Talk:Richard Meinertzhagen

Untitled

"The British colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, primarily a soldier and a globe trotter, also tried to be an ornithologist, and in the last role he was fraudulent. In words of Rasmussen (as quoted by Barbara, 2005) “There are hundreds and probably thousands of fraudulently catalogued specimens. This was going on for the better part of his (Meinertzhagen’s) life”.

In "Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 16 (January 2006)" http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/shs/EJAIB/EJAIB12006.pdf. there is a reference to Nature to proove this.

Barbara, Santa, 2005. Ornithologists stunned by collector’s deceit. Nature, 437 (September 15, 2005): 302 – 303.

I THINK THAT THE LAST EDIT BY 68.225.254.171 IS BIASED TOWARDS RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, CHANGING 'WELL KNOWN FOR KILLING PEOPLE' TO 'WELL KNOWN FOR KILLING ENEMIES'

There is mention of his having suppressed a tribal rebellion in East Africa in 1905 by shooting the "witch doctor" (a curiously dated term). This obviously refers to his role in what came to be known as 'the Nandi Incident', the Nandi being Hamitic pastoralists in northern Kenya. According to Meinertzhagen - and I heard him claim this in 1957 - he had arranged to meet a prominent Nandi laibon to discuss his people's acceding to the establishing of British authority; but Meinertzhagen had only a few askaris (African troops) with him, and in his version the laibon, with a band of tribesmen, launched an assault which led to shooting, the laibon's death, and subsequent difficult relations with the Nandi. The nascent British administration held Meinertzhagen to be at fault, and he was dismissed and deported in 1906. In view of his later involvement in other instances of illegal or precipitate behaviour, it would seem that the administration was justified.

Some comments on above paragraph. "Witch doctor" is not a curiously dated term as suggested by writer of above paragraph commenting on the article. Witchdoctor is exactly what a Laibon (the person killed by Meinertzhagen) is! A Laibon is not a chief, but a soothsayer who's job is to supposedly predict the future (by reading the runes, animal entrails etc.) and put curses on someone unfortunate to fall out of favour with him or other influential people in the tribe (such "curses" are mumbo-jumbo of course, but just the mere fact that the victim sometimes believes they have been cursed, is enough for them to give up, go into a stupor and effectively die of terror).

Then, as now, the Laibon's status as "witchdoctor" comes from the very fact he was seen as a supposed "prophet" (which is what he is becoming to his increasing number of worshippers) amongst believers for his supposed "psychic" predictions, such as that of of the coming of the "iron snake" (the railway) in a dream. I think the fact that he (a master propagandist, like many a sangoma and court crones) and his followers believe in such superstitious twaddle confirms that he was a "witchdoctor". So describing Koitalel as a witchdoctor is not an archaic term from a detractor, but semantically accurate - and the very reason his admirers then and now hold him in high status. A Laibon IS a witchdoctor.

Sirikwa (22 Mar 2006)

This "witchdoctor" debate is nonsense. It used to be a beautiful analytical notion by the standards of 18th century Britain. But sometimes there is something like progress. Witchdoctors don't get the role of a political leader; the simple fact that there are (were) societies in which the highest authority is a "Laibon" is not at all explained by this uninformed witchdoctor "twaddle". This is just shameful for wikipedia! --Kipala 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Haversack Ruse

The New Yorker mentions the "Haversack Ruse", which supposedly misdirected the Turks and enabled England to win the war, as Meinertzhagen's most famous deed. So why no mention here? Can someone fill in the blanks? — Adam Conover † 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Somebody removed the earlier reference to "witchdoctor" and replaced it with "tribal leader". This is incorrect. The Laibon was not a tribal leader, but literally a witchdoctor (as my earlier comment, 22 Mar 2006, points out). The user (IP 137.198.244.199) who had removed the term witchdoctor had earlier added the misleading comment "he crushed a major tribal revolt by murdering, in cold blood, the general who led it after inviting him to his home for peace talks" - which had been removed by another user, quite correctly. For a start, one questions why this user would use the term "general" to describe a tribal Laibon?

Sirikwa (4 June 2006)

---

Also, "The incident and attack are depicted in the 1987 film The Lighthorsemen.", yet the plot synopsis at the linked wikipedia page makes no mention whatsoever of any sort of diversionary ruse, let alone a haversack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

POV language

While most of the charges against Meinertzhagen are apparently true, the language of this article is unacceptable. The introduction is especially awful. It is not supposed to read like the prosecutor's summary to the jury. --Zero^talk 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, hopefully. Shyamal 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cracked article

the only way I have heard about Meinerthagen is the cracked article http://www.cracked.com/article_18811_5-real-macgyvers-who-won-battles-with-improvised-weapons.html that links to this book, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QzbW2vDJOMwC&pg=PA229&dq=turn+around+run+like+hell+sheria&hl=en&ei=LIOnTI70FIvFnAfIrtGvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false claiming that Meinertzhagen dropped opium laced cigarettes on the Turkish defenders of Sheria on 5 Nov 1917 - given this will probably send many people to this article, could someone double check it and add something about the story to this article?

