Talk:William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim

Misc

According to the Oxford Companion of Military History (OUP, Oxford), ISBN 0198662092

1. Slim won the Military Cross in Mesopotamia
2. Slim became Allied Land Forces commander SE Asia after the fall of Rangoon, but before the end of the war. (This is also what Slim says in Defeat into Victory)

What Slim doesn't mention, but the Oxford CoMH does, is that Leese, (his predecessor, posted in from the Med) whilst planning the re-taking of Malaya decided that Slim was not sufficiently of his way of thinking, and relieved him as commander of XIV Army. Slim then asked to be allowed to retire, and his subordinates made their feelings known; Alanbrooke relieved Leese instead, and gave his job to Slim.

INDEED, methinks this "episode" definately deserves mentioning in the article as a. it's an important event and b. defines Slim and his "worth" -- user:fdewaele, 16 November 2006, 22:33.

Whilst the Australians were doubtless right to warm to Slim as a decent bloke rather than a stuffed shirt, he had not "risen from the ranks" in the normal sense of the phrase. He had been in the OTC at University, joined up on the outbreak of war and was commissioned within a month.

(and surely Field Marshal is a rank/honour you never retire from ?)Rjccumbria 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted "risen from the ranks."
• Even Field Marshals have to retire eventually. Slim had not retired from the Army while he was Governor-General. He was therefore still "Field Marshall Slim" and not "Field Marshal (ret) Slim" or something like that (as is the present Governor-General, Maj-Gen (ret) Jeffery). Adam 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What Rjcumbria said rings a bell - I think he is right - Field Marshals cannot retire. I think perhaps they stay on the active list although obviously they can leave a post (eg command of an army or a governor-generalship etc). I'm not sure where that comes from (or why) and it's not in the article on field marshals. Not really relevant, but interesting :) Wiki-Ed 12:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the bit about the contrast between Slim's statue and the other two of Alabrooke and Montgomery. I believe the contrast is deliberate, Slim is shown as the most human of the 3 and his uniform / pose reflects his empathy with his troops in contrast to the aloof Montgomery and the distant Allanbrooke.

Anyone wishing to verify this has merely to check the other two statues on the web or wiki.

The bit about him watching 10 Downing Street is verifiable by visiting the statue.

HTH

Roger

83.67.126.86 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of Viscount Slim... is there a place on this entry where this information would fit? Hi, I am new to this. I have done some research and found that there is a portrait of Viscount Slim in the Ground floor Waiting Room at Seaford House, Belgravia... now a Defence Academy. The web address is http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/rcds/About_Us/copy_of_index_html The description of the painting is "Field Marshal Viscount Slim (first post-war Commandant) by James Romaine Govett. On loan from the present Viscount Slim." Thanks ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewand226 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. on the article it says Slim claimed a kill ratio of 1:100 in Burma and then cites a historian saying this is "credible". (footnote 47). Sounds pretty ludicrous to me given Allied and Japanese casualties were barely that much different. I think someone needs to find another source on this. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:40AC:65E8:3677:B3CD (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Does no-one in charge read the comments here? The claim should at least be flagged as dubious til someone has found the facts.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:68E1:4159:9342:56B1 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi - John W. Dower is a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. I accept he may be wrong but you will need to produce a reliable source demonstrating that he is wrong. Otherwise it is just your opinion. Dormskirk (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well is this reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign_1944%E2%80%9345 Casualty figures for both sides in the campaign is given in the info-box top right of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:3844:A149:4898:3528 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - Unfortunately wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Dower doesn't say that the ratio is credible. Rather, he gives Slims 1:100 ratio and then adds: "smaller, but nonetheless still incredible ratios were reported from other theaters of war" (the p.53 reference in the article). I'm going to remove the claim because it is definitely incredible and not supported by Dower. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Correction. I'll leave Slim's claim in since it is attributed to Slim but remove the Dower credible part. --regentspark (comment) 23:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice job. I would question as well the part of the sentence where it says the Japanese officers were determined to have every man under their command die. I don't know whether or not it's citing from Dower there but either way it's nonsense. The actual Japanese view wasn't they wanted all their men to die it was that soldiers should fight to the death rather than be captured. As a side note the grammar/punctuation in the sentence needs fixing as well though probably it would make sense to revise the information first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:A4D5:23B5:DE79:2A8 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I replaced the Governor General with a Military Person infobox, which WikiProject Military history has just created. I noticed that it was fairly quickly removed, though. I replaced the military box, as I believe Slim is first and foremost remembered as a general, his biographies focus almost exclusively on this aspect for example, and only afterwards on his later political and ceremonial career as Governor General. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I suspect that this problem will occur in the future for a number of other figures who have gone on to have political careers. Leithp 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several arguments for using the Governor-General infobox:

• It is part of series which people can click through to follow the succession of Governors-General
• Being the Queen's Vice-Regal representative tops being a Field-Marshal
• In Australia Slim is best remembered as a Governor-General
• "Military Person" is a ridiculously broad and amorphous category of people - are you going to make hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes? "Governer-General of Australia" is a distinct sequence of 24.

Adam 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with the Governor General Infobox is that it doesn't convey much information beyond that covered by the succession box at the bottom. Also, I'm not arguing that the post isn't important, but as I said it's not really what Slim's place in history is built on. And yes, the plan is to roll out the Military Person box for every substantial military biography article, much like the other projects such as the Military conflict infobox already carried out. Leithp 09:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Might it be possible to adapt the "Later work" field of {{Infobox Military Person}} to contain the needed information about his political career? —Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

When there are already two different sucession boxes in the article showing his position in the line of Governor-Generals and Slim is remembered best internationally as a Field Marshal, I agree that the military person infobox should take precedence. A link in the 'later work' field can jump down to the section on that of his life. --Loopy ^e 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is in the right place (new to this)

Re Nickname - Slim was known to 14th army as 'Uncle Bill' not 'Bill Slim' - if he is to be ascribed an nickname it should be 'Uncle Bill'.

One of his key attributes as a general was his skill as a communicator - a fact directly linked to his writing career.

His autobiography 'Defeat Into Victory' is widely-acknowledged as one of the best books writtn by a General ever - certainly a better source than John Keegan's book.

Also 'Slim - The Standard Bearer' Ronald Lewin is to be recommended. (reviewed here http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_2_90/ai_76736967)- this book makes a further key point you don't include - Slim was the first Indian Army officer to be appointed CIGS - a tribute to his outstanding talents.

I hope this helps

Allegations reported in media

The following is text that I've included in the article but has been deleted by editors:

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

However, Slim's time as Governor-General have been brought in to question by recent comments by David Hill, a former managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Accusations were reported in April 2007 that Slim, whilst he was in the Governor-General's official vehicle, had sexually assaulted a school boy from Fairbridge Farm School, in country New South Wales. David Hill stated that the material was not included in a recent book he had written about Slim due to a lack of corroboration; however, since that time, it was reported that another person had made allegations of sexual misconduct involving Slim.

I leave it open to the consensus of the community whether this should be included in the article. I agree that the material has not been proven; but as you can see in this text, we are merely stating that it has been reported in the mainstream media. I would seek that the information be included as it is relevant. But I leave it to the community. Views? MojoTas 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it out unless/until proven. Do you believe everything you read in the papers? GrahamBould 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations were the subject of numerous reports, I think it would be OK to mention briefly. I'd prefer a more robust source than that terse ABC article, though, such as The Australian article.--cj | talk 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an article on the matter in The Age, 28 April, titled "Revered governor-general accused of abuse". It includes the sentence "David Hill, a former managing director of the ABC and a staunch republican, has claimed that the war hero and 13th governor-general of Australia had groped students at the Fairbridge Farm School at Molong when he visited in 1955". That may just have been licence on the part of the article's author Damien Murphy. I heard David Hill interviewed by Margaret Throsby a few days later and they discussed the matter. Hill took some pains to point out that he was not claiming Slim had been guilty of abuse, but was merely reporting that someone else had claimed this. I think the allegations merit inclusion in Slim's article, because the existence of the allegations is factual and referencable. Whether the claims are true is an entirely different question. JackofOz 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A third hand, uncorroborated accusation would not stand up in any libel court in the world: I think this would be an appropriate acid test for inclusion and on that basis it should not go in. --hydeblake 14:18, 6 June

2007 (UTC)

This information should NOT be included - it's 3rd hand hearsay.

