Talk:William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Misc

According to the Oxford Companion of Military History (OUP, Oxford), ISBN 0198662092

  1. Slim won the Military Cross in Mesopotamia
  2. Slim became Allied Land Forces commander SE Asia after the fall of Rangoon, but before the end of the war. (This is also what Slim says in Defeat into Victory)
What Slim doesn't mention, but the Oxford CoMH does, is that Leese, (his predecessor, posted in from the Med) whilst planning the re-taking of Malaya decided that Slim was not sufficiently of his way of thinking, and relieved him as commander of XIV Army. Slim then asked to be allowed to retire, and his subordinates made their feelings known; Alanbrooke relieved Leese instead, and gave his job to Slim.
INDEED, methinks this "episode" definately deserves mentioning in the article as a. it's an important event and b. defines Slim and his "worth" -- user:fdewaele, 16 November 2006, 22:33.

Whilst the Australians were doubtless right to warm to Slim as a decent bloke rather than a stuffed shirt, he had not "risen from the ranks" in the normal sense of the phrase. He had been in the OTC at University, joined up on the outbreak of war and was commissioned within a month.

(and surely Field Marshal is a rank/honour you never retire from ?)Rjccumbria 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I have deleted "risen from the ranks."
  • Even Field Marshals have to retire eventually. Slim had not retired from the Army while he was Governor-General. He was therefore still "Field Marshall Slim" and not "Field Marshal (ret) Slim" or something like that (as is the present Governor-General, Maj-Gen (ret) Jeffery). Adam 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
What Rjcumbria said rings a bell - I think he is right - Field Marshals cannot retire. I think perhaps they stay on the active list although obviously they can leave a post (eg command of an army or a governor-generalship etc). I'm not sure where that comes from (or why) and it's not in the article on field marshals. Not really relevant, but interesting :) Wiki-Ed 12:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


I have re-inserted the bit about the contrast between Slim's statue and the other two of Alabrooke and Montgomery. I believe the contrast is deliberate, Slim is shown as the most human of the 3 and his uniform / pose reflects his empathy with his troops in contrast to the aloof Montgomery and the distant Allanbrooke.

Anyone wishing to verify this has merely to check the other two statues on the web or wiki.

The bit about him watching 10 Downing Street is verifiable by visiting the statue.

HTH

Roger

83.67.126.86 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I replaced the Governor General with a Military Person infobox, which WikiProject Military history has just created. I noticed that it was fairly quickly removed, though. I replaced the military box, as I believe Slim is first and foremost remembered as a general, his biographies focus almost exclusively on this aspect for example, and only afterwards on his later political and ceremonial career as Governor General. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I suspect that this problem will occur in the future for a number of other figures who have gone on to have political careers. Leithp 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several arguments for using the Governor-General infobox:

  • It is part of series which people can click through to follow the succession of Governors-General
  • Being the Queen's Vice-Regal representative tops being a Field-Marshal
  • In Australia Slim is best remembered as a Governor-General
  • "Military Person" is a ridiculously broad and amorphous category of people - are you going to make hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes? "Governer-General of Australia" is a distinct sequence of 24.

Adam 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with the Governor General Infobox is that it doesn't convey much information beyond that covered by the succession box at the bottom. Also, I'm not arguing that the post isn't important, but as I said it's not really what Slim's place in history is built on. And yes, the plan is to roll out the Military Person box for every substantial military biography article, much like the other projects such as the Military conflict infobox already carried out. Leithp 09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Might it be possible to adapt the "Later work" field of {{Infobox Military Person}} to contain the needed information about his political career? —Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
When there are already two different sucession boxes in the article showing his position in the line of Governor-Generals and Slim is remembered best internationally as a Field Marshal, I agree that the military person infobox should take precedence. A link in the 'later work' field can jump down to the section on that of his life. --Loopy e 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is in the right place (new to this)

Re Nickname - Slim was known to 14th army as 'Uncle Bill' not 'Bill Slim' - if he is to be ascribed an nickname it should be 'Uncle Bill'.

