Talk:Pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton

WP:NPOV is important here

I've just removed, again, the fourth paragraph of the introduction. Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints on topics be presented in articles. We don't write articles that only tell one side of the story or present a single set of viewpoints. A case has been made for pardoning these men, but there is also a case for why they shouldn't be pardoned (which was accepted by the British government). The article needs to cover both views fairly. Similarly, if there are both moral and legal arguments for and against the pardon, these should also be covered. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D: I think that you have misunderstood what I have written, rather than intentionally mis-representing it:

Whilst an entirely separate discussion has been initiated in various quarters, which has confused the specific "legal question" of whether a pardon should or should not be granted with the entirely different "social issue" of whether or not Morant, Handcock, and/or Witton have any right to be accorded the status of "folk hero" — a process which, rather misleadingly, has involved "talking past the specific issue" of a pardon (i.e., rather than speaking against it) — this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon, its history, the established facts in the three cases, and the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon.

Thus, the question of the merits of the potential folk hero status of the three men concerned has no relevance whatsoever to this article, and belongs elsewhere.
Footnote:

The reason that I have begun my work on creating this article is to create an objective set of data, and to describe (in the sense of a sort of time-line) each step that has been taken in the process of reaching, so to speak, the present moment, and in order to achieve this, (a) relating a set of legal facts; (b) relating the bureaucratic history of the pathway of the appeals for a pardon, (c) describing the legal grounds upon which these appeals have been made, and (d) (of, at least, equal importance), describing the legal grounds upon which particular appeals have been rejected.

Thus, given that it is entirely a matter of law that is the subject of the article, it is important that a reader immediately understands that (a) the article is an objective account of the legal matter, and (b) is only concerned with that matter. It is clear, therefore that, in the spirit of allowing the article to address the legal issues (of which the public in 2012 has little knowledge), the reader must be warned that any other significant peripheral-to-the-legal matters, such as "should Australians regard Breaker Morant as a hero", are excluded.

And, further, if some other editor thought matters such as "should Australians regard Breaker Morant as a hero" to be sufficiently important, he/she create an entirely new and different article, dedicated to the social question of the status of, say, Morant, as a folk hero.

Finally, regardless of whatever the activities in which Morant, et al. might or might not have been engaged in the world at large, the article is entirely focussed on the legal issue of the process of the law in the conduct of the courts-martial in the specific cases for which the three men were tried; simply because that is the only matter that has any bearing on the grant (or refusal to grant) a pardon.

Thus your categorization that, given that "all significant viewpoints on topics be presented in articles", I am in breach of that guideline is ill-informed and wrong; in fact, it is clear that I am attempting to make sure that this article, on the specific issue of the process over a period of 110 years of requesting a pardon, is not taken over by other biassed points of view (such as arguments on whether or not a Breaker should be afforded "folk-hero" status). Further, given that there is a clear historical process, and provided that that historical process is represented in an accurate, coherent, objective, and neutral fashion in the article that I am in the process of writing, there are no grounds to even suppose that the article "only tells one side of the story" or "presents a single set of viewpoints", when it is dealing with specific matters of law.

Consequently, I am going to insist that the passage that you have removed is replaced in the article, so that the general reader clearly understands that the article is concerned with sequentially providing little-known historical information relating to a particular set of legal matters, rather than opinions on contemporary social issues (which belong elsewhere).Lindsay658 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at with the first sentence - it reads as an attempt to dismiss Craig Wilcox's views and exclude them from the article on the grounds that he's somehow 'talking past the issue'. However, the part of the passage I'm most concerned about is "this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon, its history, the established facts in the three cases, and the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon", which reads as an attempt to limit the scope of the article and only present one side of the story - the article cant't just limit itself to "the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon" as it needs to also discuss the evidence and arguments against a pardon. More generally, I don't see the need to preemptively add a disclaimer to stop the article from being used to discuss whether Morant was a folk hero - it's obviously not the topic of the article, no-one has attempted to use it for this purpose and if they do this material can be easily removed. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) In relation to the paragraph "Thus, the question of the merits of the potential folk hero status of the three men concerned has no relevance whatsoever to this article, and belongs elsewhere", I accept that (a) despite the article's unequivocally neutral intention (viz., the pros and cons of the legal process), there may be some individuals, dedicated to discussing particular social question, who, upon reading this paragraph feel specifically victimized, deliberately excluded, when that is not the case (it is, in fact, that they, themselves, would be attempting to pursue their own agenda within an "inappropriate to this article's" intrusion), (b) such a sentence might appear to the naïve reader as being an attempt to close down legitimate debate on an important issue (which, in fact, has no place here, at all, but would make an extremely fascinating article elsewhere), and (c) in particular, from Nick-D's agreement that any such material "obviously" has nothing to do with "the topic of the article", and that, if anyone "attempted to use it for this purpose", "[that] material can be easily removed [by an editor]".

