Talk:Francis Hassett/Archive 1

Question

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Hassett&oldid=235795604 makes an improved article look even better. Could you please tell me if you agree, or not, and explain why? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I do not particularly like the "Honours and awards" sections, and I do not think it should be included here. All of Hassett's honours (including his National Medal, thanks to you) are covered in the article, and one can just click on the link to find out about them. Also, due to how many medals Hassett actually had, I think the volume of the section overwhelms the article. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LVO vs MVO?

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1106630&search_type=advanced&showInd=true says: "The Royal Victorian Order - Members of the Fourth Class", 27 April 1954, "Marshal of the 1954 Royal Tour".
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=40159&geotype=London&gpn=2501&type=ArchivedIssuePage&all=&exact=&atleast=&similar= also says: "To be Members of the Fourth Class".
In my ignorance, that sounds like "MVO" to me. Where does the "LVO" come from?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer:
If you look at Royal Victorian Order, you will see:
There are five grades (levels) of the Royal Victorian Order, in order of precedence:

• Knight or Dame Grand Cross (prefix: Sir or Dame, post-nominal: GCVO)
• Knight or Dame Commander (prefix: Sir or Dame, post-nominal: KCVO or DCVO)
• Commander (post-nominal: CVO)
• Lieutenant (post-nominal: LVO)
• Member (post-nominal: MVO)

The fourth level is "Lieutenant" (post-nominal: LVO)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous; most texts state that he was an MVO due to the fact that it was classed as "Members of the Fourth Class" as that was what it was most commonly known then. But, as you outlined above, the fourth class is LVO. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

References

I do not see why you feel the need to "clarify" which London Gazette reference goes with which award due to the fact that the reference is on the correct honour. Also, there is a link on the National Medal which if one clicks on it will discover what it is awarded for, resulting in an unnecessary addition placed in the article. In regards to the "It's an Honour" references, again, I do not see why you felt the need to even add them at all; the awards Hassett received were already well referenced and "It's an Honour" actually violates WP:VER as it is not a third party source. It is a government body stating what awards they have granted to individuals. I also do not understand why you added the "Inter-bellum" section at all, as, realistically, it is not needed; the information fits well where I had originally placed it. The list of medals that are listed at the end of most sections are also not needed; they add no real value to the article, and on top of that they are unreferenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I do not see why you feel the need to "clarify" which London Gazette reference goes with which award due to the fact that the reference is on the correct honour."

There are two phrases in this sentence. The first is "I do not see why you feel the need to "clarify" which London Gazette reference goes with which award". I'm not sure that I feel any "need". However, in the "References" section, the London Gazette references all look pretty much the same; you can't just look at the list of references and say "That's the one I'm interested in" and click on it - you need to refer back to the body of the article to know which reference refers to which decoration. With the clarifying comment, it is quite clear which is which.

If you are to view the reference section you will find little arrows which take you to where the references is used; correctly identifying which honour it goes with. Also, if one were to click on the reference it would take you to the actual London Gazette issue which clearly identifies which honour the reference and issue is for. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It feels to me that you have ignored what I said, in particular: the London Gazette references all look pretty much the same; you can't just look at the list of references and say "That's the one I'm interested in". What you say is factual, but does not address the point I raised. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore what you said; I clearly answered it. You ignored what I said. I also do not see how you can maintain they all look the same when they are different issues, pages, dates and placed in different (appropriate) sections of the text. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The second phrase is "due to the fact that the reference is on the correct honour". I can't make much sense of this phrase. I'm guessing you might mean "I do not see why you feel ... , because I know which is which." Well, it doesn't really matter what you know; what matters is what the audience who is reading it understands. I've already explained that I found it unclear; I doubt that I'm the only person who read it and found it unclear.

Taken completely out of context. The references identify clearly which honour it is for; that statement had nothing to do with me. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't and don't understand the phrase; I don't understand your response, either. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how you cannot understand my statements; they are quite clear. The reference is on the correct honour; the honour it applies to. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Also, there is a link on the National Medal which if one clicks on it will discover what it is awarded for".