There's barely enough on Slim's qualities and achievements (true and verifiable) without including rumour which may have, as the info above suggests, a political origin.

Certainly no other reports of anything like this have ever surfaced about Slim. In fact, part from tittle-tattle by an Australian republican, there's hardly ever been a bad word said about him at all - even by Stilwell!!

A shoddy attempt to demean a great man! If you allow this level of content then anarchy will reign on wiki - the UK's Sunday Sport claimed a London Bus had been found on the moon - it's verifiable!!

Roger

83.67.126.86 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is far from complete without at least a mere one sentence mention of this. --76.83.249.234 10:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really - anyone can claim anything about an individual and saying it does not make it so - which is why there are defamation laws in most parts of the warld! Repeating these allegations only give them credence in many people's eyes and I feel it is not for Wiki to be used as a forum for unproven, third-hand mud-slinging. If you don't like it, then ask yourself how you would feel if there was a similar accusation, based on such negligable information, on an article about yourself... I think that no-one here would like it!--hydeblake 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-included this issue. The allegations are not infrequently aired in Australia (as lately as today). People who hear them or read them in the media and who casually look up Slim's bio here should read about the allegations AND their unequivocal dismissal. If you read Hill's book you see that the allegations were made by more than one Fairbridge child "on the record" to Hill. It is indeed sad that such allegations should emerge at this time. But they have and that is what Wp is for - to record what has happened and not to support beatification of a person not matter how commendable his life has been as a whole cf. with information here about sexual misconduct by priests. Albatross2147 (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted someone revert of my re-inclusion of a note on the allegations.

Note what this article in Quadrant on 1st July 2007 (a very conservative magazine) has to say:

OVER THE LAST few decades, a dogma has emerged that anyone claiming to have been sexually abused is to be automatically and implicitly believed. The corollary is that those named as abusers are to be regarded as guilty until proved innocent. This latter practice has produced untold misery and injustice.

These new attitudes represent an overreaction to the past, when victims were terrified into silence by powerful individuals and institutions, and when those who did speak out were either disbelieved or condemned as provokers of their own abuse. What is more, paedophile tendencies in adults were often treated as an amiable weakness, a venial fault forgivable by all broad-minded people, and no more serious than a fondness for the bottle, or a tendency to fiddle the petty cash. As recently as the 1970s, I taught on the staff of a Victorian high school with a well-known paedophile who, these days, would not be allowed anywhere near students. We have quite correctly come to recognise that any sexual interaction of an adult with a child, even when there is no apparent immediate or long-term resultant trauma, is a totally unacceptable exploitation of an unequal power relationship.

The allegations against Slim by the former Fairbridge students are impossible to prove or disprove half a century hence, but on the face of it they appear credible. Why on earth would three men in their sixties, amongst whom there has been no collusion, suddenly invent such an extraordinary story after the lapse of so many years? Slim's children, and men who served under him, have indignantly and understandably repudiated the charges, but without any evidence.

Assuming, then, that Slim did do the wrong thing by the boys, how are we to reassess his reputation?

The answer is found in an apercu from the novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time." In other words: William Slim was a great and a good general who is justifiably honoured for playing a major role in destroying a bestial tyranny; William Slim used a position of power and trust to molest defenceless children in order to indulge his lust. Both facts are true, and neither cancels or mitigates the other.

It seems to me that admirers of Slim have to recognise that the allegations have been made and many people give them credence. To ignore the fact of the allegations seems to me to not what WP is about. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. People have referred to mud-slinging and demeaning a great man. That's not the issue here. These claims have been made and published. They may turn out to be hogwash, or they may turn out to be true. It's not for us to say that they're automatically smears, just because they haven't been proven yet. If some notable person was reported as saying that Slim was the greatest person in the history of Australia, I assume these same editors would have no problem in including such praise. We should not see such statements through the prism of our own personal views on the subject, and should not decide whether they're worthy of inclusion or not depending on our pre-existing opinion of the subject. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your quote mentions:

"Slim's children, and men who served under him, have indignantly and understandably repudiated the charges, but without any evidence."

