Talk:Charles Fryatt/Archive 1

POV

This article is excessively POV, particularly regarding Churchill's instructions.JohnC (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Churchill's instructions are accurately reported per this source. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: The above referred to a previous version of the article which was deleted for copyvio reasons. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

May i remind that even when Mr. Fryatt was following orders issued by Mr. Churchill, he was violating international law and the conduct of prize regulation:

A civilian neutral merchant being stopped by an enemy military ship, had to stop and let the prize crew search the ship for contraband. If it was carrying contraband, the military ship had every right to take the ship as a prize, or sink it.

A merchant of a belligerent faction (the enemy) still had to be stopped and hailed by the military ship (here SM U-33), to give the merchant's crew time to leave the ship, before it was either taken as a prize, torpedoed, or sunk by guns.

A civilian merchant, be it a neutral or a ship of the enemy, taking hostile action against the military ship acting according to prize regulation, was not foreseen in the prize regulation and international law.

The arming of civilian merchants with guns, Churchill's issued orders to ram U-boats and "take prisoner or kill the U-boat crew, whatever you see fit", and the use of camouflaged miltary ships as merchants (the "Q-ships") directly violated international law, and the international prize regulation, which became obsolete. So a civilian captain being hailed to stop by the enemy, had to stop. In case he did not do that, he was indeed a cvilian acting against the military, or a "franc-tireur".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.14.104 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Anon above you are quite wrong, and about a lot. It is a basic principle of law that everyone is in the right when defending their own property against a hostile attack or an attempt to steal property by an enemy force; and never acquires guilt by resisting/refusing attempts to misappropriate this (or harm family etc.). Using deadly force to defend property is a different matter and is a source of guilt, but in this case the submarine was operating in hostile waters and by it withdrawing without receiving any damage there is no proof that Fryatt was guilty of breaking international law. It seems here that the Germans were deliberately interpreting the law to create a presumption of guilt and if the article is correct that the court was misled into accepting that the submarine was damaged/sunk then that would explain how they produced a apparently correct guilty verdict. There is also the general practice in war that those on the opposing side are not punished for resisting when threatened with force if they have not yet been subdued. It is a fact that much of the international outrage about German military practice in World War I and II is related to their routine use of deadly force in circumstances where it was not authorised by international law or was at the very least imprudent. Result: very serious insurgency situations in all German Occupied Territories while being most unknown in almost all other situations involving Allied armies.--CouncilConnect (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

U-33

Which U-33 was the boat involved? Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It has to have been SM U-33, as that was the only U-Boat with that number in operation as of 28 March 1915. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Research source

This source should prove useful in expanding the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

This article has copyright issues that are foundational, I'm afraid. Wayback confirms that the material was posted there before it was posted here, on 23 April 2007. The article needs to be rewritten without this material, and any other text contributed by that individual needs to be evaluated to be sure it was not also copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

May i remind that even when Mr. Fryatt was following orders issued by Mr. Churchill, he was violating international law, and the conduct of prize regulation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.14.104 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-copyvio version

I'm going to attempt to rewrite the article such that there is no copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Made a start here. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's like a good start to me. :) If the other editors of the article have no problem, it seems like it ought to be fine to go ahead and switch them out once you (and any other editors of the article) are satisfied that it's good to go. The creator of the article does not edit often, and if it should prove that he can verify permission, we can always restore his text after he has done so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New article is up and running. Needs assessment. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have assessed the article as B-class. I would suggest waiting a few days to see if the new version remains stable and then nominate it for a GA review. Road Wizard (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit early for GA yet I think. There is much that could be added about bringing his body back from Belgium, transport to London, the funeral, transport to Harwich and burial at Dovercourt. Newspapers would be a good source here. I'm in Kent so should be able to cover the Dover - London part quite easily via the library. For the burial at Harwich I'd say the East Anglian Daily Times would be a good starting point. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is probably close to GA now even without the additional material. GA only requires an article that is "broad in its coverage" rather than FA's "comprehensive". However if you feel that you want to add additional information before nomination then that is entirely up to you. Road Wizard (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've been persuaded. Another editor left me a second barnstar for rewriting the article, and said it is close to GA class if not there already so I've listed the articl at GAN. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very nice article now - much better than the version I read a week or two ago. The one thing that is missing is information regarding postwar prosecution of Fryatt's executioners. Of course, the information may simply be unavailable, but one would think the British would have been keen on retribution in a case like this. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cainet Papers website shows that there was a Cabinet sponsored committee of enquiry into "Breaches of the Laws of War". These search results show that Fryatt's case was certainly amongt those investigated, but I ahven't trawled right through them to see if any charges were actually brought. These are all primary sources of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Th epeices in the TImes archive referred to below also cover some aspects fo the investigation. Again, tehre's rather a lot of hits, so it's hard to tell on a casual look exactly what happened in the end. There do seem to ahve been some sort of trials at Leipzig, but I'm not sure if this actually included anything relating to Fryatt in the end. David Underdown (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Family

Is any further information on his family available? Children, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is most likely to have been reported in newspapers at the time of his death and his funeral. Not much online though. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through thte Times archive.. There's quite a lot of contemporary coverage, I can only see mention of a brother and his widow specifically however. David Underdown (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through the archive articles a bit more, it would seem Fryatt had at least one son, who followed his father into the merchant navy. "School Speech Days. Lord Inchcape In H.M.S. Worcester". News. The Times. No. 44646. London. 29 July 1927. col D, p. 14. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) reports, "Cadet C. A. S. Fryatt, the son of Captain Fryatt, won a medal for good conduct." HMS Worcester was another name for the Thames Nautical Training College. David Underdown (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This link has an interesting article on him. It quotes an article from The Times that says, "His last thoughts were of his family, of his wife and seven children and to the chaplain he confided their names". Road Wizard (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have dug out another source that gives more detail; "He had a devoted wife and seven children - six girls and one boy." {{cite book|last=Barton|first=George|title=Celebrated Spies and Famous Mysteries of the Great War|publisher=BiblioBazaar|year=2008|page=115|isbn=9780559708299}} Road Wizard (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Fryatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cwgc.org/debt_of_honour.asp?
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719043251/http://webopac0.hwwa.de/DigiJPG/P/05668/P056680029000000H.jpg to http://webopac0.hwwa.de/DigiJPG/P/05668/P056680029000000H.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Fryatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cwgc.org/debt_of_honour.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831033949/http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/westlakelondontwo.htm to http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/westlakelondontwo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517115717/http://www.123freehost.co.uk/sites/harwichmem-web/default.asp to http://www.123freehost.co.uk/sites/harwichmem-web/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

? A help request is open: http://www.cwgc.org/debt_of_honour.asp fails as a 404 as does the original url with a question mark on the end. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC). Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)