I agree. When I've finished writing this, I will remove it.

"resulting in an unnecessary addition placed in the article."

Let's deal with the use of this word "unnecessary"; I dislike it intensely for several reasons, and ask that you refrain from using it in any further communications with me. It is an overused and misused word in much the same manner as the word "need" - humans "need" to breath, eat, drink, dispose of waste and keep sufficiently warm and/or cool. Very little else is "necessary".

"Unnecessary", in the way you use it, is a purely subjective opinion.

As you are very well aware, sometimes our subjective opinions are the same, other times they are not.

I have not exactly used the word "unnecessary" in communications with you, unless you view that whatever I leave in edit summaries is purely a communication with you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you had. What I said was, I ... ask that you refrain from using it in any further communications with me. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"In regards to the "It's an Honour" references, again, I do not see why you felt the need to even add them at all;"

a) I didn't feel any need.

Then why add them? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste either of our time answering that. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

b) You may not know why I did it, but I am of the opinion that you are sufficiently intelligent to have come up with a good guess.

c) Nevertheless, as you have sort-of-asked (or at least, I interpret your statement to have been intented as a question): It's an Honour is the Official Australian source, and this person is (was) Australian. It is true that many of these decorations are not Australian, and that the London Gazette is the official place to announce those particular decorations. However, from the Australian point-of-view, they are now "foreign" decorations, and it is up to the Australian Government how they are and should be treated. I imagine that the London Gazette couldn't care less what the Australian Government thinks. Australians, however, should care what the Australian Government thinks.

"It's an Honour" is actually not the official government source; the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette is.

Yes, pedantically you are correct. "It's an Honour" is only an online presentation of the information from Commonwealth of Australia Gazette - the Gazette is the source, the website is only a presentation of the information from the source. Perhaps better chosen wording might be: It's an Honour is an online presentation of the Official Australian source.

During Hassett's time the British honours were not classed as "foreign decorations", as you put it, and the London Gazette was the official source used for honours. 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

a) It's not "as I put it" - "foreign decoration" (or "foreign award", or some other similar phrase) is the term that most nations use - I didn't make up the term.

Actually, the British honours are not officially classed as forign decorations, they are still in the order of wearing but are not awarded anymore. Actually, an Australian Army pilot served with the British on an exchange program, and was posted for service in the Middle East. For his actions, the British awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross which he wears at the start of his medals and not at the end as the British decorations are not officially forign honours. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

b) Yes, but so what?

That's quite clear; as I stated the London Gazette was the official source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

c) I'm talking about what applies now, not what applied then. If the Australian Government were to decide that, say, "all foreign decorations are not recognised", (highly unlikely that they would ever do this, but hypothetically possible), then whatever the London Gazette says or said, (even though it is a reflection of the facts at the time it said it), would no longer be relevant, because since the early 1990s, the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette became the primary source.

As I have stated above, British decorations are not officially classed as forign decorations. Again, the decorations wern't (and still arn't officially) forign decorations and your point is not exactly valid. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"the awards Hassett received were already well referenced and "It's an Honour" actually violates WP:VER as it is not a third party source."

You have missed the point. For Australians, it is not a third party source. For Australians, "It's an Honour" is the primary source. Unfortunately, it is not always a particularly reliable source, but never-the-less, for Australians, it is the primary source. Fortunately, the London Gazette appears to be very reliable, but since the early 1990s, for Australians, it is no longer the primary source.

"It's an Honour" is not the primary source; as stated above the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette is.

As I have just stated above, you are correct; I have chosen the wrong terminology. As I have just stated above, I should have said something like:

You have missed the point. For Australians, it is not a third party source. For Australians, "It's an Honour" is an online presentation of the primary source. Unfortunately, it is not always a particularly reliable source, but never-the-less, for Australians, it is an online presentation of the primary source. Fortunately, the London Gazette appears to be very reliable, but since the early 1990s, for Australians, it is no longer the primary source.. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on "It's an Honour" is irrelevant; it is not the primary source and still violates WP:VER, something which you continue to ignore. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the most recent honour Hassett recieved was in 1977, making your statement about the London Gazette redundant. It also still violates WP:VER. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not make my statement redundant. Since the early 1990s, the London Gazette is no longer the primary source. (Regarding the second sentence, I don't understand what your point is.) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's an Honour" violates WP:VER as it is not a third party source, but a first party one, and it does make your statemnet redundant as Hassett's last honour was granted 13 years before the London Gazette stopped being used for Australians, and all of Hassett's imperial honours were published in the London Gazette. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is a government body stating what awards they have granted to individuals."

Yes, that's their job. I don't understand your point here.

In other words, it is not a third party source, and thus violates WP:VER. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't and don't understand your original point. I don't understand your response. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is stated quite clear. Perhaps you should actually look at WP:VER. It states that references used must come from a third party soure; "It's an Honour" is a first party source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"I also do not understand why you added the "Inter-bellum" section at all"

That's quite simple. The events I separated out occurred in 1946. I'm fairly confident that you know that 1946 was not during World War II. 1946 was between WW2 and the Korean War, hence "Inter-bellum".

Yet, you did not place information in that section that is in the Korean War section that has information from 1948.

Yes, you're right, I should have moved information from before 25 June 1950 out of the Korean War section and into the Inter-bellum section. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, half the information in that section was not in 1946; only his marriage was. You also decided to devote a whole section to one-and-a-half lines of information, which to me seems completly unnecessary. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you not to use the word "necessary". Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to use the word "unnecessary" where ever I see fit, and you still did not reply to my statement. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"as, realistically, it is not needed;"

If we are going to talk about realism, 1946 is very clearly not during WW2.

Again, only half of that infomation is outlined to be in 1946. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And the other half is. So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement does not even make sense. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And as mentioned above, "needed" is your subjective opinion - in this case an opinion with which I do not agree.

"the information fits well where I had originally placed it."

Again, your opinion. I would like you to explain to me how events in 1946 "fit well" into a section labelled "1939-1945".

In other words, you view that your opinion must come before mine.

No. That is not another description of what I said.

It was implied, and hass been before. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also not my opinion. I am always amused when anyone decides to tell me what I think. It is invariably what they think, and it is invariably quite different to what I think.

Your opinion and what you think is the same thing, and what you statedis what you think; making it your opinion. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You will also find that in other articles information going up to 1947 is included in WWII sections for the simple reason that most people were not discharged from their WWII service until 1946 or 1947. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a number of sweeping generalisations, and also, it doesn't address the request: I would like you to explain to me how events in 1946 "fit well" into a section labelled "1939-1945".

If you look at it closly you will find that it is not labelled "1939-1945" at all. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also question the accuracy of the statement that "most" people were not discharged from their WWII service until 1946 or 1947. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the World War II Nominal Roll. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of medals that are listed at the end of most sections are also not needed;

a) If you are going to get pedantic, the whole article is "not needed". The existence of this article, or otherwise, will not make one iota of difference to the events it describes, or anything much else, for that matter.

Then why contribute to the article or add the medals if the whole thing is not needed? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Many reasons! (I don't imagine that you yourself contribute to WP because you "need" to.) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

b) The medals are a fact. (Not an opinion.) Whether you put some facts in, or exclude them, sounds like censorship to me. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia - there is supposed to be no place for censorship in an encyclopaedia.

I don't believe I have ever seen an encyclopaedia which lists whole sections of medals, nor do I see how it is censorship;

Whatever you have, or haven't, ever seen is hardly a basis for deciding the factuality of anything.

I was not questioning facts. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

nor do I see how it is censorship;

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to explain to you what censorship is, independent of what you do or don't see. I also don't see the point of repeating what I wrote.

