Talk:Thomas Crisp

First comments

This medal is on public display. I was told that Tom Crisp junior (my great grandfather) thought it would be better that the whole family were able to see it rather than just one line, so it's in a museum somewhere. TomViza

---

As a child my Father took myself and my Two brothers to meet our reletive Tom Crisp junor and was both privilaged and moved by his account of this day in history, he came over as a kind and wonderfull person who's words and accounts have had a lasting affect on myself. I have given on many occasions accounts of ths Herioism and self sacrifice to my children and will soon be taking them to Lowestoft to give them some idea of what his bravery was for. (Simon Tailford)

first world war

is there any reason it says first world war instead of World War I?

GA Passed

It's an interesting read, and kudos to whoever pulled together all of the sources, inc the London Gazette citations because searching on there a bit of a hassle :/ Heres how it fits against the relevant criteria:

1. It is well written - PASS
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable - PASS - plenty of citations
3. It is broad in its coverage - PASS - covers most of his naval career and post-death press coverage
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - PASS
5. It is stable - PASS
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic - PASS - plenty of images, including one of crisp himself - PASS

If you have any questions, dont hesitate to ask. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambig?

A heads up. There is a well known philosopher named Thomas Crisp. He used to teach at Florida State Univ. and recently moved to Biola University. Plantinga has spoken very highly of him. 71.147.38.64

A Problem

I’ve got a bit of a problem with this. But as it’s a Featured Article I don’t want to start changing stuff without discussing it first.
The article says the U boat involved was UC 41 and (despite a caveat to say it was unidentified) refers to the U-boat throughout as UC 41. This is unwarranted; none of the sources identify the boat and the only one to mention it (Snelling) explicitly says the boat was unidentified. He then reports a speculation by another writer (Masters) in 1935 but gives no evidence for the claim, unless you count Soanes' message from the dead. The article does however report this in full, which I suggest is hardly a credible source.
The note admits the boat was unknown but claims it was "probably" UC 41 because it was in the area. This is incorrect; UC 41 usually operated off the coast of Scotland and was sunk there, in the Tay estuary [1].
OTOH another source (U-boat.net) makes the (equally unsubstantiated) claim the boat was UC 63, which at least has the merit of being plausible; UC 63 was operating during August , was working off the Humber, [2] and sank another trawler (Alice) on the same day; also, significantly, leaving no survivors [3].
The article also says the fate of the Ethel & Millie's crew was "probably" that they were taken prisoner
Again there is no warrant for this either; U boats seldom took prisoners aboard for lack of space ( it was one of the excuses for Unrestricted Submarine Warfare) and taking 7 men into a UC II type boat (which was crowded with a crew of 26) is unprecedented. What was common was for survivors to be left adrift to meet their fate, while there is precedent of survivors to be shot, or left to drown when the boat submerged, or retaliation against their victims who had the temerity to shoot back.
I suggest this need s re-writing, at least to change the boat to "unidentified", with a note on the 2 possibilities, and maybe a Controversy section to cover the theories about what she did with the Ethels crew.

It sounds like you have quite a bit of knowledge on this issue, and I encourage you to attempt to rewrite bits that you think need to be addressed (I can help integrate it into the article if that is what you are worried about). The only problem I can see is that your reasoning regarding some of the above seems to be based on (plausible) original research - you must back this up with reliable sources before inserting it into the article. The current version is sourced to Snelling (with whom I've had sourcing problems before), and therefore another source(s) has to be found to counteract him.

P.S. The Soanes story is in the article to add colour, not as a reliable source for the identity of the submarine!--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the article for the first time in a while, I think it needs a copyedit. I will run through the whole article focusing on the prose and incorporating your suggestion about not naming the submarine. I will then work on (with your assistance if you are willing) a sub-section addressing the issue of the submarine's identity. This may take a little while, and please feel free to contribute in any way.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Snelling says the boat was never identified, so it’s what’s there that’s unsourced.
So my first thought was simply to change where it says to “UC 41” to “the U-boat” or “the unidentified U boat”.
Second to change the note to say “the U boat was never identified, but there is speculation it was UC 41 (Masters, reported in Snelling/source) or UC 63 (uboatnet/source)”.
Third, change the fate of Ethel’s crew to “last seen on the deck of the U boat and their fate is unknown”.
That would do for now.
Or we could add “There is speculation that they were cast adrift in their boat, and perished, or that they were disposed of by the U boat crew, or that they were taken prisoner, and were subsequently lost (Snelling )”. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited and will add some information regarding the identity of the submarine later this week.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

@Jackyd101: The second and third sentences in the lead are unnecessarily long and complex in structure. Is there any way to break them down? I am more concerned with the former than the latter.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The first word war

Th 75.76.250.182 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Two comments:

1. Is uboat.net a "high-quality reliable source" as required by the featured article criteria? This seems to have been a matter of dispute for some time – back in 2010, this was one of the points raised against German Type UB I submarine at FAC; more recently there seems to have been no consensus at RSN in 2019, objections at a MilHist A-Class review the same year, and this year a GA was delisted on the basis of overreliance on this site.
2. There's some inconsistency about the identification of the U-Boat which sunk the Nelson. The note in the lead UC-41 or the UC-63 without a citation; the body says UC-63 (cited only to uboat.net) and does not mention UC-41. However the body does say that "another theory [on the fate of the Ethel & Millie's crew] is that they were taken prisoner and killed when the submarine was sunk"; this is very implausible if we identify the boat which sunk the Ethel & Millie and the Nelson as the UC-63, because that wasn't sunk until November and it seems highly unlikely that seven PoWs would have been kept aboard a U-Boat for 2 1/2 months!

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)