Talk:John Whitelaw (general, born 1894)

Some sources

I found this on a Google search. Not sure if it helps you at all, but here it is: [1]. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Another (but probably not a reliable source), however, it indicates that his middle name was "Stewart" - [2]. Knowing the middle name might help with searching for some of the awards on the London Gazette. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Dictionary of Biography Online has this: [3]. It isn't about this John Whitelaw, but it is about another artillery major general of the same name. Could it be his father? This one lived 1894 - 1964, was born in Hawthorn and it says that all three of his his sons became arty officers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff! Thanks.

When I changed the entry on list of Australian generals and brigadiers, I wondered where the 1894-1964 dates had come from!

Father and son both John and both MajGen - I suspect that may be unique? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

There appear to be two Australian Army Major Generals named John Stewart Whitelaw

• The older, born 26 August 1894 in Hawthorn, died of cardiac infarction on 21 April 1964 at Berwick and was cremated; his wife survived him, as did their three sons, all of whom became artillery officers.
• The younger, probably one of his sons, was born on 11 June 1921 in Hawthorn, Victoria, and died on Friday 18 June 2010 in Canberra.

The following refers to the younger, and has been extracted from User talk:Pdfpdf/sandbox, but the article appears to include some information related to the older.

Major General John Stewart Whitelaw AO CBE (1921-2010) was a career soldier in the Australian Army who rose to the position of Deputy Chief of the General Staff (1977-1978). In retirement we was very active on many councils and committees.

Obviously, this ambiguity needs to be resolved. All assistance is welcomed! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, the younger major general's name was John Whitelaw, not John Stewart Whitelaw (see It's an Honour entires, WWII Nominal Roll & Vietnam War Nominal Roll). I have also removed the It's an Honour entires to the younger major general and the note as this article is about the elder major general, and although it is quite possible it was his father it cannot be proven as of yet and adding it to the article is just unsupported, original research that could be quite possibly incorrect. It also creates confusion for readers. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that was probably my fault, as I speculated above about the connection between the two. A couple of the death notices do seem to indicate that the younger John Whitelaw's middle name was also Stewart, but they are not what called be called reliable sources, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For Everyone's Information: The Sydney Morning Herald seem to think John-the-younger's full name is "John Stewart Whitelaw", and the Royal United Services Institute have a similar opinion. Of course, they both may be wrong. As I said, all assistance is welcomed - We (and I hope it is "we", not just Rupert & me) are still in the preliminary stages. At this point we need help, not criticism. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is established that they both have identical names. What is not established is if they have any familial relationship (which seems likely but can not be stated in the article, even as conjecture, without being original research). We're not trying to give you a hard time/criticize Pdfpdf, merely to follow wikipedia policy at WP:No original research. I suggest you create a seperate article on the other younger general using his birth and death dates for the disambiguated title. Please avoid drawing any conclusions not supported by the current evidence available. I agree that he is likely to have been his son, but it is also possible that he was a nephew or the name likeness is a coincidence.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