One of his key attributes as a general was his skill as a communicator - a fact directly linked to his writing career.

His autobiography 'Defeat Into Victory' is widely-acknowledged as one of the best books writtn by a General ever - certainly a better source than John Keegan's book.

Also 'Slim - The Standard Bearer' Ronald Lewin is to be recommended. (reviewed here http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_2_90/ai_76736967)- this book makes a further key point you don't include - Slim was the first Indian Army officer to be appointed CIGS - a tribute to his outstanding talents.

I hope this helps

[edit] Allegations reported in media

The following is text that I've included in the article but has been deleted by editors:

[edit] Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

 This section documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

However, Slim's time as Governor-General have been brought in to question by recent comments by David Hill, a former managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Accusations were reported in April 2007 that Slim, whilst he was in the Governor-General's official vehicle, had sexually assaulted a school boy from Fairbridge Farm School, in country New South Wales. David Hill stated that the material was not included in a recent book he had written about Slim due to a lack of corroboration; however, since that time, it was reported that another person had made allegations of sexual misconduct involving Slim. [1]


I leave it open to the consensus of the community whether this should be included in the article. I agree that the material has not been proven; but as you can see in this text, we are merely stating that it has been reported in the mainstream media. I would seek that the information be included as it is relevant. But I leave it to the community. Views? MojoTas 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it out unless/until proven. Do you believe everything you read in the papers? GrahamBould 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If the allegations were the subject of numerous reports, I think it would be OK to mention briefly. I'd prefer a more robust source than that terse ABC article, though, such as The Australian article.--cj | talk 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There was an article on the matter in The Age, 28 April, titled "Revered governor-general accused of abuse". It includes the sentence "David Hill, a former managing director of the ABC and a staunch republican, has claimed that the war hero and 13th governor-general of Australia had groped students at the Fairbridge Farm School at Molong when he visited in 1955". That may just have been licence on the part of the article's author Damien Murphy. I heard David Hill interviewed by Margaret Throsby a few days later and they discussed the matter. Hill took some pains to point out that he was not claiming Slim had been guilty of abuse, but was merely reporting that someone else had claimed this. I think the allegations merit inclusion in Slim's article, because the existence of the allegations is factual and referencable. Whether the claims are true is an entirely different question. JackofOz 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A third hand, uncorroborated accusation would not stand up in any libel court in the world: I think this would be an appropriate acid test for inclusion and on that basis it should not go in. --hydeblake 14:18, 6 June

2007 (UTC)

This information should NOT be included - it's 3rd hand hearsay.

There's barely enough on Slim's qualities and achievements (true and verifiable) without including rumour which may have, as the info above suggests, a political origin.

Certainly no other reports of anything like this have ever surfaced about Slim. In fact, part from tittle-tattle by an Australian republican, there's hardly ever been a bad word said about him at all - even by Stilwell!!

A shoddy attempt to demean a great man! If you allow this level of content then anarchy will reign on wiki - the UK's Sunday Sport claimed a London Bus had been found on the moon - it's verifiable!!

Roger

83.67.126.86 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is far from complete without at least a mere one sentence mention of this. --76.83.249.234 10:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really - anyone can claim anything about an individual and saying it does not make it so - which is why there are defamation laws in most parts of the warld! Repeating these allegations only give them credence in many people's eyes and I feel it is not for Wiki to be used as a forum for unproven, third-hand mud-slinging. If you don't like it, then ask yourself how you would feel if there was a similar accusation, based on such negligable information, on an article about yourself... I think that no-one here would like it!--hydeblake 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Title

