence agency being under-appreciated by unimaginative bureaucrats for far too long also still turns up (as a ridiculous recent example, in his recent book Spies in the Sky Talyor Downing tries to present a supposed slowness to assign Spitfires to RAF photo recon units at the start of WW2 as being a considerable scandal - as the book progresses it turns out that it only took about six weeks for PR Spitfires to go into action after the outbreak of the war, and the PR units were actually given priority access to the type from late 1939!). The official histories of the British intelligence services which have been published since the 1980s are probably the best thing which has been written on the subject of military intelligence, but are far too detailed for casual readers (and, it would seem, many hack historians). Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Only just spotted this was published :) thanks for the kind words. One thing I forgot to mention was the risk in Wikipedia publishing similar falsehoods - because more and more we are being used a basic reference by the pop history writers. A very recent book a friend lent me actually referred to my article on Clarke - the book only tangentially referred to Dudley Clarke and his work (so using Wikipedia is, I suppose, at least excusable) but embarrassingly it seems to have been written during the articles development when a glaring inaccuracy existed... later fixed, but not immortalised in print. A similar problem occurs with my discussion of Clarke being photographed in womens clothing. I was careful in the timeline section not to make mention of sexuality etc. However naturally those photographs raised eyebrows in whitehall. Clarke may have like cross dressing (although only one source really goes that far, so I was uncomfortable saying as much) and certainly within the Army establishment people privately wondered about his sexuality. Sadly none of the sources seem to take a firm stand on the matter and carefully skirt the issue with a few pages of "knowing looks". Anyway, the point it, I recently read a news article mentioning Clarke which again clearly drew on my article - they made a real meal of his arrest in female clothing and *did* go as far as questioning his sexuality. So I am left wondering whether me mentioning those raised eyebrows in the personality section is unfairly casting Clarke in that light. Or perhaps that is a fair way to cast him? Who knows!! --Errant (chat!) 14:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ErrantX, for opening up and discussing this area of editorship, and for your statement: "The best advice, I think, is to make sure you have the widest array of sources possible - both primary and secondary - and to compile the most accurate picture you can from their collective consensus." Lest we forget. --Rskp (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for this interesting example of the problem. Right now there is an AFD concerning Juggalos as a gang that utilizes classified US Government files as a source which is suffering from the same problem. Are there any "controversy"-templates available that could be useful? In the example that you provide, and others that I have come-across, one idea that I have thought which could help would be to title, or sub-title the article differently? Your example was an article based-on the controversial research of mostly one source, or one school of thought. A more transparent labeling of that predicament could help to avoid loosing the information.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)