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of many, many such stories Meinertzhagen told, and like most is thought to have been invented, as discussed in the article. —innotata 01:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific Requests from the Family of Richard Meinhertzhagen (OTRS)

Hi folks,

As an OTRS volunteer, I have been tasked with assisting a family member related to the subject of this article--Richard Meinhertzhagen--to share the family members' concerns about this article. My role here is to listen to the family member's concerns, summarize them in relevant detail for our editing community, and to present the level of evidence the family member has provided so that you can assess it. Whether you make changes related to the family member's requests is up to your determination of them as reasonable and neutral. This request comes with no extra authority and I encourage you to evaluate the evidence with neither added persuasion nor resistance, as if it was simply a concerned reader making a case for some changes.

Intro and name

• Situation: Our article calls the subject 'Richard Henry Meinhertzhagen'
• Claim: The subject's name is Richard Meinhertzhagen, not Richard Henry Meinhertzhagen
• Request: Remove 'Henry' from the name
• Evidence: The family member has shared the original birth certificate which reads 'Richard Meinhertzhagen'

Africa and Kenya

• Situation: The subject killed Koitalel Arap Samoei in Kenya
• Claim: We cover the incident relying on Garfield, who treats it as a crime and coverup. We are presenting Garfield's view as fact rather than his opinion.
• Request: Present the incident as it was ruled in court at the time, in which the subject was exonerated
• Evidence: Copies of the original three court of enquiry records which exonerated the subject; unpublished copies of the original Letters of Commendation from the subject's commanding Officers exonerating him

Sinai Desert and the Haversack Ruse

• Situation: The subject was credited with using a tactic; later publications doubt if he planned or even executed that tactic
• Claim: The subject did execute the Haversack Ruse, though he may not have invented it. This section relies on Garfield's opinion, which is speculative. Other sources credit the subject with executing the tactic.
• Request: Remove the phrase "(he may have neither planned nor executed it)"
• Evidence: Published reliable sources pending, the family member will provide them shortly

France and Beyond

• Situation: We describe the subject's diary as containing fiction and in particular relay doubt about the subject's relationship with T.E. Lawrence
• Claim: There is content from the book "7 Pillars of Wisdom", written by T.E. Lawrence, that T.E. Lawrence did have a relationship with the subject
• Request: Remove the mention of diary entries on T.E. Lawrence being suspicious
• Evidence: "7 Pillars of Wisdom" by T.E. Lawrence

Character and Garfield's Second Wife

• Situation: The subject's second wife died via a gunshot. Court records rule it an accident. Garfield describes it as suspicious.
• Claim: The death was not suspicious, and Garfield's speculations that it was are unfounded
• Request: Remove mention of suspicions around the subject's wife's death
• Evidence: The family member states they may be able to have Garfield publish a retraction
• Note, this also applies to the article on the subject's second wife: Annie_Meinertzhagen

Character and Theresa Clay

• Situation: We describe Theresa Clay as a housekeeper and a nanny to the family
• Claim: She was a housekeeper but not a nanny
• Request: Remove mention of her being a nanny
• Evidence: The family member was a child at the time and personally recounts that she was never their nanny

The Meinhertzhagen Mystery

• Situation: We devote an entire ===section=== to summarizing Garfield's book and its claims
• Claim: Garfield's work is speculative and we rely too much on it, giving it too much emphasis throughout the article and in this section
• Request: Remove or minimize this section
• Evidence: Family member notes that Garfield's book was speculative
• Note: Regardless of whether we minimize this content or not, it may be appropriate to integrate it rather than having a separate section on the book

Feel free to share questions with me for more information. The family member has shared copies of documents with me and given me permission to share them with other editors. If you have questions for the family member I am happy to relay them. I have notified the family member that a discussion may take place on this page and they may comment on it. Thanks for your time and consideration. --Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed "Henry" - this should have been caught earlier. Shyamal (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably some of these are correct. However, we might not want a section about Garfield's book, but probably a section on the reevaluation of him after his death—how ornithologists and historians of Israel, and then biographers, realised that much of Meinertzhagen's stories and work were fraudulent. Garfield includes his speculation in his book, but it's also based on meticulous primary research. One reviewer pointed out some errors, but all have said that his overall conclusions cannot be disputed. I will go through the individual claims later. —innotata 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, here are my initial responses to specific concerns:

• Meinertzhagen and his men definitely killed Koitalel Arap Samoei and the other Nandi men, and his claim was that he acted in self-defence. The court was obviously biased, as a court-martial adjudicating over an officer in the death of an enemy of British colonial rule. Not only Garfield, but numerous other historians, describe the killing as premeditated, based on Meinertzhagen's own accounts, and the accounts of British and native witnesses. The text of the article describes the facts in an essentially unbiased manner, stating that he was exonerated. Maybe small changes could be made.
• The only claims Meinertzhagen rather than Neate having dropped the haversack are in his writings, stories by his friends (all from some time after the war), and sources based on them. He couldn't even get the dates right.
• Meinertzhagen definitely had a relationship with Lawrence. It wasn't a friendly one, since they were advocating different sides concerning the British Mandate of Palestine. So he later invented some stories putting it in a different light. His relative is correct, but nothing needs to be changed.
• The part on Annie Meinertzhagen may need to be changed. However, the coroner's report is the grounds for suspicion by Garfield and others, because she was shot in angle that makes accidental discharge by her unlikely. A number of his friends claimed that he said he killed her in a "duel" later; rumours were widespread at the time. Besides this, it likely should remain in the article because Garfield shows that this was a major part of his reputation later in his life, and Meinertzhagen later cultivated the rumours. As for a retraction by Garfield, we can talk about that once one is published.
• I don't think Garfield says Theresa Clay was a nanny, so I assume that can be removed.

—innotata 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence gives a strong opinion of RM and describes the "Haversack ruse", but there is no mention there of the various meetings between the two that RM describes in his diaries. The evidence of a relationship is stronger for the 1919 Paris conference, at which time Lawrence was busy writing Seven Pillars. I checked the 1922 edition as well as the better known 1935 edition. Zero^talk 03:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the 1919 Peace Conference was when they were advocating for the Arabs and Jews respectively, and were not all that friendly. —innotata 22:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Garfield's work is important, though we should be careful to not take sides on historical disputes. Incidentally there was no "coroner's report" on Annie's death. Garfield only mentions the brief opinion of two pathologists written on the death certificate. The claim that the angle of the shot was suspicious is Garfield's interpretation of "injury to spinal cord & lower part of brain"; it seems very weak. If you look at the anatomy of a skull you will find it easier to hit both places with an upward shot. Zero^talk 03:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right, I couldn't remember that part of Garfield's book (which I don't have access to at the moment) well, and forgot to note that. It's not that much of a "historical dispute", though. Garfield isn't the first person or historian to find issues with Meinertzhagen's writing. His scientific fraud had already been fully documented. The only people who have disputed his overall conclusions as far as I know are Meinertzhagen's family members. —innotata 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Garfield refers to Teresa Clay on p193 as his "housekeeper, nanny, secretary and scientific partner". I don't think he intended "nanny" to be taken literally but is just describing a relationship in which she took care of him (when they were both adults). So this is a mistake. Zero^talk 03:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi innotata, Shyamal, and Zero. I appreciate the frank and measured discussion about the above issues. The family member would like a status update on any intention to make changes to the article. Do you see a need for any substantive--or stylistic--edits to this article? If so, do you have any intention of working on it in the short-term? Best, and thanks for your time and consideration, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC) (OTRS volunteer)

I believe major changes do not need to be made, and should not be made, to the parts about Koitalel Arap Samoe (or Lawrence or the Haversack Ruse).

However, the part on Annie Meinertzhagen should be changed, as Zero points out. The section on Garfield's book should be changed to a section on the discovery of his frauds, first done by ornithologists and specialist historians, and posthumous reevaluation of Meinertzhagen more generally. I'm not sure I'll be able to work on the article in the short term. —innotata 22:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I challenge the statement that "The court was obviously biased, as a court-martial adjudicating over an officer in the death of an enemy of British colonial rule". Courts martial, like any British court, are far more balanced and fair than most other courts. The suggestion that they are "obviously biased" is itself obviously biased and malicious.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Courts martial are always biased, because they are run by superior officers who have a conflict of interest; they're used because they're considered a necessary system within the hierarchy of a military. That conflict of interest was acute because of the connections among colonial officers in Meinertzhagen's time, and particularly acute in his case, as Garfield documents. Also, any court martial is naturally going to be all the more biased when they're trying an officer over the killing of somebody who had been an enemy until shortly before. And, remember, this was a colonial court martial, you can't ignore the inherent biases of colonial rulers. Consult histories of Kenya, and you'll see modern scholarship agrees with Garfield on this point. —innotata 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Updates to Garfield claims

Hi innotata, Shyamal, and Zero. I have been asked again by the family member to have the section on Garfield addressed (and similarly in the article on his deceased wife). There was recent talk about a) reworking it into the article and/or b) addressing whether its claims are 'speculation'. I know we don't work on deadlines, but to be honest, I could really use someone to take a look at this next week or next.