1) For Heaven's sake! This is an article under construction!! You're behaving like we're putting it up for FA / GA / whatever! 2) Really 4meter4, you're being a bit coy. It was YOU who moved the article about John-the-younger to User talk:Pdfpdf/sandbox, (which, by-the-way, was a move I was quite happy with, and still am, in the interim). 3) We're not trying to give you a hard time/criticize Pdfpdf - Well, that's what it seems like. 4) For heaven's sake - why are we descending into such trivial detail at this point? How about all of us, not just Rupert & me, building something BEFORE we decide to start tearing it down? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Pdfpdf, please calm down. I originally moved that content into user space with your permission in the hopes that you would sort out this ambiguity before taking it into live space. A "construction tag" is not meant to give carte blanche to do whatever you want with an article. Even in the midst of construction we must adhere to wikipedia guidelines. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to keep things above board. Please don't kill the messenger.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. Interesting. Just because I don't COMPLETELY agree with everything you think, feel and say, does NOT mean I'm not calm. I originally moved that content into user space with your permission in the hopes that you would sort out this ambiguity before taking it into live space. - Yes, that was my understanding too. That's why I left it to you to address the problem in the way you felt was best. And I'm happy with what you chose to do. And I'm still happy with what you chose to do. A "construction tag" is not meant to give carte blanche to do whatever you want with an article. - Agreed. (And I don't think I am "do(ing) whatever (I) want with an article". Please enlighten me if you think I am.) Even in the midst of construction we must adhere to wikipedia guidelines. - I can't slavishly support that statement. There needs to be some latitude and flexibility during the construction process. I'm not trying to be a jerk, - a) That's good to read. b) I didn't think you were. just trying to keep things above board. - Hmmmm. Well there's an obvious conflict between the state of an article under construction, and WP policies aimed at a "complete" article. Hence, in my no-doubt-biassed-opinion, I see that latitude is required. I would expect that you would agree. But perhaps you don't? Please don't kill the messenger. - Not my intent, or failing that, not my primary purpose. I'm fundamentally assuming-good-faith, and if I'm not communicating that, well, there's a failing in my communication, and I apologise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding your reversion and the associated edit comment. Oh, whatever. I don't agree, but I can't be bothered arguing the matter, and I'm certainly not about to embark on an edit war! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm sorry for the confusion my speculation appears to have caused. In my opinion I think that the best solution would be to: (1) make this article about John Stewart Whitelaw (1894–1964) and flesh it out using the details in the ADBO entry. That is certainly doable and could be turned into a decent article, IMO, even up to B class I feel. On this article I would suggest including a hatnote to a separate article on John Whitelaw (1921–2010); (2) Create that second article about John Whitelaw (1921–2010) with the details that are to hand, that being the entries from Its an honour about the AO and CBE, the Vietnam Roll, etc. Unfortunately it would probably only be a stub, but it could be expanded upon in time. Without any RS stating the family link, I feel that it shouldn't be mentioned, except on the talk page where it could be mentioned with a request for someone to confirm if possible with a reliable source. How does this sound? Final point, in regards to constructing pages, I tend to work offline (in Word or Notebook and write an article there before uploading. That way I have most of the sourcing and main points done before it goes live. I then check it for mark up errors etc in my Sandbox prior to putting in it the mainspace. I think this is a more cautious approach, however, another suggestion is to create "Drafts" in your userspace, which can then simply be moved across to the mainspace when you are ready. You can even invite people to work on the drafts and review prior to upload. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got a bit of time to myself today so I'm working on a draft for Whitelaw (1894-1964) offline. Should hopefully have something knocked together in a couple of hours. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, what do you think? Are there any changes you want to make? I've left the original hatnote for the timebeing, but if you create the other article for the 1921-2010 Whitelaw then the hatnote could be changed to point to that article if you want. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the best course of action to me, mate! And Pdf, while I do agree that some flexibility is allowable when an article is under construction, original research is beyond that flexibilty and this is the type of matter that should be worked out on a talk page and not in the main space. Furthermore, adding in references to two completely different people with similar/the same name when the article is only on one of them just creates confusion. Also, I think it is rather unfair to put my efforts purely down to criticism considering I have added an infobox, additional categories and supplied further references. On that matter, I am still not convinced the younger's name was "John Stewart Whitelaw", but rather just "John Whitelaw". In addition to the references I have supplied above, the London Gazette references on the younger's MID and CBE both state just "John Whitelaw", as do the references to him on the Australian War Memorial website, including his honours[4] and in images[5]. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Rupert! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Jeez Bryce. It really doesn't have to be this difficult. It would be MUCH better if we worked together, and I don't see why we can't. And Pdf, while I do agree that some flexibility is allowable when an article is under construction, - Good. original research is beyond that flexibilty and this is the type of matter that should be worked out on a talk page and not in the main space. - Errrrrr. Whatever. I'm not trying to pick a fight on this topic. Furthermore, adding in references to two completely different people with similar/the same name when the article is only on one of them just creates confusion. - Groan. Whatever. Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight on this topic, either. Also, I think it is rather unfair to put my efforts purely down to criticism - I didn't. Please re-read what I said. considering I have added an infobox, additional categories and supplied further references. - Precisely! (i.e. that's exactly what I said.) On that matter, I am still not convinced the younger's name was "John Stewart Whitelaw", but rather just "John Whitelaw". - Did you read what I wrote? Do I need to reproduce it? Apparently I do. OK Here goes: Of course, they both may be wrong. In addition to the references I have supplied above, the London Gazette references on the younger's MID and CBE both state just "John Whitelaw", as do the references to him on the Australian War Memorial website, including his honours 1) With respect Bryce, so what? i.e. What's your point? (I think I must be missing something.) 2) So what? Who cares? - These two questions are not dismssive throwaways. They are serious questions attempting to determine what the main issue or issues are. To me, you seem to be implying that it is important that John-the-younger's name is NOT "John Stewart Whitelaw". I don't understand why you think this is, or is not, important. I don't disagree with you (whatever it is your opinion is.) I just don't understand what point you are trying to make, and why you think it's important. Who knows? When I understand your intent, it's entirely possible that I may agree with you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Pdf, you are the one making things difficult. I am attempting to contribute to both this article and discussion, yet you have been on the defensive this entire time for no apparent reason. I have provided additional sources and made additions to both this discussion and article, yet you did accuse me of criticism when I did no such thing. The purpose of providing sources on the younger's name was, as I thought was obvious but apparently not, so that when an article was created on him it was not created under a wrong name or referred to a wrong name. I have provided a number of reliable sources on this matter, as I believe the facts should be worked out first before things are done and I also do not think the Sydney Morning Herald reference, as AustralianRupert alluded to, would exactly be classed as a reliable source. Please, it would be easier if next time you simply asked for clarification rather than go on a long, unwarranted, defensive rant. Perhaps I should leave this discussion? I would much rather contribute to an article's content then be stuck in a discussion, anyway. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Jeez Bryce. It really doesn't have to be this difficult. It would be MUCH better if we worked together, and I don't see why we can't. If it helps you sleep at night, OK, it's ALL my fault, and you are completely correct on everything. Perhaps I should leave this discussion? I would much rather contribute to an article's content then be stuck in a discussion. - I COMPLETELY agree with you, and share your point of view. As I tried to imply earlier, I don't know why you're complaining, or what you're complaining about. As I've said/implied twice, it isn't all that hard. Given that we seem to have the same opinion, why are we arguing, and what are we arguing about? Given that: "I would much rather contribute to an article's content then be stuck in a discussion." and that I would too, as far as I'm concerned, I'm comfortable that this issue is clarified, and that although we perhaps have different opinions, we're both comfortable that no further discussion on this is required. I hope you share my conclusion, (if not the way I got to it.) Happy productive editing! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Pdf, I have no idea what you are on about or why you are arguing with me. I have been trying to work together and help out this whole time. I also explained/clarified what I was talking about earlier (you are the only one complaining, because you think I am arguing/criticising you, which I have explained is not the case!), which I will reproduce now: "The purpose of providing sources on the younger's name was, as I thought was obvious but apparently not, so that when an article was created on him it was not created under a wrong name or referred to a wrong name. I have provided a number of reliable sources on this matter, as I believe the facts should be worked out first before things are done and I also do not think the Sydney Morning Herald reference, as AustralianRupert alluded to, would exactly be classed as a reliable source." However, I will take the option I presented and opt out of this discussion - poor AustralianRupert is the only one doing any work, anyway! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Pdf, I have no idea what you are on about or why you are arguing with me. - Clearly, as evidenced by the fact I'm agreeing with you, and you seem to think I'm arguing with you. (I'm not.) I will take the option I presented and opt out of this discussion. - Jolly good. Thanks for your contributions - as I've said many times in the past, you are quite a whiz on info boxes. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I also do not think the Sydney Morning Herald reference, as AustralianRupert alluded to, would exactly be classed as a reliable source. - Well, the reference to which you are referring is NOT a smh reference. However, it DOES reproduce the funeral notice from the smh, and I don't think there is any doubt that the smh is a reliable source. I have modified the citation accordingly. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

