Talk:Peter Raw

Substantive Gp Capt

Hi Nick, minor point but while skimming through old copies of RAAF News I saw a notice that Raw was made substantive group captain in November 1965, rather than May 1966, as suggested here. Are you able to double-check Wartime? BTW, was there anything holding you back from nominating this for GA, 'cos I think it's sufficiently detailed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian I'll double check. This is on my to-do list for GA status - it needs a copy edit. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Belatedly checked: the article says that he became an acting group captain in February 1965, and was confirmed at this rank in January 1966. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Image

I found this copyright expired image of Raw in the AWM collections that you might like to use, Nick. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just uploaded this. Thanks also for pointing out the ADB entry - it's part of the recent expansion, and I didn't realise that it existed. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) I found the same thing with my recent article on Alan McNicoll; when I started writing it in my sandbox a couple of years ago he had no ADB entry, but when I returned to finish it off the other month I discovered one now existed! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewording re Long Tan

Gday. This article mentions the Battle of Long Tan in a few places in the context of Raw's involvement, using the word "ambush" to describe it. Yet whether or not D Coy, 6 RAR was ambushed at Long Tan has been debated widely since the battle and the official history describes it as a "meeting engagement" or "encounter battle". From reviewing the source used for this article (Stephens 1995 Going Solo) this language (i.e. "ambush) doesn't seem to have been used either (unless I missed it). Anyway, this is discussed in all too much detail in the wiki article on the battle itself if anyone is interested. As such I propose rewording this slightly to something like "surrounded and heavily engaged" instead of "ambushed" etc. Are there any objections to this or other suggestions / comments? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds highly sensible to me (as I understand it, the current general view is that it was a meeting engagement) Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for sorting that Nick. I amended the lead to reflect the amended text of the article. Pls let me know if you think that doesn't work. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, gents, just saw these changes - I also think this is a sensible approach. Great work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nick, the sentence: "At Jackson's farewell parade in January 1967, he spoke in praise of the Army officer. Jackson subsequently told a seminar that No. 9 Squadron had provided "magnificent" support to his force. Clark has suggested that the two men may have had a good relationship by this time." in the penultimate para of Vietnam War is a bit ambiguous. Can you replace the eighth word "he" with "Raw"?Lexysexy (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the copy got a bit carried away. The bolded sentence is the one I mean.Lexysexy (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Done - thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Hi all, just expanding on my edit summary, I think ideally it would be good to separate the post-retirement info from the rest of the last section but as his death wasn't remarkable I'm not sure putting the last few sentences under Death is the answer, and putting the current last para under Later life or Retirement don't quite work for me either because we don't have info on what he did after retirement, it's mostly just thoughts on his career -- so leaving as is seems the best course to me unless someone has another idea... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)