Can we come to an agreement as to Slim's title?! I've had a hunt around and think that this is probably Field Marshal Sir William Slim, but can anyone clarify? I've also seen him written up as Field Marshal The Right Honourable William Slim, but I think that this was whilst he held the post of Governor-General of Australia. Anyone got any better ideas?! --hydeblake 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts.
  • G-Gs are "His Excellency" for the term of their appointment, but not afterwards.
  • Slim was "The Right Honourable" because he was a member of the Privy Council – and only for that reason - but I don’t know exactly when he entered the Privy Council. Our article on Governor-General of Australia says: "All Governors-General … from 1901 to 1989 were members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and thus had the additional title "Right Honourable." In any case, it's irrelevant since we don’t preface names of the subjects of our articles with either "His Excellency" or "The Right Honourable".
  • I think the lead para has it correctly: Field Marshal Sir William Joseph Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The title of the article is correct: William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The infobox, however, is headed Field Marshal Sir William Slim, which is not right as his knighthood was not the highest honour he attained. It should be either William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim, or Field Marshal William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The caption to the photo is correct because when he was G-G, he was only Sir William. His peerage did not come until later. -- JackofOz 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct title for the article should be - William Slim, Field-Marshal The Viscount Slim. According to the fronticepiece of Lewin's book it should be 'Field-Marshal The Viscount Slim' (note puntctation). That certainly seem the correct form to me, it's also the form used on his statue in Whitehall (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/300326145/in/set-72157594380883887/) so I think you can take that as definitive!.

Viscount is the highest civilian honour he was given so takes precedence over the knighthood; Sir.... Viscount is wrong for that reason. Military ranks comes first then civilian honour and as I say it's Field-Marshal not Field Marshal

The Viscount Slim is also the correct form - rather than 1st. It goes 'The', '2nd', '3rd' etc

If you want to be absolutely correct his awards should follow his title in this order: KG, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, GBE, DSO, MC

HTH

Roger 83.67.126.86 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Roger - is that your pic of Slim's statue? If so, can you upload it to the page? --hydeblake 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The current order does follow that order, so no issue there. They're listed in the lead para, but there's no reason to repeat them anywhere else. As for "The Lord" or "The Viscount", that is indeed a correct way to refer to a peer. However, it is used in only the most extremely formal of contexts. We never usually refer to Margaret Thatcher as "The Lady Thatcher", just as "Lady Thatcher", etc etc. You're correct about the hyphen in Field-Marshal. -- JackofOz 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what the statue says (I saw it last week actually) it is "field marshal" without the hyphen. The Wiki article is entitled "field marshal", & "field-marshal" is redirected to it. GrahamBould 07:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with the lack of hyphen - Check out the at British Army ranking page which shows it hyphenless. My Oxford English dictionary also shows it without. --hydeblake 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi No it's not my pic - it's available freely on the web as a reference source but I have no rights over it. I only posted it here to back up what I was saying, I hope that's OK. If you think it can be included in the article then please do so, on that site it describes the photo as 'public'. It's a great statue and an interesting contrast to the two 'stuffy' ones alongside.

I didn't make myself clear enough, my apologies, I was citing the statue (1990) as definitive for 'Field Marshall The Viscount Slim' rather than 'Sir' although it does use 'F M' not 'F-M'

On the 'F-M', 'F M' point it may be common / modern usage but I was going by Lewin's book and he uses Field-Marshall which I believe to be correct. Citing Wiki as definitive in a discussion about wiki content strikes me as a bit pointless! Many ranks are correctly hyphenated such as Major-General to Sargeant-Major, common usage is unhyphenated. Anyway I'll leave it for you to ruminate on.

I can't find definitive source on this point about secondary honours so I withdraw my comments about whether the 'Sir' should be included or not. This suggests I'm correct but I don't think it's absolutely definitive http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=Webpages%2FPublic%2Flinks%2Fnca point 4.1

This whole title thing is nightmare - best of luck with it!

Roger

83.67.126.86 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slim / British Army ranking

One user has recently de-capitalised all the ranks Slim held. I always thought that as formal titles they should have been capitalised. I've asked him directly, but thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts one way or the other...--hydeblake 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Where ranks aren't used as a title the Manual of Style says to use them in lower case i.e. Slim was promoted to field marshal and Field Marshal William Slim. Leithp 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading