Talk:Charles George Gordon

It was OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Egypt was part of Ottoman Empire that time. Why it's called Egyptian? Egypt was a province of Ottoman Empire with appointed major from Istanbul.

Goof-ball Beliefs

What published sources assert that Gordon thought the world was encased in crystal and that Satan had a throne over the Pacific? It seems that something this bizarre ought to be sourced. Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This is indeed nonsense and needs to be deleted or properly sourced....and by "properly sourced" I don't mean referencing a guardian review that referenced it's subject's comments on Gordon's supposed views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdef75 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

View of Chinese historians

Chinese historians treat Gordon with revulsion and brand him a cruel tyrant. The problem lies in considering what was the legitimate government in China at that time - To call the heavenly kingdom agitation a revolt is a little tendentious. Perhaps we should mention the Chinese point of view too.

The article on Robert Hart that the page links to is about a different Robert Hart.

What's going on with this paedophile thing? It seems highly improbable, so I'm going to remove it. In the unlikely event that it's genuine, perhaps the author could explain here.

I put it back. Although I don't have the book in question to check again, the quote seems unlikely to be faked, and in line with Hyam's specialties. If you want to ask him about it directly, here's his Cambridge University homepage - http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/people/fellows/hyam.html. Stan 05:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Military Historian Frank M. Richardson, "Mars Without Venus", published by William Blackford, Endinburgh 1981 will supply details supporting the fact that Gordon was bisexual or homosexual. Kitchener too. It's not slander -- it's true.--Kstern999 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does homosexuality or bisexuality imply pedophilia? Well i suppose it was 1981, less enlightened times and all that. If only the gays of today would have such fierce dedication to the service of thier homeland, instead they're either selfish fashionistas or red traitors.86.159.19.171 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Slander removal

To call Gordon a pederast and then say he didn't act on it is to of misunderstand the evil of pederasty. The section in question was written (or quoted, I should say) by an anonymous user, out of context. This user seems to have read this odd book by a professor specializing in a kind of archeological psychology. Vague assertions in hand, he seeks to slander those involved in the Sudan Campaign. He did the same thing to the Horatio Kitchener article(see its talk page). I'd say this indicates some kind of axe to grind. Considering that these men, along with Baden Powell (Who has been similarly slandered elsewhere), came from the time and society that created the International Scouting Movement, perhaps taking an interest in the proper development of boys was not all that unusual in late 19th-early 20th century British society. If sexual deviancy us to be asserted in an encyclopedia article, it should be more thoroughly substantiated. (and it should be made relevant to the rest of the article)

Frank M. Richardson was a noted military historian and author of several books on military subjects. Your use of loaded terms such as "evil", "odd", "slander", "deviancy" indicate to me that you're the one with the axe to grind. What are you so worried about? --Kstern999 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Richardson's work is mostly singular and indeed odd when compared against the more comprehensive works on this subject, like The Road to Khartoum, Gordon's Journals and Gordon of Khartoum. There are many quality books about Gordon that explore his life in great detail. Richardson's work is not one of them. This is a case of one academic with a particular pov who has not produced anything definitive on this subject and whose conclusion is not supported by the majority of more comprehensive works on the subject. Richardson may have a point but given the volume of evidence to the contrary a more thorough substantiation should definitely be required. As the article stands right now there is a complete lack of comment on his personal life and that makes it seem incomplete to me. (Trajancavalous 03:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Chinese Gordon was a pederast. Page 83 of M Evan Brooks book, Military history's most wanted also identifies Gordon in such a manner. I don't think its slander when a whole collection of books refer to Gordon as having that lifestyle. And how is it out of context? Its a page about Gordon, andsince he was favored to young boys it should be included. Rexmage 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of these allegations concocted by modern authors on the lookout for publicity. Obviously, book sales can be increased if lurid claims are included - sex sells - but it is always a pity when respected figures from history are slandered without proper evidence, for commercial gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.43.250 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We see recent adherents to the current Zeitgeist allege 130 years after Gordon died that he was a homo simply so the imperialistic doctrine can be spread. And they mischaracterize the evidence against their opinion or are ignorant of the Christian teachings regarding extramarital sex. What if Gordon had ministered instead to several hundreds of young girls--impossible! Mentoring boys so they would become productive men of good character should not be warped into 21st-century Humanist sexuality. For example, Judd is tendentious regarding judging Gordon and several others as "almost certainly" homosexual while ignoring many contraindications to such an assessment. I wish those he so slanders could themselves confront Judd in person to demand satisfaction from the slug.

