This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chindits article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the change comments there were some material about the wording of how the 3/2nd gurkhas and kings battalion left the chindits in 1943. I'm not happy with the wording either, but language needs to be provided that clearly says that the 1943 Chindits were sent away by Wingate as whole battalions after operations. This distinction all too often seems to be blurred. - anon (December 2 2005)
It must be emphasised that because of Wingate's objections to Indian Army formations, the only Indian Army units involved were a Gurkha battalion in the first operation, and four Gurkha battalions (with another added later) in the second operation (plus odds and ends attached to 77th and 111th Brigade HQs).
Gurkhas are loosely Hindu, but unlike other Hindu or Moslem units of the Indian Army, would happily swallow American "K" rations without troubling too much over its origin. The Gurkha element of the force (represented by Lentaigne, Masters, Morris) was always opposed to Wingate's tactical methods, and there was much mutual dislike. HLGallon ( talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
That is not the way that
WP:CHALLENGE works. A request for an inline citation is a challenge:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a
{{ citation needed}}
tag as an interim step
As you say the citation needed tag has been there for seven years. That is more than enough time for someone to provide an inline citation for the text. The thing to do is not add new template but to remove the text. The reason I added "CHALLENGE and BURDEN" to the history of my removal is because as the section in the Verifiabilit policy says ( Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations):
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
So HLGallon the burden lies with you to provide an inline citation if you want the information to remain on the page. -- PBS ( talk) 10:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chindits. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have read that the British officers would shoot their own wounded men under some circumstances. I have no further information.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chindits article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the change comments there were some material about the wording of how the 3/2nd gurkhas and kings battalion left the chindits in 1943. I'm not happy with the wording either, but language needs to be provided that clearly says that the 1943 Chindits were sent away by Wingate as whole battalions after operations. This distinction all too often seems to be blurred. - anon (December 2 2005)
It must be emphasised that because of Wingate's objections to Indian Army formations, the only Indian Army units involved were a Gurkha battalion in the first operation, and four Gurkha battalions (with another added later) in the second operation (plus odds and ends attached to 77th and 111th Brigade HQs).
Gurkhas are loosely Hindu, but unlike other Hindu or Moslem units of the Indian Army, would happily swallow American "K" rations without troubling too much over its origin. The Gurkha element of the force (represented by Lentaigne, Masters, Morris) was always opposed to Wingate's tactical methods, and there was much mutual dislike. HLGallon ( talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
That is not the way that
WP:CHALLENGE works. A request for an inline citation is a challenge:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a
{{ citation needed}}
tag as an interim step
As you say the citation needed tag has been there for seven years. That is more than enough time for someone to provide an inline citation for the text. The thing to do is not add new template but to remove the text. The reason I added "CHALLENGE and BURDEN" to the history of my removal is because as the section in the Verifiabilit policy says ( Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations):
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
So HLGallon the burden lies with you to provide an inline citation if you want the information to remain on the page. -- PBS ( talk) 10:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chindits. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I have read that the British officers would shoot their own wounded men under some circumstances. I have no further information.