Talk:Johnson Beharry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

Picture

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

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?

Proper image

Johnson Beharry in front of a mural of the Victoria Cross

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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. ;-)

"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)

"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)

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)

Religious background

Is Mr Beharry Jewish? There were some rumours that in Grenada a small part of a lost tribe Israel settled many years ago and that Mr Beharry is a directly related to one of the lost tribes maternally. Any sources available to substantiate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.181.219 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in his biography or in any piece I have ever read about him. That sounds like a rumour to me, most likely unsubstantiated in any way. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He says in his book that his heritage on both sides is mainly of Indian, with some Afro-Caribbean descent aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.188.248 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of living VC holders

I've adjusted the number of living VC holders to reflect the recent (July 09) death of Ted Kenna VC. The number of living holders of the "imperial" VC is now down to seven. The note at the bottom re Apiata (NZ VC) and Donaldson (Aus VC) states that they "also" hold the honour, making the total number of living VC holders nine in total.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Service details

Releases by the MOD at the time his VC was awarded state that he has served in Northern Ireland - now maybe it would be better not to link to the Op Banner article, but for most people that describes better what he was probably doing than jsut saying Northern Ireland. Please understand that Wikipedia works on "Verifiability, not truth" - written statements from reliable soruces are preferred over our own interpretations. David Underdown (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Where He From

It don't tell which town or village in Grenada he original from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Kylekieran (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Johnson Beharry is a Lance Sergeant, not a Sergeant

Recent pictures show Johnson Beharry wearing three chevrons, which explains the confusion, but he is actually a Lance Sergeant, which is not a promotion, but a change in title due to his current appointment with the Foot Guards.

Here is a post on the Victoria Cross Trust Blog that addresses his sergeant's chevrons: [1]

And a few sample articles that mention his title as Lance Sergeant: [2] [3]

I didn't find any direct citations about his being made a lance sergeant, but since it's not an actual promotion, they wouldn't make a big deal out of this.

--Deathphoenix ʕ 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of award on the basis of race bias: vandalism?

An anonymous user keeps adding the following sentence to the article: “His Victoria Cross occasioned debate in the United Kingdom over whether he had been awarded it on account of his race, and not his actions, which do not appear to meet the standard for the award of the Victoria Cross.” This is a very serious accusation, which smells like personal opinion/NPOV because not a single source (reputable or otherwise) is given to support it. The rule to which Wikipedia adheres is “no source, no inclusion”. Especially when it handles such accusations. I thus consider these repeated edits to be vandalism, and shall keep reverting them until properly sourced by reputable sources (in other words non-tabloid). -- fdewaele, 27 October 2014, 14:41 CET.

Anonymous user: 86.134.73.152 now added a source from the Telegraph. Although a reputable source, from the article it appears that the objection came from the BNP, a fringe extreme right racist party. It thus didn't generate the dissention or public discussion the editor wants to project. Nor does the article support the BNP's view. Also, the anonymous editor clearly by the wording of his edit want to project something entirely else: he wants to project as fact (whereas it's merely fringe opinion) that the award was undeserved on account of positive discrimination, which the article clearly does not endorse. -- fdewaele, 27 October 2014, 20:28 CET.

Unfortunately, there is little doubt Beharry's award was political. The VC is awarded for running TOWARDS bullets, not driving AWAY from the firing, which Beharry did. To claim that this man met the standard for a VC is deceitful.81.141.8.102 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johnson Beharry. 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/20050318163441/http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/ophons05/beharry.htm to http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/ophons05/beharry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318163441/http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/ophons05/beharry.htm to http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/ophons05/beharry.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)