As a consequence, I have removed what to the general, less-informed reader, might seem to be a very hostile and provocative statement, and have deleted the paragraph altogether.

(2) re: "it reads as an attempt to dismiss Craig Wilcox's views and exclude them from the article on the grounds that he's somehow 'talking past the issue'." Wilcox was only mentioned by name, because he is the most salient of those arguing the (non-legal) moral issue, in his lectures, newspaper articles, and papers contributed to, say, The Sydney Institute (e.g., "Why Give a Dead War Criminal a Counterfeit Get-Out-of-Gaol-Card?"). It is abundantly clear that, whatever the social issues might be that Wilcox is pursuing, they have no connexion with the matters of law upon which a decision will be made to grant or not grant a pardon to the three men, and, thus, he is very clearly "talking past the issue".

(3) Upon re-reading, I share your concern about the passage, "this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon, its history, the established facts in the three cases, and the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon", and how (in my own view), it has the possibilty of appearing to "skew" the article in an unintended way,and it has now been altered to read "this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon for the three men, its history, the facts established in each of the three courts martial, the case that has been presented in support of request for a pardon, and the legal arguments for and against that case".

(4) I suggest that, now, the provocative banners be removed from the head of the article immediately because (a) they no longer apply to the article, as it has been edited, and (b) such intrusions do not seem to be consistent with the fact that the article is, currently, "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". Lindsay658 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't exclude Craig Wilcox's views on this topic: he's the leading expert on Australia's involvement in the Boer War and has written extensively arguing that Morant should not be pardoned. Your claim that he somehow hasn't addressed legal issues seems dubious to me anyway, as he regularly discusses the trial and legal norms at the time. The tags seem entirely justified by your above comments - please do see WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D: Thanks for correcting the mis-representation about the "strong and compelling" and its (non-)connexion with the article by Wald. I stupidly "cut and pasted" from here without checking (perhaps the only time I have done so in more than (probably) 7,000 edits. Thanks for keeping me honest. I wonder if you could correct the original incorrect entry as well.Lindsay658 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the sentence, which I now find veridical, along with a link to its source (viz., Hansard).Lindsay658 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Article issues

I've tagged this article, as I feel it has several issues that need addressing, some of which appear to have been raised above already. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New set of comments (2018)

There was, and is, no chance of them receiving a pardon. Either the people pushing for a pardon don't understand the case, and the circumstance and period in-which it occurred, or they are deliberately mis-representing the facts.

If there had been any doubts about the men's guilt they would have been acquitted by the court martial, and that would have been a better result for the Army. The last thing the British Army wanted was to try-them and end up having to execute them. In addition, if there had been any way for the Army to excuse their actions (both sides regularly shot opponents trying to surrender, the Boers for one thing had no POW camps in-which to keep prisoners) and instead send them to jail and so avoid having to execute them, then the Army would have done-so. As it was, the accusations brought public disgrace upon the Imperial Forces. So, no 'evil British plot'.

The accused shot dead several people in cold-blood in full view of numerous witnesses, most of these witnesses impartial and with no reason to lie, and they repeated this offence several times, again with witnesses. There was no way of the Army avoiding a trial and covering the incidents up.

Morant and his comrades weren't shot because they were 'Australians' and 'killed a few Boers', they were shot because they killed them in cold-blood and in public when the victims were doing nothing to justify being shot. The fact that the victims were Boers was irrelevant, that still made it murder, and the British Army, unlike their Boer counterparts, was subject to the rule of law. FWIW, while Morant and his comrades' actions cannot be condoned, they can perhaps at least be understood as the result of men who's patience, forbearance, and humanity had been so recently very sorely-tried. As for their unfortunate victims, their misfortune was to encounter these men at just such a time. BTW, what I have written above could have been discovered and understood by anyone with a reasonable knowledge of military history and of the basic principles of English law, without requiring the services of an attorney general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

First two sections

It's unclear what the "Major James Francis Thomas" and "Principle of condonation in British military law" sections are getting at. Neither seems particularly relevant to the topic of this article, especially as written - the text is very generic. Issues around the trial seem better handled at Court-martial of Breaker Morant. If the issue is that some people think that a pardon might be justified as Thomas wasn't up to the job or the "principle of condonation" (Whatever it may be), this should be stated plainly. The current text adds nothing to the article, and I propose to re-remove it. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I invite editors to respond to my edit summaries upon deleting each of the sections. If those criticisms are not addressed, we cannot leave the material on the page as it offends more than one aspect of our principles here. sirlanz 10:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary content fork

This article is an unnecessary fork of the articles on the three men. The petitions to obtain pardons should be covered in the articles that properly detail the crimes they were convicted of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)