This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton 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 |
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just removed, again, the fourth paragraph of the introduction. Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints on topics be presented in articles. We don't write articles that only tell one side of the story or present a single set of viewpoints. A case has been made for pardoning these men, but there is also a case for why they shouldn't be pardoned (which was accepted by the British government). The article needs to cover both views fairly. Similarly, if there are both moral and legal arguments for and against the pardon, these should also be covered. Nick-D ( talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Whilst an entirely separate discussion has been initiated in various quarters, which has confused the specific "legal question" of whether a pardon should or should not be granted with the entirely different "social issue" of whether or not Morant, Handcock, and/or Witton have any right to be accorded the status of " folk hero" — a process which, rather misleadingly, has involved " talking past the specific issue" of a pardon (i.e., rather than speaking against it) [1] — this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon, its history, the established facts in the three cases, and the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon.
Thus, the question of the merits of the potential folk hero status of the three men concerned has no relevance whatsoever to this article, and belongs elsewhere.
Footnote:
- ^ For example, see Wilcox, C., "UK right to reject Breaker Morant review", The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday, 14 December 2010, Wilcox's address to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 (pod-cast available through the internal links at [1]), and Wilcox's presentation to the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Petitions (at [2]).
I've tagged this article, as I feel it has several issues that need addressing, some of which appear to have been raised above already. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There was, and is, no chance of them receiving a pardon. Either the people pushing for a pardon don't understand the case, and the circumstance and period in-which it occurred, or they are deliberately mis-representing the facts.
If there had been any doubts about the men's guilt they would have been acquitted by the court martial, and that would have been a better result for the Army. The last thing the British Army wanted was to try-them and end up having to execute them. In addition, if there had been any way for the Army to excuse their actions (both sides regularly shot opponents trying to surrender, the Boers for one thing had no POW camps in-which to keep prisoners) and instead send them to jail and so avoid having to execute them, then the Army would have done-so. As it was, the accusations brought public disgrace upon the Imperial Forces. So, no 'evil British plot'.
The accused shot dead several people in cold-blood in full view of numerous witnesses, most of these witnesses impartial and with no reason to lie, and they repeated this offence several times, again with witnesses. There was no way of the Army avoiding a trial and covering the incidents up.
Morant and his comrades weren't shot because they were 'Australians' and 'killed a few Boers', they were shot because they killed them in cold-blood and in public when the victims were doing nothing to justify being shot. The fact that the victims were Boers was irrelevant, that still made it murder, and the British Army, unlike their Boer counterparts, was subject to the rule of law. FWIW, while Morant and his comrades' actions cannot be condoned, they can perhaps at least be understood as the result of men who's patience, forbearance, and humanity had been so recently very sorely-tried. As for their unfortunate victims, their misfortune was to encounter these men at just such a time. BTW, what I have written above could have been discovered and understood by anyone with a reasonable knowledge of military history and of the basic principles of English law, without requiring the services of an attorney general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 ( talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
It's unclear what the "Major James Francis Thomas" and "Principle of condonation in British military law" sections are getting at. Neither seems particularly relevant to the topic of this article, especially as written - the text is very generic. Issues around the trial seem better handled at Court-martial of Breaker Morant. If the issue is that some people think that a pardon might be justified as Thomas wasn't up to the job or the "principle of condonation" (Whatever it may be), this should be stated plainly. The current text adds nothing to the article, and I propose to re-remove it. Nick-D ( talk) 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is an unnecessary fork of the articles on the three men. The petitions to obtain pardons should be covered in the articles that properly detail the crimes they were convicted of. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton 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 |
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just removed, again, the fourth paragraph of the introduction. Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints on topics be presented in articles. We don't write articles that only tell one side of the story or present a single set of viewpoints. A case has been made for pardoning these men, but there is also a case for why they shouldn't be pardoned (which was accepted by the British government). The article needs to cover both views fairly. Similarly, if there are both moral and legal arguments for and against the pardon, these should also be covered. Nick-D ( talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Whilst an entirely separate discussion has been initiated in various quarters, which has confused the specific "legal question" of whether a pardon should or should not be granted with the entirely different "social issue" of whether or not Morant, Handcock, and/or Witton have any right to be accorded the status of " folk hero" — a process which, rather misleadingly, has involved " talking past the specific issue" of a pardon (i.e., rather than speaking against it) [1] — this article is specifically devoted to an historical account of the specific process of seeking a pardon, its history, the established facts in the three cases, and the evidence that has been presented in support of request for a pardon.
Thus, the question of the merits of the potential folk hero status of the three men concerned has no relevance whatsoever to this article, and belongs elsewhere.
Footnote:
- ^ For example, see Wilcox, C., "UK right to reject Breaker Morant review", The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday, 14 December 2010, Wilcox's address to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 (pod-cast available through the internal links at [1]), and Wilcox's presentation to the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Petitions (at [2]).
I've tagged this article, as I feel it has several issues that need addressing, some of which appear to have been raised above already. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There was, and is, no chance of them receiving a pardon. Either the people pushing for a pardon don't understand the case, and the circumstance and period in-which it occurred, or they are deliberately mis-representing the facts.
If there had been any doubts about the men's guilt they would have been acquitted by the court martial, and that would have been a better result for the Army. The last thing the British Army wanted was to try-them and end up having to execute them. In addition, if there had been any way for the Army to excuse their actions (both sides regularly shot opponents trying to surrender, the Boers for one thing had no POW camps in-which to keep prisoners) and instead send them to jail and so avoid having to execute them, then the Army would have done-so. As it was, the accusations brought public disgrace upon the Imperial Forces. So, no 'evil British plot'.
The accused shot dead several people in cold-blood in full view of numerous witnesses, most of these witnesses impartial and with no reason to lie, and they repeated this offence several times, again with witnesses. There was no way of the Army avoiding a trial and covering the incidents up.
Morant and his comrades weren't shot because they were 'Australians' and 'killed a few Boers', they were shot because they killed them in cold-blood and in public when the victims were doing nothing to justify being shot. The fact that the victims were Boers was irrelevant, that still made it murder, and the British Army, unlike their Boer counterparts, was subject to the rule of law. FWIW, while Morant and his comrades' actions cannot be condoned, they can perhaps at least be understood as the result of men who's patience, forbearance, and humanity had been so recently very sorely-tried. As for their unfortunate victims, their misfortune was to encounter these men at just such a time. BTW, what I have written above could have been discovered and understood by anyone with a reasonable knowledge of military history and of the basic principles of English law, without requiring the services of an attorney general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 ( talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
It's unclear what the "Major James Francis Thomas" and "Principle of condonation in British military law" sections are getting at. Neither seems particularly relevant to the topic of this article, especially as written - the text is very generic. Issues around the trial seem better handled at Court-martial of Breaker Morant. If the issue is that some people think that a pardon might be justified as Thomas wasn't up to the job or the "principle of condonation" (Whatever it may be), this should be stated plainly. The current text adds nothing to the article, and I propose to re-remove it. Nick-D ( talk) 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is an unnecessary fork of the articles on the three men. The petitions to obtain pardons should be covered in the articles that properly detail the crimes they were convicted of. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)