I am very much getting the sense that this is not legal pressure, just a family member looking for dignity and closure. I know and have made clear that we can't change history (or historical scholarship) and given Garfield's work's positive reviews that it is unlikely to warrant removal. However, if we can at all handle this more professionally and encyclopedically it would go a long way. So, please ping me if you can commit to working on this by early February.

Thank you, sincerely, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are the Meinhertzhagen family?

I doubt very much that the Meinhertzhagen were second only to the Rothschild as a banking family. They are frankly obscure. This entire article reads like an attempt to promote Richard Meinhertzhagen and his family.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That was claimed in the introduction to a biography book. I've added an explanatory note. BellicoseSouthernBelle (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs citation (OTRS)

Could an editor try to find the source for this paragraph and quotation from the Character section? The Family has requested the excerpt from the diary be removed as a copyright violation. I leave the copyright question up to you folks, but we at least need it to be cited properly if it remains. Cheers, Jake

Meinertzhagen himself traced the "evil" side of his personality to a period during his childhood when he was subjected to severe physical abuse at the hands of a sadistic schoolmaster when he was at Fonthill boarding school in Sussex. He was apparently also traumatized by the indifference of his mother to his plight:

Even now I feel the pain of that moment, when something seemed to leave me, something good; and something evil entered into my soul. Was it God who foresook me, and the devil took his place. But whatever left me has never returned, neither have I been able to entirely cast out the evil which entered me at that moment.... The undeserved beatings and sadistic treatment which were my lot in childhood so upset my mind that much of my present character can be traced to Fonthill.

Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is from Meinertzhagen's book Diary of a Black Sheep and can also be reliably cited via the biographies of Cocker and Capstick. I have all three books but I'm in a different country from the books this week. I'll add a proper citation next week if nobody gets to it first (after checking that the quotation is accurate and its introduction is fair). I don't believe the claim of copyright violation—it is a short quotation well within the fair use provisions of copyright law. Zero^talk 10:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In Mark Cocker's book, all of this is on page 22. Shyamal (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the quotation is from page 161 of "Diary of a Black Sheep". I can't find the second part. It does not seem to be on the same page or the next four pages. However there is something similar on page 158: "I recount my life at Foothill in full, as the treatment to which I was subjected had a profound influence on my character and my subsequent life." Zero^talk 07:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"The undeserved beatings and sadistic treatment which were my lot in childhood so upset my mind that much of my present character can be traced to Fonthill." - p. 22 in Mark Cocker. Shyamal (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it comes from "Diary of a Black Sheep" page 173. It is bad practice to hide 12 pages in an ellipsis, although in this case it isn't particularly misleading. Zero^talk 10:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm adding it back citing both pages. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Updates to article (OTRS)

Pinging innotata, Shyamal, and Zero:

Because there was consensus that this article needed general improvements for encyclopedic structure, in particular around Garfield's book, I have made an attempt to integrate that section as well as to align the lead with the body of the text. As an OTRS member, I am generally averse to making such changes myself because of my close communications with the family member. Despite my strong effort at capturing your concerns evenly and professionally in my revisions, I would appreciate a close reading of the article from top-to bottom, particularly the lead and the character section, to see if it is an improvement. If you disagree in any way, please revert it and/or make an attempt at a better version.

While I kept all of Garfield's views intact (while presenting them more in line with the flow of the article), I could not verify this claim:

While in India he killed one of his personal assistants in a fit of rage and had the local police officer cover it up as a death due to plague. REF: http://web.archive.org/web/20030301024533/ and http://www.africa2000.com/IMPACT/drought0611.html

I appreciate the consultation you have already taken and ask you to go through one more time to check the work. Going forward, changes that would continue to improve the article would involve integrating the entire "Character" section (which is more like a litany of 'criticism' or 'controversy') throughout the article. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes, as far as ornithology goes, it is not a case of "doubt" but a well-established case of "fraud". I empathize with the relatives of Meinertzhagen but I am afraid history cannot be rewritten. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC) [PS: I think trying to suppress things might only make more negative material visible - example pages like - https://archive.org/stream/hgmholyghostmiss00goga#page/18/mode/2up & https://archive.org/stream/hgmholyghostmiss00goga#page/72/mode/2up/ ]

Bumf?

