Talk:Johnson Beharry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Many thanks to Burgundavia and everyone else who so quickly put in such a good job on this. What a credit to you and Wikipedia! Thincat 12:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to include yourself in the above! :-) --Deathphoenix 13:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Picture 2 Valour 3 Proper image 4 NPOV 5 Copyright query 6 Personal information 7 Publishing deal reportage incorrect 8 "Contoversy" section 9 "More Controversy" 10 Publishing Deal

[edit] Picture

Anyone notice the interesting picture at the top of the article? I can't figure out how to remove it...

[edit] Valour

Considering that most of those awarded the VC were killed in action, this really means something. Fair play to him. Fergananim

Perhaps a military photograph would be better than a civilian one?

[edit] Proper image

(cc to the image talk page)

Hey all, I uploaded and inserted the image on the right. I obtained it from the British Ministry of Defense Defence web site, where I read their copyright notice, which seemed to make it fine to use, and I also tagged it under the {{CrownCopyright}} tag.

However, looking at the CrownCopyright template talk page, it seems that the Ministry of Defense Defence is specifically mentioned as a web site that we can't use, and its copyright information can be found here. Is it because Wikipedia is sometimes used (by mirror sites) for commercial purposes? If so, maybe someone else can find a similar picture that is properly covered under Crown copyright that we can use instead. Thanks, Deathphoenix 02:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Pedants Corner: Ministry of Defence is spelt with a "C" Titles do not change when they cross the Atlantic in either direction. Dainamo 09:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fine, Ministry of Defence. --Deathphoenix 23:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Deleted my unecessary comment - I shouldn't be so testy about these things.) --Deathphoenix 00:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I was the Pedant in question (and I intoduced myself as such to avoid being a smartass/arse) may I suggest that under United States law (which is the home of Wikipedia) the use of the image would surely be "fair use" but should have a tag as not to be used elsewhere without permission of the original source (any commercial mirror site therefore uses the image at their own folly). Additionaly the appropriateness of the use of the image would lead me to say that even in the UK, the MOD would not be so fickle to pursue against its respectful use in a non-profit making arena. I say put it back! Dainamo 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I read "Pedant" later and then knew I was being too testy. I blame my real life stress for that. Thanks for the feedback, I'll change the copyright tag (or add on a fairuse tag) and put it back up once I'm satisfied about the copyright. --Deathphoenix 02:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. I added {{fairuse}} and a further statement to the image. Thanks for your feedback, and I apologise for my earlier testiness (I normally employ British spelling as well, so maybe that added to my testiness). --Deathphoenix 02:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article has been revised at one point to make it "less POV". Isn't this stretching the notion of NPOV somewhat to the extreme? As far as I understand it NPOV is all about putting both sides of an argument. Here, there is no argument about his bravery, so what's the problem in descibing it using suitable language? Arcturus 12:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there may be confusion because the indent for blockquote ends after the first para. The entire citation goes as far as 'relentless enemy action'. Unfortunately, I don't know how to correct for this, but thought I'd leave a message here and hope someone sees it and carries out the necessary formatting. - Ajarmitage 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright query

Is it okay for us to reproduce the entire text of the citation? Since it comes from the MOD, isn't it Crown Copyright and therefore not something we can print in full? Loganberry (Talk) 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing, whether it's sourced from the MOD, or the defintive version in the London Gazette, it must be covered by Crown Copyright, which lasts 50 years. David Underdown (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal information

Removed personal information re Biography of living persons issues. This level of detail is not appropriate for him or his family. FloNight 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the removal of personal information such as contact information, SINs, credit reports, etc., all the information removed are things I clearly remember as coming from public news reports (except for the number of siblings he has), and would not result in personal harm to him. Would the information, specifically about his marriage situation and the name and approximate age of his wife, all of which were published in news articles, be inappropriate for a BLP? Just to be sure, and since I've been out of the general loop for a while, I took a close look at the BLP page, especially Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and it mainly revolves around uncited information. The problem is that these pieces of information were mentioned in various news reports by several outlets.

The main arguments against mentioning the number of his siblings would be privacy and lack of sources. If (and only if) the news reports mention how many siblings he has, I don't see why we can't mention that fact, as long as we don't mention their names. As for his current marital situation, and the name and approximate age of his wife, both are widely mentioned in various news sources, so the main argument against that might be "decency". It could be one concise, sourced sentence mentioning his current marital situation (it doesn't have to mention the reason behind it).

All my points above might be moot if the same level of detail has been consistently applied to all other people of similar notability, even for information that is properly published. I know how sensitive BLP issues can be, so if this is the case, I won't push any further. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing deal reportage incorrect

Currently states "in order to write an autobiography of his experiences and in which he presents his own suspicions that the award was politically based." apparently from a report a full year and a month before publishing. "Barefoot Soldier" contains no such suspicions, in fact Beharry is almost entirely positive about his service experience. Hope reading the book doesn't count as original research. ;-)

[edit] "Contoversy" section

I reverted the addition of this section as it was entirely unsourced. Since this article is about a living person it has to be held to particularly high standards of sourcing per WP:Biographies of Living Persons David Underdown (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "More Controversy"

All sources are readily verifiable through the MOD. The debate over whether a Victoria Cross could be awarded at all when the war was technically over (a Victoria Cross can only be awarded in times of declared hostilities) and not a George Cross (as in the case of Captain Robert Nairac in Northern Ireland) is not relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyds2007 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If they're so easily verifiable, give us some links here so we can check this out before it goes in the article. Please make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living persons, and what constitutes a reliable source. We need to be abel to understand the precise nature of the controversy - is it still going on, how people were invovled, and the wording should reflect where the controversy has taken place (has it made it into the mainstream press?). Is the issue of when a VC can be awarded quite so clear cut. There were certainly awards made to British/Commonwealth troops involved in the Russian Civil War which took place after the end of World War I (but possibly before the Treaty of Versailles). David Underdown (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here. At the moment the information that is being added breaches several core policies of Wikipedia, namely that on original research, verifiability and Biographies of living persons. It is speculation floating round on an army forum at the moment. Woody (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing Deal

The original details were correct concerning the book as it stood at the time. In order for a serving soldier to publish any article or book he is required to have permission from the MOD, which is why the final version does not contain these details. --Lloyds2007 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Lloyds2007

Again we need sources to support the assertions about the original content of the book, the one source that was given (which I've now turned into a proper inline cite), does not support the assertion, though it does mention that the MoD would need to give approval before publication. Pending this being provided I've removed this from teh article too. David Underdown (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)