I know what sensorship is, but do not see how it is relevant here. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the way you are stating this it appears that if one scrap of information is not included in the article it is sensorship. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really - depending on circumstances, selectively including some information and selectively excluding other information is propoganda and/or censorship. That is not the same as saying "if one scrap of information is not included in the article it is sensorship." Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How in the world is propoganda relevant in this curcumstance? It is a biographical article, not a political statement or something else along them lines. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"they add no real value to the article,"

That is your subjective opinion - not fact.

They do not add a wreath of information, nor are they importaint to Hassett's life. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"They do not add a wreath of information." - Pardon? You are going to have to explain that one to me.

They do not add valiable or much information to the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"nor are they importaint to Hassett's life." - I don't understand that sentence either. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite clear; the point of a biographical article is to inform on a certain person's life, particulally the importaint sectors. The lists of secvice medals are not an importaint fact of Hassett's life. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"and on top of that they are unreferenced."

True. However, that can be remedied. If it really bothers you, flag them.

That does not remedie the situation; they will remain unreferenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why will they remain unreferenced? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They will be tagged as unreferenced, references will not be added. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found your response quite unsatisfying; you have not addressed many of the points I consider to be the important points, and many of your replies are simply a statement of your opinion - you do not seem to be presenting many (if any) facts to support your opinions.

I addressed the vast majority of points you raised, you just chose to ignore them. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On the "up" side, we do seem to have clarified a few things, but on the whole, our inter-communication seems to continue to be poor, and it does not seem to me that, even after all these words, we have resolved anything. Nor do we seem to be notably closer to resolving anything. I find that, too, very unsatisfying.

I'm forced to stop and ask myself, and you too if you wish, just what are we trying to achieve here?

If all that either/both of us is trying to do is state our own points of view, well, that's a pretty pointless exercise, and a complete waste of both of our time.

What am I trying to achieve? Well, I can see information missing from the article, and feel that adding that information improves the comprehendability of the article. I can see things that aren't clear, and feel that adding clarifications also improves the comprehendability of the article. I think that improving the comprehendability of the article improves the article. I think that adding information can improve a reader's understanding and appreciation of the topic.

I do not see much imformation missing from the article at all, and the only thing you have really done is double up on some references and add lists of medals. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me what you are trying to achieve?

A good quality, well structured article which I had achieved until you added unreliable references and information that adds no real value to the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you see how we could move closer to both of our goals?

If not, I'm not sure where to go from here.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The original version of this reply would probably be categorised by you as a "personal attack", so this version is as impersonal as I can make it. As I have noted in previous attempted discussions with you, "discussing" anything with you that you do not agree with is a pointless passtime. You have no interest in any point of view but your own; your modus operandi appears to be to continuously repeat your own point of view, repeatedly tell other people that you are right, and that they are wrong, and refusing to discuss any points they may raise that you don't agree with. (Telling someone they are wrong is NOT a discussion.)

That's a bit rich coming from you. I have never once stated that I am right and you are wrong, and I have discussed the points presented, but you just completley disregard them. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I got fed up with your stubborn refusal to discuss things, I just walked away.

Everytime you try to argue with me I present facts that support my claims and you completely ignore them, when I try to press the point that I have these facts which you have ignored you state that you don't care anymore and leave. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This time I will NOT just walk away, but neither will I indulge any further in the pointless passtime of trying to be reasonable and trying to have a reasonable and rational discussion with you.

Reasonable is listening (or in this case reading) what I have to say, which you do not. As I have said, you ignore several facts that I bring up. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale, politely. You don't agree. So what? You saying "I'm right and you're wrong" isn't going to achieve anything useful or productive.

Again, I have never once said I'm right and your wrong. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I conclude by saying: 1) It appears you have no desire to distinguish between your own point-of-view and what you believe to be fact. 2) Nobody is right all the time. 3) Being right all the time is not a useful goal. 4) Telling other people that they are wrong all the time will not help you achieve your goals. 4) I hope you discover these facts at a much younger age than I did.

I have stated facts that you completely disregarded, and you now classify them as my point-of-view when they are facts. For the third time, I have never once said that I'm right and your wrong, and believe that is quite a rich statement coming from you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Over and out. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)