Talk:Walter Tull

Future plans to recognise Walter Tull's military contribution

I took out the following as it did not follow on from the previous section and without a citation appeared to be speculation and promotion of a commercial venture To secure the posthumous award of Walter's Military Cross; a site for a symbolic physical representation of the contribution of Tull and other black soldiers to Britain's military history; and funding both for a screenplay dramatising the incredible life of this remarkable human being, and a stage play by Maya Productions, to tour regional and rural venues. If you can find a source for this information with some rewording to avoid the promotional context this would be relevant to include, lets discuss. Tmol42 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

First Combat Commissioned Officer?

Edward Braithwaite mentions James Swaby as being commissioned as lieutenant in the British Army (Braithwaite, Edward (1971). Creole Society in Jamaica 1770 - 1820. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 172.). Can anyone shed more light on this claim? Leutha (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be more than one James Swaby (variously spelt) in England in the early part of 19th century. Ones which might be him do not refer to him as an commissioned officer but use the term 'gent'. I see you have also created a rather rough article now about James, but can you clarify on the James Swaby article page where it is more appropriate to discuss this what the citatons actually record regarding James Swaby life in Jamaica and England. Tmol42 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier black/mixed race officers

It seems that Tull's commision is now known to have been pre-dated by at least two others:

BBC News: The officer who refused to lie about being black

Nick Cooper (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Some other officers (from FWW and before) who have been identified as black, of Afro-Caribbean descent, or mixed heritage:

• James Swaby commissioned in 1814 as a lieutenant in the infantry
• Nathaniel Wells, the son of a white plantation owner and a black slave, received a Yeomanry commission in 1818,
• Allan Noel Minns, DSO, MC, was commissioned in the Royal Army Medical Corps in September 1914; he was born in Norfolk but his great grandmother had been a slave,
• David Clemetson was commissioned in the territorial Pembroke Yeomanry in October 1915,
• George Edward Kingsley Bemand, born in Kingston, Jamaica, on 19 March 1892; he was educated at Dulwich College and University College London where he joined the London University Officers Training Corps. He was commissioned in the Royal Field Artillery in May 1915 and killed on 26 December 1916. On his attestation form he categorised himself as being of "pure European descent".

Tull was clearly not the first black or mixed heritage officer in the British Army, nor the first to be killed; possibly he was the first in an infantry regiment of the regular army to lead men in combat. Nedrutland (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Now a WP for George Bemand. Nedrutland (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Tull was never recommended for an MC

The only mention of this is in a letter of condolence sent by 2nd Lieutenant Pickard to Tull's family. He says "He had been recommended for the Military Cross and had certainly earned."

This has led to a campaign for a posthumous MC based on the mistaken belief that he'd been refused one because of racism.

However, the MoD have made clear that there was never a recommendation and there is no record of one in his full service record held at the National Archives.

This was simply a letter of condolence to a grieving family. If there is no record of any recommendation being passed up the hierarchy, and no record in his service files, then the MoD are right to say he was never recommended for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And the letter may have been phrased to be sympathetic to his family, just as families were often spared gory details of death and instead told that a soldier died peacefully etc. We really do need to be careful how we word things in this article because it has in the past been very heavily biassed to reflect campaigners' demands etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a good look at the info for a MC recommendation by Chris Baker here. Nedrutland (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Manual of Military Law

The text currently reads "Tull was commissioned as a second lieutenant ... despite the 1914 Manual of Military Law specifically excluding soldiers that were not "of pure European descent" from becoming commissioned officers." I have tagged this as dubious.

