Talk:List of generals of the British Empire who died during the First World War

NPOV

This article takes a very strong line, based on a limited set of sources. On a preliminary look, it appears that the death rate for general officers was lower than that for soldiers in general. By contrast, my impression (not based on data) is that the death rate for junior officers was very high. I imagine junior officers would be the most likely source of the criticism described in the article JQ (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag because "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given".

1) I'm not really sure what your NPOV problem is, are you discussing comparative death rates or the source of comments about generals?

2) Arguing that the article has NPOV issues by saying things like "my impression (not based on data) is..." and "I imagine..." is rather silly. Please provide evidence of modern sources disagreeing with what is written instead of your own guesses!

Happy to discuss further and add alternative modern sources to the article, if the above can be provided. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. I have searched for other modern sources discussing the deaths of generals and have found nothing other than what is in the article. Would be more than happy to review any other sources if they can be found and include them in the article - Dumelow (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An obvious starting point would be the memoirs of Lloyd George, which are claimed to be the source of the "myth", but the only reference is to the hostile single source of the article. More generally, the article claims to refute a popular myth, but there's no citation to anyone propounding this myth. For a much more balanced treatment, look at Lions led by donkeys, which includes several reference to the phrase "chateau generals", and gives lots of sources on both sides of this debate. JQ (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the NPOV tag, on the basis that it's inappropriate to delete it simply because you support the POV of the article. JQ (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added a few sources to the article to demonstrate that the lions led by donkeys myth has been condemned in modern academic studies, though the popular misconception remains. I would be interested to see any modern academic writing that supports the donkey position (couldn't find anything at the lions led by donkeys article, which itself lists numerous recent works that criticise the myth) and happy to include this but we should not be using outdated works that have been debunked by later writers - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi JQ, I am happy with the condition of the article after your edits and per your comment here, have removed the NPOV tag. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is now in proper encyclopedic style. JQ (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added a source showing that 25 per cent of officers who joined in 1914 died during the war, as did about 15 per cent of all 1914 enlistments.

[What follows is WP:OR, so not suitable for inclusion, but may be helpful for talk page discussion]

Looking at the number of generals at the end of the war (most of whom were presumably in the army in 1914), and adding those who died between 1914 and 1918, I get 1000, which implies about 8 per cent were killed in action or died of wounds. So, I'd say that the hostile attitude of junior officers like Sassoon and Graves was unsurprising. JQ (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Grave of Brigadier-General Roland Bradford

• ... that despite at least 78 British general officers being killed as a result of active service in the First World War (gravestone of one pictured) a popular myth states that they rarely visited the battlefield? Source: "the popular perception of British general officers of the Great War is that they were all incompetent butchers, uncaringly consigning men to certain death from châteaux far from the front line, where they skulked in splendid luxury, with polished boots, eating caviar and drinking champagne and having neither conception nor care of the true conditions suffered by the men in the trenches" from page 2 of Davis, Frank; Maddocks, Graham (1995). Bloody Red Tabs - General Officer Casualties of the Great War, 1914-1918. London: Leo Cooper. and "chapter 3 contains the names of seventy-eight generals who were killed in action, died of wounds or died as a result of active serve" from page 22 of the same. Note the article is broader in scope and lists all those known to have died during the war
  • ALT1: ... that 123 generals of the British Empire died during the First World War (gravestone of one pictured)? Source: Sourced individually (to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) on the list article. Count of those killed before the armistice only.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Level Crossing Removal Project

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk) and Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk). Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 16:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Dumelow: Good article. AGF on the sources I can't access. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Edmund Davidson Smith

I've removed this entry from the list:

Edmund Davidson Smith

British Army

Assistant Quartermaster General, Dublin District

8 September 1916

Hove, United Kingdom

The Telegraph death notice says he was eighty-four. He had retired in 1887 ("No. 25706". The London Gazette. 3 June 1887. p. 3035.) and his service as AA&QMG at Dublin had ended in 1882 ("No. 25108". The London Gazette. 16 May 1882. p. 2294.). The opening sentence of the article suggests that only generals who actually served in the War should be listed. If you were to include every retired general who died of old age during the war years, then the list would be huge. Opera hat (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the Army Lists, and Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Henry Carr-Ellison was the sole Assistant Quartermaster-General for the Dublin District from the beginning of the War ("No. 28918". The London Gazette. 29 September 1914. p. 7684.) to September 1918 ("No. 30952". The London Gazette (5th supplement). 15 October 1918. p. 12108.). Opera hat (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Opera hat, thanks for the ping. I long since stopped trying to build this list on an individual basis as it became too hard to determine who was active and not. I went with all those listed by the CWGC. Perhaps the note at the start of the list could be clearer? - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)