I wonder why Judd (full of post-colonial self-loathing, which may explain it) and other moderns advance the homosexual agenda by practicing this kind of unwarranted historical revisionism--is it because they really fall for discredited Freudian beliefs, are themselves self-promoting homosexuals, or simply that they adhere to the sort of politically-correct Sodomistic ideology we see at work on a wide basis in establishment spheres like academia (and, of course, garner prestige and profit from modern indoctrinees)? Olorin3k (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a form of 'remote, post-mortem medical diagnosis' much popular with some people and which if true, would make the front page of The Lancet as a breakthrough in medical science worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Otherwise, like so many others, it's just the worthless opinion of someone who never even met the man.

A study of demographics would tend to suggest that such traits that Gordon is accused of (as indeed are T. E. Lawrence, Bernard Montgomery, and William Slim) are distributed widely and randomly within the human population worldwide yet it is noticeably curious fact that such accusations in Wikipedia are rarely made against notable persons of other nationalities. It is also doubly curious that such accusations in more traditional media are always made against the deceased who, under common law, are therefore unable to sue for slander or libel.

BTW, in many parts of the Arab world it was quite normal at the time for close male friends to hold hands in public without either being homosexual. This was the case right up to World War II and later. People from other cultures unfamiliar with the societal norms of the area often mistook this as a sign of homosexuality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.5 (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Manner of Death

We are not supposed to discuss this, because we have respect for all religions. However, in the grand Muslim tradition, Gordon's head was summarily separated from his upper torso. 64.12.116.139 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Enfant de la Patrie

I will just add that Robert Fisk, in his book "The Great War for Civilisation", claims that "Bashir's palace boasted the very staircase upon which General Charles Gordon had been cut down in 1885 by followers of Mohamed Ahmed ibn Adbullah, the Mahdi, who like bin Laden also demanded a return to Islamic 'purity.'" pg. 9

Just out of interest is the reason for the Mahdi having the same staircase because he moved into the palace of Khartoum? Grand Moff Tanner (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stood there in 1986 and I can report that the original staircase is completely gone, as is the entire former palace. There was a plaque, in 1986 (maybe gone now) at the spot where Gordon fell. Kitchener's men found the palace as a ruin which was demolished soon after the reconquest. One or two stones from the staircase on which Gordon spent his last moments are on dispaly in the library of Gordon's School, Woking.--94.211.77.74 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume the Bashir mentioned in the Fisk book is Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan? Millichip (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Khartoum

The page on Muhammad Ahmad has:

"Under increasing pressure from the public to support him, the British eventually ordered Lord Garnet Joseph Wolseley to relieve Gordon. He was already deployed in Egypt due to the attempted coup there earlier, and was able to form up a large force of infantry, moving forward at an extremely slow rate. Realizing they would take some time to arrive, Gordon pressed for him to send forward a "flying column" of camel-borne troops under the command of Brigadier-General Sir Herbert Stuart. This force was attacked by the Mahdists twice, first at Abu Klea (Abu Tulayh?) and two days later nearer Metemma. Twice the British square held and the Mahdists were repelled with heavy losses.

At Metemma, 100 miles north of Khartoum, Wolseley's advance guard met four of Gordon's steamers, sent down to provide speedy transport for the first relieving troops. They gave Wolseley a dispatch from Gordon claiming that the city was about to fall. However, only moments later a runner brought in a message claiming the city could hold out for a year. Deciding to believe the later, the force stopped while they refit the steamers to hold more troops.