How do you prove a negative? Isn't the burden on the accusers to provide proof? The fact that you can't libel the dead has been abused by publishers in recent years and, unless proof is provided, Slim shouldn't be treated as guilty. I find it difficult to believe that an unsubstantiated accusation, barely reported, should feature it's own section in a biography of such an important person. I couldn't find any coverage in UK newspapers, are there other press reports on the allegations? Certainly none of his biographers have mentioned anything like this, and they have interviewed those who knew him extensively. Leithp 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is difficult. But the fact remains the allegations have been raised in a widely circulated and book not about Slim but about the notorious Fairbridge Farms - which were part of a cruel regime that the (British and some Australian) authorities did their level best to cover up. It is unlikely I think you will agree that any of Slim's biographers would have interviewed the people who were in the farms. His patronage of the homes was largely peripheral to his career. Do any of the bios mention it? I do understand why you can't tolerate any mention of any blemish in this article especially when the fact of the allegations is verifiable as is that the allegations are given some credence in Australia. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're assuming that I "can't tolerate any blemish in this article" then there is absolutely no point in having this discussion, because you're not listening to what I'm saying. To reiterate- no source on Slim gives any indication of this, it's (barely) covered in a few local sources and there has been no in depth investigation into it. Yet you want it to command it's own section? This type of "present-ism", giving massive weight to whatever is in the news (is it even in the news?) at the expense of context is very typical of wikipedia. Leithp 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also confused by your argument that the allegations are "peripheral" and wouldn't be covered in his biographies. If that is the case, why then should they be be mentioned in a far, far shorter article on Slim on Wikipedia? Leithp 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is "treating Slim as guilty". Equally, nobody here is treating him as innocent. His guilt or innocence is not for us to determine, or to make any comment on whatsoever. What we can do is report that certain people have made certain claims. That's all they are at this stage, claims. They may never be substantiated. But they have been made. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

>>I'm also confused by your argument that the allegations are "peripheral" and wouldn't be covered in his biographies. - I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. Firstly by "peripheral to his career" I meant his military career on which the bios would have concentrated. Secondly other than Mead all the bios were written well before these allegations were aired in Hill's book. It is unlikely that at this stage the allegations would or could be investigated and in any event to what point Slim is dead and buried. But at Wp we do not come to praise the dead, merely to record pertinent, sometimes impertinent, verifible facts. It is a fact that the allegations that Slim was a kiddy fiddler have been made. They have been not by some reptile from the Sunday Spurt to entertain the unwashed masses of British newspaper consumers the vast mass of whom have never heard of Slim but by the antipodean equivalent of John Birt in the second edition of a well researched book published by a respected publisher. You don't have any right to censor this note which is entirely legitmate and of relevance to readers in all countries. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that the allegations have been made. What I object to is the fact that you gave them undue weight in a biography of a person of major historical significance, when in the context of his career they aren't notable and have been given no significance by anyone other than in (two?) short newspaper articles. The author in question, David Hill, didn't even see fit to include the allegations in his book on the schools, apparently. To be honest, your massive assumption of bad faith here is tiring, particularly considering I haven't ever edited the section in question. In what way am I censoring it? I had been waiting to be convinced that there really was widespread coverage of the allegations, but you have failed to provide that, and have instead concentrated on criticising my motives. As I said before, there's no point in discussing this, because you aren't listening to what I'm saying. Leithp 09:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that Hill's book is in part a history of the Fairbridge Farm in Molong. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Common law, you cannot slander or libel a dead person, neither can the deceased person's relatives sue for defamation of a dead relative's character, so an author, book publisher, magazine or newspaper, etc., may print or say anything it likes about a dead person, whether true or untrue, without fear of legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this passage should be taken out. The sources of the allegations are not current anymore (2 are missing). Further the number of allegations is two, not three; the one available source clearly states this. So I am wondering if anyone bothered to check the source at all. Also, there is a much broader context (the Fairbridge Farm class action suit) that is missing. Further the motive and the timing of the source and the allegations is questionable, there was a clear benefit with regard to the launch of the book and the launch of the class action suit. As far as I have been able to research there were no further allegations after the acceptance of the law suit by the Australian judiciary. Write a full page on the class action law suit and on what went on at the school, but a 7 sentence footnote of questionable sources in someone's personal bio seems the wrong place. One final thing, what is the statistical chance that a governor general of Australia that visits the school in 1953 on a ceremonial public visit is part of a sexual abuse that has been going on over decades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E62C:AA9:EC15:FBBC:C0DA:BF16 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a curious fact that often such allegations arise just when the alleged subject has died and when someone or other is seeking to make financial gain from the allegations, usually due to a new book or documentary. One must ask oneself why the allegations were not made while the accused person was still alive and a proper prosecution could be held and the alleged victims receive proper justice. Instead, they wait until the accused person has died and is unable to defend himself/herself in court. The reason of course, is that the accusers could well have to pay damages to the accused if the allegations were proven to have been unfounded, as well as face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice - a criminal offence that could send them to jail. If the accused is dead OTOH the worst they face if they are found to have lied is wasting police time - also a criminal offence.

Generally in cases where allegations of such conduct are subsequently found to be true, the signs were visible to people around the accused for some time previously. In other words, such offenders are usually unable to prevent clues to their misconduct being available to other people around them. There is usually 'talk' at the time of their offences among people, and importantly, those without 'axes to grind'. If accusations suddenly appear from nowhere then it is wise to suspect ulterior motives. The usual motive in cases for someone famous is monetary gain.

BTW, simply by repeating the allegations here, Wikipedia would also be opening itself up for legal action for libel if Slim were still alive. You see, under common law, everyone is entitled to maintain their own good name. That's why newspapers and other media organisations have large and expensive legal departments.

The basic common law principle is that before making public allegations against someone you had better be telling the truth in your accusations, and you had better be able and prepared to prove them in a court of law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Sex absuse of children alleged at Royal Commission

Allegations of sexual abuse of children by Billy have been made at the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. The reports of this appear notable and RS. 49.182.151.159 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This material is already included in the article. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

2021

A number of editors have made wholesale reversions of pointed edits to the article on William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. Some of the removed material was sourced but irrelevant to the subject. While worthy of inclusion elsewhere, the material was not relevant to Slim. On a difficult issue like unsubstantiated allegations against a long-dead person, statements should be tightly about the subject. As edited, the article still contains clear statements of the allegations. No detail, relevant to Slim, was removed. What was removed were statements on the issue by a politician and statements about another party (the Fairbridge Farm School), not Slim. One of those statements was a journalist's "estimate" about the Fairbridge Farm School, not Slim. The statement "According to one estimate by a former pupil and journalist, David Hill, some 60 percent of children who went to Fairbridge were abused" says nothing about Slim but its inclusion used association and juxtaposition to suggest a connection. What was represented as a "recount" by an accuser was more appropriately identified as a "claims" but the quote was retained in full as relevant. I hope my edits provided balance.115.42.1.55 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct Title

Can we come to an agreement as to Slim's title?! I've had a hunt around and think that this is probably Field Marshal Sir William Slim, but can anyone clarify? I've also seen him written up as Field Marshal The Right Honourable William Slim, but I think that this was whilst he held the post of Governor-General of Australia. Anyone got any better ideas?! --hydeblake 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts.

• G-Gs are "His Excellency" for the term of their appointment, but not afterwards.

• Slim was "The Right Honourable" because he was a member of the Privy Council – and only for that reason - but I don’t know exactly when he entered the Privy Council. Our article on Governor-General of Australia says: "All Governors-General … from 1901 to 1989 were members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and thus had the additional title "Right Honourable." In any case, it's irrelevant since we don’t preface names of the subjects of our articles with either "His Excellency" or "The Right Honourable".

• I think the lead para has it correctly: Field Marshal Sir William Joseph Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The title of the article is correct: William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The infobox, however, is headed Field Marshal Sir William Slim, which is not right as his knighthood was not the highest honour he attained. It should be either William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim, or Field Marshal William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. The caption to the photo is correct because when he was G-G, he was only Sir William. His peerage did not come until later. -- JackofOz 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct title for the article should be - William Slim, Field-Marshal The Viscount Slim. According to the fronticepiece of Lewin's book it should be 'Field-Marshal The Viscount Slim' (note puntctation). That certainly seem the correct form to me, it's also the form used on his statue in Whitehall (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/300326145/in/set-72157594380883887/) so I think you can take that as definitive!.

Viscount is the highest civilian honour he was given so takes precedence over the knighthood; Sir.... Viscount is wrong for that reason. Military ranks comes first then civilian honour and as I say it's Field-Marshal not Field Marshal

The Viscount Slim is also the correct form - rather than 1st. It goes 'The', '2nd', '3rd' etc

If you want to be absolutely correct his awards should follow his title in this order: KG, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, GBE, DSO, MC

I notice that the late Field Marshal Sir William's title "His Excellency" is missing from his chronology of titles at the bottom of the page for his term a Governor-General of Australia between 1953 and 1960. Others who served as Governor-General in the various British colonies get such a mention in their title chronology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.118.178 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

HTH

Roger 83.67.126.86 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Roger - is that your pic of Slim's statue? If so, can you upload it to the page? --hydeblake 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The current order does follow that order, so no issue there. They're listed in the lead para, but there's no reason to repeat them anywhere else. As for "The Lord" or "The Viscount", that is indeed a correct way to refer to a peer. However, it is used in only the most extremely formal of contexts. We never usually refer to Margaret Thatcher as "The Lady Thatcher", just as "Lady Thatcher", etc etc. You're correct about the hyphen in Field-Marshal. -- JackofOz 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what the statue says (I saw it last week actually) it is "field marshal" without the hyphen. The Wiki article is entitled "field marshal", & "field-marshal" is redirected to it. GrahamBould 07:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the lack of hyphen - Check out the at British Army ranking page which shows it hyphenless. My Oxford English dictionary also shows it without. --hydeblake 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi No it's not my pic - it's available freely on the web as a reference source but I have no rights over it. I only posted it here to back up what I was saying, I hope that's OK. If you think it can be included in the article then please do so, on that site it describes the photo as 'public'. It's a great statue and an interesting contrast to the two 'stuffy' ones alongside.

I didn't make myself clear enough, my apologies, I was citing the statue (1990) as definitive for 'Field Marshall The Viscount Slim' rather than 'Sir' although it does use 'F M' not 'F-M'

On the 'F-M', 'F M' point it may be common / modern usage but I was going by Lewin's book and he uses Field-Marshall which I believe to be correct. Citing Wiki as definitive in a discussion about wiki content strikes me as a bit pointless! Many ranks are correctly hyphenated such as Major-General to Sargeant-Major, common usage is unhyphenated. Anyway I'll leave it for you to ruminate on.

I can't find definitive source on this point about secondary honours so I withdraw my comments about whether the 'Sir' should be included or not. This suggests I'm correct but I don't think it's absolutely definitive http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=Webpages%2FPublic%2Flinks%2Fnca point 4.1

This whole title thing is nightmare - best of luck with it!

Roger

83.67.126.86 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim / British Army ranking

One user has recently de-capitalised all the ranks Slim held. I always thought that as formal titles they should have been capitalised. I've asked him directly, but thought I'd see if anyone else had any thoughts one way or the other...--hydeblake 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Where ranks aren't used as a title the Manual of Style says to use them in lower case i.e. Slim was promoted to field marshal and Field Marshal William Slim. Leithp 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

• Lundin, Walter B. (2002) Slim's Generalship in the 1944 India-Burma Campaign (Abstract) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Slim's retirement

This article says he retired from the army in 1948 (and indeed there is a London Gazette entry saying just that). But he was on the Army Council in 1949 (promoted field marshal) and ended his time as CIGS in 1952. What's happening here? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He retired, then returned to the Army when he was appointed CIGS. Manormadman (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

language skills

I have read something about Slim's l s, it was mentioned in a Time-Life Book about the CBI theatre. I am a bit puzzled finding no mention in the article. The book claimed Slim was fluent in most Indian native languges including Urdu and Hindi.--109.91.80.54 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most British officers commanding Indian and other 'native' troops were conversant in the troops' local languages, as were most of the families of British soldiers stationed in India, indeed my grandmother spoke both Hindi and Urdu as her husband (my grandfather) was stationed in India pre-war and my late mother was actually born there. The exceptions arose later in the war when officers from outside the Indian Army were brought in to replace losses, however they usually picked-up the local languages fairly quickly, and were expected to do-so. It was one of the reasons that they were (generally) so well-liked by their men. So in answer to your query, it was perfectly normal for Slim to know these languages as it was the rule rather than the exception.

Incidently, what is almost never mentioned in histories of the war against the Japanese is that the Imperial Japanese Army's greatest losses by far were sustained in Burma, where the majority of that army was deployed, in fact the losses the Imperial Japanese Army suffered in Burma exceeded that army's losses on all the other fronts combined, so Slim's achievement should not be underestimated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.21 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most unlikely that Slim was fluent in MOST Indian native languages, since there are hundreds. He certainly spoke Gurkhali and Hindi (known then as Hindustani, and mutually intelligible with Urdu). Manormadman (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The description of Japanese deployment and distribution of casualties is also off. The bulk of the Japanese Army was in China and Manchuria, and it is simply not the case that the majority of its casualties were in Burma. --Yaush (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No flags in infoboxes

MOS:FLAGS explicitly states: "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a 'country', 'nationality' or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons. The use of country-related flagicons and signal flags in infoboxes for ship articles and military conflicts is appropriate."

Additionally, this article is of a military person, not a military unit, but that is of no consequence. Where can and editor find info to support your claim (MOS:FLAGS is directed from WP:MOS)?

You'll note that MOS:FLAG says generally—it's advice, not the eleventh commandment. The use of flags in infoboxes of British military officers (including at least two FAs) is almost uniform and has been for longer than I've been on Wikipedia. I think one of the examples they give is Paul McCartney—his notability has very little to do with his nationality and so whatever prominence a flag give the nationality would be inappropriate, but nationality (or rather allegiance) is much more relevant to a military officer. Monty, for example, was the head of the British Army and would not have been so if he was, say, a French citizen. That particular part of the MoS wasn't written with military biographies in mind and they are (rightly) generally excepted from it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bullmoosebell. Thanks for your contribution. I don't think there is any need to look wider than MOS:FLAG and the exception contained therein. I believe it was written with military articles, including biographies, in mind. There are literally thousands of articles which follow this principle. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• (Replying to your note on my talk page) You're welcome. I also just noticed the advice in WP:MILMOS: When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. On an almost entirely unrelated note, you might be interested in this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

More photos

The National Library of New Zealand holds three more photos of Slim. They are out of copyright in NZ, but files from their website are notoriously difficult to extract. Contact me through my talk page if you want a hand with getting the photos across to Commons. Schwede66 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511093637/http://www.burmastar.org.uk/history.htm to http://www.burmastar.org.uk/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912023916/http://www.burmastar.org.uk/slim.htm to http://www.burmastar.org.uk/slim.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Post-nominals

I propose that we get rid of the post-nominals in the first line of this article per MOS:POSTNOM, which states "When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should only be described in the main body of the article and not in the lead." Векочел (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the guideline to which you refer was primarily intended to deal with heads of state and members of Royal families who receive such honours ex officio. Slim had to work for his honours, and I don't think his list is so long that we need to remove it. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Dormskirk. There is no practical benefit to removing the post-nominals here and the usage is consistent with similar articles. Slim's post-nominals were also regularly used during his lifetime, meaning the second component of MOS:POSTNOM quoted above does not apply. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)