John-the-younger

What shall we name the article about John-the-younger? Somewhere I think "Rupert" suggested John Whitelaw (1921–2010) (Of course, I can't find that reference at the moment!) I don't particularly like it, but can't think of anything better, so unless someone comes up with a better title, I also propose the article be named John Whitelaw (1921–2010). What do others think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, all. I think that "John Whitelaw (1921–2010)" would be the best name for the article on the younger general as it provides appropriate disambig in the title. I'm open to any other suggestions, though, of course. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, I think "John Whitelaw (1921–2010)" is the only possible article title. We can't disambiguate by nationality or occupation, as there are two Australian generals of this name. We shouldn't call it John Whitelaw the younger because it implies a family connection as yet unproven.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, on his talk page, Bryce replied:

"As I stated on the article's talk page, I have withdrawn from discussions on this subject. However, I have already raised possible suggestions to Newm30 on the naming above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)"

Therefore, I will proceed with John Whitelaw (1921–2010). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my two-bobs worth. Yes I think "John Whitelaw (1921–2010)" would the best fit for this person. I am not sure if "John Whitelaw (1921–2010) (general)" would be suitable if another samed named person of notablity existed. While there is none "John Whitelaw (1921–2010)" is the best atm. Sorry Pdfpdf for not responding sooner, have been proccupied with the ladies. AustralianRupert and Bryce, thanks for giving ur opinion on the matter too. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Pdfpdf for not responding sooner, have been proccupied with the ladies. - Hi Newm30. I'm not sure exactly what your reply means, but if it means what I think it means, there's no need to apologise - real interaction with real humans is ALWAYS a higher priority than Wikipedia! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Whitelaw (general, born 1894). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317102550/http://www.dunsoc.com/Newsletter-web/2-1997-web.pdf to http://www.dunsoc.com/Newsletter-web/2-1997-web.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.awm.gov.au/transcripts/s00569_tran.htm

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

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) 05:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)