They finally arrived in Khartoum on 28 January 1885 to find the town had fallen two days earlier. Faraz Pasha had treacherously opened the gates and let the Ansār in. Gordon was killed on the steps of the palace and beheaded although the Mahdi had expressly ordered for him to be taken alive. Wolseley's force retreated after attempting to force their way to the center of the town on ships, being met with a hail of fire."

Some of that could usefully be added here.

Was Gordon really acting against orders as implied here ?

-- Beardo 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Calvary?

Gordon visitied Palestine years before he became involved with the Sudan. If he died a couple weeks into 1885, where did he find time to propose a different site for the crucifixion? All I'm saying is that I think the date is wrong.

As you say, the site says that he was in Palestine 1882-83, and in Khartoum from February 1884 until his death. Searching the internet, I find dates for his theory of 1883, 1884, 1885 and 1894 (!). [I wonder if say his theories were published after his death ?] -- Beardo 06:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just got a book in the mail: "Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre", by C.W. Wilson, The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, London, 1906. Appendix VII, on pp 199-202, summarizes Gordon's views, with drawings taken from his private letters, and cites Quarterly Statement, 1885, pp 79-80. (I suspect that this is perhaps the journal of the above-referenced Committee). The article also cites Gordon's book entitled Reflections in Palestine, 1883. A quick G-search offers a copy for sale for €675.00, and the bookseller states:

...and in 1883 travelled to the Holy Land where he remained for a year, devoting his time to the study of Biblical history and of the antiquities of Jerusalem....It was published [in 1884] by his friends while he was posted in Khartoum, shortly before his death....

If anyone would like scans of Appendix VII (public domain) for inclusion, please use my talk page. --Frank Rabinovitch 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a free pdf copy of Gordon's Palestine here --Frank Rabinovitch 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the heading title to Gordon and Golgotha because the site he chose had a hillside that looked like a skull.Nitpyck (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Family (descendants)

It is a curious thing, to say a man has descendants all over the world, when not once is the event of marriage, let alone fatherhood, mentioned in such an exhaustive biography! Nor have I find mention of children in any other source (so far). Dchanslor 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC) dione

Education

Does anyone have any more info on his education. Did he have any academic credentials whatsoever in history or anthropology?LCP 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Paternity

The first sentence of the current Early Life section is incoherent. It states, "Born in Woolwich, the son of (1786-1865)...". Does anyone have the correct info?LCP 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

mistranslation Generalissimo/Titu

Gordon's military rank, Titu, is here translated as "generalissimo". Is this a commonly accepted translation? I can't help thinking it sounds a bit inflated. Even though titu is arguably the highest operational military rank, at any given time there are somewhere around two to three dozen titu active; it's really not much different from a western marshal or general. Furthermore, it is of equal rank with the banner marshals (Titu lead only non-banner armies), and a number of border guard generals. It also ranks below any peer and the court guard ministers (considered martial ranks). Gordon was never given more authority than his own armies, and the translation generalissimo gives a false impression of his position. o 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Extremely biased section!

The section entitled "Remembered as a hero" is extremely biased towards portraying Gordon as a hero, albeit he's just an invader and Colonial ruler in the eyes of most of the Sudanese as well as many Arabs and Muslims. I'm going to change the section title to "Death". Hopefully, an editor is going to attach a dispute of neutrality template into that section. --SimsimTee (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps editors with expertise on the subject of either China or Sudan could add material showing ways in which Gordon's reputation is remembered in less 'heroic' ways in those countries? Stating that he was commemorated as a hero in Britain, Australia and Canada is merely statement of fact. Millichip (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sources first, please. IronDuke 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gordonheston1.jpg

The image Image:Gordonheston1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A Taiping‘s warrior as African native?

Do you really believe when Gordon speech on stage at last, below stage were they whole African native? maybe have one was yellow skin and painted skin on black.......

In 1894, was after 20 years memory of Taiping reform movement ended in 1864, second cross( Chinese word 10 was a cross)! ?

This history made people emotion because:Gordon knew Taiping‘s assassin over here but he welcome assassin kill him, only it act could please the God forgive his guilt in Suzhou butcher Chinese Christian brothers in 1864. Gordon really a honest Christian and a tough man.

Hans yulun lai 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your main points very simply, please? I'm not quite sure it's clear what you mean. Harsimaja (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

China in 1860

I changed a bit of this because the Taiping Rebellion started at least nine years before 1860 and the 2nd Opium war was from 1856 to 1860. (See Encarta, Wikipedia and other sources). I didn't change the early life section though I doubt he went to high school in his twenties while an officer in the Royal Engineers. Nitpyck (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorials

Very tiny typo. In sixth paragraph under "Memorials" there is

 (looking suspiciously like Charlton Heston)can

which needs a space before the word "can". Wcomm (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That aside about Heston doesn't belong here anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To provide a full picture....

I do not see the article providing a full picture of his life as somehow it seems to have missed aspects of his personal life, particularly his sexuality.

Gordon's sexual orientation has been the talk of the upper class at the time, in Asia and the Nile Valley (Egypt & Sudan).

I am aware of a number of “discreet stories” passed through the generations in Sudan and Egypt about his sexual encounters with a number of Nubian working-class / servants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.241.160 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree

I conquer with the above mentioned view that this article is presented in a biased manner ignoring a number of historical facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.241.160 (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's usually spelt 'concur'. 'conquer' means something completely different. As in William the Conqueror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.5 (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Media portrayals and legacy

In text concerning books that many have been less than flattering about Gordon there are descriptions of the books viewpoints. Then it is written there were "More balanced biographies" with no desription of how the were more balanced. It may be a minor point but "More balanced biographies" with out expanation is someone's opinion and therefor shows bias. I think rewording this is need in keeping with NPOVJackhammer111 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Edward Elgar's obsession

While there's no direct connection, should we say that Edward Elgar had been obsessed with writing a work to commemorate Gordon, before writing his Symphony No. 1? While he dedicated it to Hans Richter, surely the thoughts he'd been having about Gordon must have influenced the work in some way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Title

It says in this article that the Emperor of China made Gordon a Viscount of some sort, should that not be mentioned in the opening line? For instance the Conrad Black article says "Conrad Black, Baron of Crossharbour" or something like that. I am unfamiliar with Chinese titles though so I am curious if I am reading this correctly. Threadnecromancer (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

I don't think so, but that intro is really skimpy. I'll have to do something about that. In fact, the whole article needs a bit of cleanup. Chinese ideograms? Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In my overhaul of the intro, I did manage to sneak in a mention of the honours he received. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Gordon: a succinct record of his life  By Archibald Forbes

1 Rajmaan (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Woolwich, Kent?

I haven't found a Woolwich in Kent. Kent is almost fifty miles southeast of London, while the Woolwich the word links to is on the banks of the Thames in the borough of Greenwich. Where was he actually born? 伟思礼 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Woolwich#Urban development. The Woolwich in Greenwich was part of the county of Kent in the 19th century. Dormskirk (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Order of the Double Dragon

Are we sure Gordon was awarded this by China? It was not founded until 1882, when Gordon had not been in China for 2 years and had only 3 years to live.Cloptonson (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Tongzhi Emperor

I think in the paragraph mentioning how the Emperor was offended by Gordon's refusal to accept prizes, it should be noted that the Emperor was seven years old at the time. Perhaps the paragraph should be excised entirely as irrelevant.Ealtram (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

English composition.

Before discussing the subject matter, may I thank my fellow Wikipedians who constructed and have contributed to this very great page about a very great man. I must admit that you can call me 'old school,' but therein lies one of the main reasons for this evening's entry. As an minor contributor to, but major reader of Wikipedia in English and French, I find in both languages that there is far too much repetion, to the extent that one feels that one has been physically jolted: one loses the will to live and in so doing loses the wherewithal to read on: is this not in total opposition to all we have ever been taught about good English composition? Excluding the last five as inconsequential, this page contains eleven sections, but including the introduction numbers twelve. Within these twelve sections only, " Gordon " is used an astonishing six hundred and sixty-six times: more than 54 times per section ! At the present moment I cannot attempt to re-write the entire page, but would it be possible for you to look at what you have written, using reconstruction and then use of pronouns in order to prevent so many unnecessary and premature deaths of your readers due to boredom ? Thanks once again to my fellow Wikipedians and brethren. Degourdon degourdon (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Over 700 now.

In any case, you're right that sentences like Gordon also gained the popular nickname "Chinese" Gordon are just awful and should be put out of their misery. On the other hand, encyclopedic English is just more fond of surnames than French is and it would be boring to the rest of us if there were nothing but a sea of pronouns. You're looking at less than a fourth of these Gordons that are actually obnoxious. — LlywelynII 22:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1868

The EB, 9th ed., article on "Formosa" puts him on Taiwan Island in 1868, being ordered by the consul to occupy Fort Zelandia and its port prior to the Foreign Secretary nixing the orders and indemnifying the Chinese. If that's accurate, some mention and/or link should show up somewhere in this expansive biography. — LlywelynII 22:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Illogical Quote

From the article: Gordon wrote: "The great thing...is to cut off their retreat, and the chances are they will go without trouble; but attack them in the front, and leave their rear open, and they fight most desperately". I can't find the source for this quote, but the quote seems illogical as how can you go without trouble if your retreat has been cut off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:8280:280E:98A6:A707:7552:6EBD (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I notice that this article has been tagged as too long. My own view is that, although it is long at 172kb, some of the length is caused by the relatively detailed referencing and that the article itself is not currently too long. To offer a comparator, the article on Donald Trump is 431kb. I am concerned that it might lose some of its flow by breaking it up. Just my thoughts. Dormskirk (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Basutoland

The two paragraphs regarding Basutoland are totally inaccurate, I have therefore reduced the article to C class. Gordon came in after the end of Basuto Gun War to assist in restoring colonial authority in the region which was nearly a decade after annexation rather than immediately after it as the article implies. The cause of the war was different as well. The Basuto king's name was Letsie I rather than Moshoeshoe and Masupha was his brother rather than his son. Long story short, the whole section is wrong.--Catlemur (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Prime facia, the material on Basutoland looks well sourced and is a small part of a high-importance article. Rather than down-grading the entire article, which some editors including myself have put some effort into, why don't you seek to correct any inaccuracies? Dormskirk (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This particular section contradicts 4 books and peer reviewed journal articles on Basutoland that I have recently read. Since Faught is cited in other parts of the article, it puts the reliability of said sections into question as well. I am currently working on a complete rewrite of the Basuto Gun War article and I may consider addressing the issues here once I am done. For now a downgrade is IMHO entirely justified. See General Gordon in Basutoland which is available online.--Catlemur (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. When I set about improving this article and then took it to the Military history WikiProject for assessment in March 2016, there was no objection made then on the basis that one of the sources was unreliable. I did not insert the Basutoland material into the article and, because I am no expert on Basutoland, I have no way of knowing who is right in this case. Nor do I have copies of Fraught's books so I cannot see whether he has been accurately represented in the article. I have also undertaken other work improving articles where Professor Faught was used as a source. e.g. Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. Faught is also regarded as an authority (or rather I thought he was regarded as an authority) on Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby. If you believe he is an unreliable source surely this needs a much wider discussion? In the meantime is the answer simply to remove the two offending paragraphs on Basutoland if you feel so strongly about this? Dormskirk (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

MILHIST B class assessment is a very useful process but it rarely involves in-depth source reviews as it would be incredibly time consuming. I am not necessarily claiming that Faught is unreliable, after all the editor who wrote those two paragraphs might have misinterpreted the source. Removing those paragraphs for the time being would be a good idea.--Catlemur (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that: I appreciate you collaborative approach. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

POV about Sudan

did not go through the whole article, but the "Governor-General of the Sudan" is very disturbing to say the least. It portray one point of view as fact and literally "whitewash" the whole of concept of him being in Sudan as colonist. Not even once that he was described as that.

"Gordon's reforming zeal made him popular with the ordinary people of the Sudan." are you serious! Gordon murder is celebrated in Sudan. there is a neighborhood named after the guy who killed him. All of the places the once bared Gordon name was renamed after Sudan independence. This is a clear violation of WP:Wikivoice that is beyond absurd!

"Gordon himself was honest and incorruptible"! counter that with "his subordinates dreaded his temper. "There were moments when his passion became utterly ungovernable; and the gentle soldier of God, who had spent the day in quoting texts ... would slap the face of his Arab aide-de-camp in a sudden access of fury, or set upon his Alsatian servant and kick him till he screamed." from the independent

"but Gordon showed utterly no fear"!

and many more FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed much of the peacock material: please feel free to remove anything that I have missed. Dormskirk (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you for improving the language but I still thing that section is not factually correct. It will require to be re-written from multiple reliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than tagging the section, please can you be specific as to which fact or facts you dispute per WP:TAGGING. Ideally, please go ahead and correct the facts. I don't think there is a dispute here because I entirely agree with all the changes you have made so far. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remove the tag as you requested for now and come back with inline tags maybe today or tomorrow FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the section would benefit from including at least some of the material from the Independent article. Dormskirk (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Death of Zobair

the text mentions "Zobeir and his men publicly beheaded" which not true as Zobier was not hanged in 1879 or later but died peacefully in 1913. Actually, Gordon offered the "Slaver King" leadership of the entire Sudan after the Mahdist uprising. This not even a disputed fact as there are pictures for Zobier before he died in 1913. which makes me question if "Faught, C. Brad (2008). Gordon Victorian Hero" is actually a good source? It is been used 60 times through out the article. I am tagging the article for using non-reliable sources. By questioning the source, I am assuming good faith that who ever wrote the sentence actually read it there. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the comment as there are several sources available which confirm he died in 1913. Dormskirk (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dormskirk I truly appreciate you trying to fix things but I really think the article should be tagged for using unreliable sources especially that Gessi did not capture Zobair, as he was actually forbidden to return to Sudan when he went to Egypt to complain to the Khedivate of Egypt in 1878, see 1 and page 1907, or 1875 page 470 . The one that was hanged was his son, Suluman.

The article uses a book that clearly has a non neutral POV, see the name "Gordon Victorian Hero"!. As per WP:Burden The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is not fair that I have to verify line by line while also copy editing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. However, just because you have found errors you cannot automatically claim that Fraught's book is an unreliable source. It is published by Potomac Books, which as far as I know is not a publishing house which handles self-published books. So, prima facie, under wikipedia policy, it is a reliable source. Some leading academics from various universities have commented extremely favourably on his work. Dormskirk (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked the book and it actually talks about Suleiman Rahmat and not Zobair. So maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, I give up. At least we combed through a section. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources to fix the entry disputed POV

I will add sources here, if someone (including myself) want to fix the article especially as the current way this article is written seems to glorify colonialist and colonialism

• 'National Hero and Very Queer Fish': Empire, Sexuality and the British Remembrance of General Gordon, 1918-72 (EN - Twentieth Century British History, Volume 26, Issue 2)
• Our Abdiel: The British press and the lionization of 'Chinese' Gordon (EN - Nineteenth Century Prose 32(2):127]
• Britain's colonial adventures: The truth about Gordon of Khartoum (EN - The Independent)
• The incident that changed the history of Sudan: Gordon Pasha and the war on Khartoum (AR- Aljazeera)

will come back with more FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)