Hello, Zero0000, about this diff, I added the cite from The Economist to the Richard Meinertzhagen article to try to give a reference within the article for the term "bumf," which is defined in Wiktionary and, of course, the OED. I thought of The Economist, as a publication, to be a reliable source, not original research and that the explanation within the article might be helpful to others. "Bumf" as a definition doesn't deserve its own article, so wikilinking was not an option. Linking to Wiktionary is contra to the Manual of Style and the OED is a paysite. Still and all, is there a better way to include an explanation of the term in the Meinertzhagen article? It could be helpful to those for whom the term is not at the top of their everyday parlance. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Glane23:. Hi, it isn't clear to me why the word "bumf" is in the article at all, since it appears in Wikipedia's voice. Even more so regarding "Australian bumf" (what is that?). If it was a quotation then we could discuss how to deal with the word, but in our text we should just replace it by something readers will understand. Unfortunately that paragraph has very unclear sourcing and I can't tell if the word "bumf" originated in one of the sources given or whether it was introduced there by some Wikipedia editor. The word does not appear in the Official History cited; I don't have "Army Diary" handy to check. Actually I believe it is a paraphrase of the book of Grainger (cited next), which has "This, of course, relied on the enemy’s understanding of the peculiar Australian attitude to discipline and ‘bumf’."(p107). That makes sense, but our phrase "comprehension of Australian bumf" doesn't make sense, which suggests that whoever put it into the article didn't understand it. The following sentence "The main consequence was a swap in the German High Command, and Mustafa Kemal's resignation." is also clearly derived from Grainger, but Grainger does not attribute any of that to the haversack ruse. I'd like to remove the whole paragraph; objections? (Also, this should be on the article talk page.) Zero^talk 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000:No objections at all. I agree that the article does need work and I'm supportive. I got the sense that the prior editor may have been trying to refer wrapping the planted book in sandwich wrappings as part of the deception effort. I was just focusing on the term itself as perhaps benefitting from some reference and I was interested to see it being used in a fairly recent Economist article. I'm not wedded to the use of the term, though, as the sense of the story doesn't really need it. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to simply advocate for the use of the word 'bumf' in general, which I wouldn't have heard were it not for this article. I highly approve of this word. Thank you for your time and attention.173.217.205.130 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Knobkerrie

RM is supposed to have killed some Germans with one, according to Lawrence. When? Where? 86.176.83.11 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Meinertzhagen. 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/20060613053236/http://special.newsroom.msu.edu/rasmussen/documents/Rasmussen%20New%20Yorker%20article.pdf to http://special.newsroom.msu.edu/rasmussen/documents/Rasmussen%20New%20Yorker%20article.pdf

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) 19:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Killing of Koitalel

The description here is in contrast to Meinertzhagen's "Kenya diary, 1902-1906" (published 1957), available online at https://archive.org/details/kenyadiary1902190000mein . His official report is on pp 234ff; pages from 220 describe his posting to Nandi country, his dislike for Koilatel about whom he hears that he wants to kill Meinertzhagen and whom he wants to either arrest or kill. The incident itself is described as a planned meeting with 6 persons on each side, both sides arriving with larger numbers in the back but the meeting itself being with 5 directly by Meinertzhagen and 22 with Koilatel, and hostilities being started by an arrow shot at Meinertzhagen (who was prepared to arrest or kill Koilatel). The description of the ensuing fight does not support the claim that Meinertzhagen just shot when his opposite stretched out his hand. I am now not in a position to judge whether there is gound to dispute Meinertzhagen's version of the story, but at least it should be given some space. Kipala (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

About the infobox

It sounds like he's more well-known for his military career than his scientific career so shouldn't this article instead have a military person infobox with a scientist infobox imbedded into into it? Charles Essie (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Siblings

The introduction of him doesn't mention any siblings at first (but later mentions a brother - Daniel). I was wondering if any information on his siblings could be added. I'm not asking for any in-depth information on them, just something along the lines of "Meinerzhagen was born as the second child of x and y" or "Meinerzhagen was the 2nd of 3 children". (The numbers I picked here are random, as there's no information on this in the article and I'm not familiar with the subject.) Nakonana (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The German wiki article says: "Richard war das dritte von insgesamt zehn Kindern und der zweite Sohn."

Richard was the third of ten children and the second son. Nakonana (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Koitalel cover-up

On the killing of Koitalel, the article says "Initially, he had been able to orchestrate a cover-up and was commended for the incident." but it doesn't say what the cover-up looked like or how it was discovered that it was a cover-up and not a factual report. Nakonana (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)