The 1914 Manual of Military Law is available on line https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031059614;view=1up;seq=216. The phrase "of pure European descent" is found just once (page 198, Ch XI, s 15) with reference only to the Special Reserve of Officers which was a small subset of British Army Officers. There it states that Special Reserve Officers can be “natural born or naturalised British subjects of pure European descent”. Nedrutland (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nedrutland, that same terminology is listed and applied to the British Indian army, it also occurs in the commonwealth (dominions at that time) laws based on the British stance of institutional racism (seen from out later perspective). The Law's as written, only need to apply this sentence and terminology once, it then applies for all laws and sentences that follows, it was in effect categorical and specific and imo not dubious at all. Also to note Tull was in the Reserve which was a LARGE sub-set, including all territorial forces and many of the conscripts and volunteers. Finally, there may of been an unwritten adjustment to these laws, however, if that was the case, these had not taken legal effect at this time, so at a bare minimum, the army bent the rules or circumvented the published laws of the time. ThoughtsThe Original Filfi (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The first ...? claims

Various claims have been made about Tull. He was clearly not the first Black or mixed-heritage British Army officer; was he possibly the first infantry officer in the British Army or "the British Army's first ever black officer to command white troops" or "the first black officer to lead white troops" or the "first black combat Officer".

• "first infantry officer"; no - James Swaby
• "first to command or lead white troops"; Swaby/Bemand/Minns et al. were officers who commanded white troops
• "first to command or lead white troops in battle"; possibly - if you exclude artillery
• "first British-born black army officer"; no - Minns
• "first British-born black infantry officer" - possibly
• "first black British infantry officer to lead troops into battle" - possibly

Nedrutland (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Info box needs changing

At the moment it's using the football infobox, however it should be using a combined info box for military person also. However I am not sure if the top should be {{Infobox military person}} or start with {{Infobox person}} with the other two embedded. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter Tull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JC Kotisow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Intro

@Govvy I am pleased to say that I will be reviewing your article of Walter Tull. Looking and reading through, this article could use improvement but if done correctly, would pass GA status. I'll be sure to update with suggestions and a list of errors I have found. Contact me if you have any questions or simply want to discuss something. Cheers, JC Kotisow (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@JC Kotisow: Will you be bothering to do a proper review? It's been over a month already! Govvy (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy Im sorry but I have been busy with study and work. You may need to wait for another reviewer if possible because I won't have the time to review any articles in the following weeks. JC Kotisow (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@JC Kotisow, you have been actively editing as recently as today, yet you have not returned to this review since August. Either finish the review or do Govvy the courtesy of dropping it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos How do I drop it JC Kotisow (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you make a post on WT:GAN and ask if anyone is willing to take this review over because you are not going to complete it. Do you have any other reviews you've forgotten? If so, include them in the post as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos To be honest, the article has so many problems, it'd be easier to just fail it for GA but it would be unfair to the nominee. JC Kotisow (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You could still fail it, but I agree that would be pretty damn unfair of you. If you wanted to quickfail it, you should have done that three months ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter Tull/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Govvy, I see that you haven't made very many edits to this article and that not much has changed in the article recently. Could you please reaffirm that you intend to try to bring the article up to GA standard, before I begin? It looks to me like this may be a fail, and if this was a drive-by nomination I'm less inclined to give really substantial feedback, though of course I'll still give the reasons for a fail if so. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it's been a week, so here's the quick version. There are several unaddressed maintenance tags, including unsourced statements dating back to 2018 and a permanent dead link. This is in itself grounds for a quick fail. Additionally, it contains large amounts of trivia under the "memorials" and "media" headings, that is not usefully contextualized or narrativized. Some of the cited sources are not reliable. Is Walter Tull, 1888–1918, Officer, Footballer a reliable source? If so, why isn't it cited more often, since it's apparently an entire book-length biography on him? If not, why is it mentioned in the article? This is a long way from meeting the GA criteria, most evidently #1 and #2. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Asilvering: Seriously, I find this extremely unfair, I just got back from holiday and you didn't do any analyse on the article and closed it?? I strongly ask you to reopen and do a full review of what needs to be done in order to me to understand what to do to get it to GA. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Govvy: You're welcome to ask me any specific questions that you have. However, I did write a full paragraph of analysis for you. Since one of the major problems is unaddressed maintenance tags, I suspect you have not thoroughly read the criteria at WP:GA?. Please re-read that and my comments above before asking any specific questions. -- asilvering (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)