CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

Thank you for clarifying this with a most comprehensive explanation Martin. Having read your previous posts, I thought this would most likely be the case.

I'm astonished that they could draw the conclusion they did, and claim a precedent had been set, on the basis of one example of an officer being ordered to put up rank.

To be fair to Parker Legg, they mention two other officers recorded in a higher rank. One was a Temp and the other (2 Lt Sassoon) is a mistake. He is recorded five times and only once as a Lt. A few days later he is recorded by the same diarist as 2nd Lt. Incidentally this subsequent record is is not mentioned in the article. Sassoon is also mentioned in the 4th Fd Ambulance diary (a valuable independent witness - again not mentioned in the article) and three times in the Div nominal roll and casualty returns all as 2 Lt (ditto). The 'Lt' in Sassoon's case clearly an error. These are clear examples of Confirmation Bias - carefully selecting supporting evidence while discarding or ignoring counter-evidence.

What is more compelling is Kipling's cohort - all 14 gazetted on the same date. Where we have records, 10 are only ever recorded as 2nd Lt between the antedated promotion and LG date. The others are Temp Lts or not recorded. The CWGC/Christie/Parker Legg theory would surely have to explain why these 10 subalterns were recorded within this period a total of 55 times and not once as a Lt. Again, more Confirmation Bias that completely ignores a significant amount of counter-evidence. Incidentally one of the four exceptions of this cohort is Sassoon as explained above. The others are Temps.

I strongly suspect CWGC/Christie/Parker Legg didn't do the necessary research to prove their promotion protocol theory. I doubt that anyone faced with such a large amount of counter-evidence could come to their conclusion. It took about a dozen GWF members to assemble the necessary data from the LG to establish the timelines of the 108 Officers. Technically not that easy as the searching the LG is an arcane skill. working back through the timeline in the Div, Div A&QMG, Brigade, Bn, ADMS and Fd Ambulance diaries once armed with the LG dates and antedates simply took a bit of time.

To be honest I am not sure why this remains a debate. The evidence is simply overwhelmingly against the theory. I am interested simply to see how far facts can be streched to make a point, and how long the counter-evidence can be ignored. MG

[Muerrisch]

QUOTE

To be honest I am not sure why this remains a debate. The evidence is simply overwhelmingly against the theory. I am interested simply to see how far facts can be streched to make a point, and how long the counter-evidence can be ignored. MG

Martin et al: there is little debate on this thread, in the sense of argument and counter-argument. There is almost unanimity regarding the core claim by Parker-Legg that Jack Kipling's body lies in the grave marked by his headstone. The Forum is not convinced.

We also appear to agree that the research was at best scanty, and at worst selective, and that the article was not the finest hour of Stand To!

I suppose we have reached the point where the question "what are we going to do about it?" is being asked. Pursuing this, I have just Googled "John Kipling Grave". First up is Wiki, which indeed informs us that Parker-Legg have sorted the matter out. Well down the list is this thread on the GWF.

My personal opinion is that there is no future in an attempt at rebuttal in ST because, even if a contribution were to be accepted, the time lag would lessen any impact.

Are Parker-Legg aware of this thread? I don't think we know one way or the other. Certainly the editor of ST! is aware.

So, what do "we" think is the way forward, if indeed there is a way forward? Unless new evidence comes to light, this thread has probably reached the end of its active life.

[Steven Broomfield]

I'll ask a question which may well have been answered already, so I apologise if that is the case.

Has anyone ever suggested or tried DNA-sampling the remains in "Kipling's" grave to see if there is a match (assuming there is a Kipling descendant available)?

As I say, if this has been suggested, I apologise: I can't recall one way or the other.

[laughton]

Yes, that question has been asked here and I recall that there was a suggestion the Rudyard's DNA would be available if he too was exhumed.

It will not happen, as the CWGC is clear that remains WILL NOT be disturbed. We were looking at a micro-probe to extract material without disturbing the grave by exhumation. That work continues.

I must now go check the Wiki article.

Our work in Canada continues and perhaps it will come to fruition when 2nd Lt. Kipling is found with Lt. Wylie in the Loos British Cemetery, leaving 2nd Lt. Law in St. Mary's ADS.

[Guest]

I'll ask a question which may well have been answered already, so I apologise if that is the case.

Has anyone ever suggested or tried DNA-sampling the remains in "Kipling's" grave to see if there is a match (assuming there is a Kipling descendant available)?

As I say, if this has been suggested, I apologise: I can't recall one way or the other.

Steven

I am fairly certain this is not an option. If memory serves I think the MoD ruled this out. Unless next of kin demanded it with a lot of media support, I suspect CWGC would reject any idea of invasion. If done unilaterally by CWGC there would be an outcry and getting next of kin approval would be necessary. That aside it would create an almighty precedent that would involve an unimaginable amount of forensic work for thousands of other graves. Unless a body is newly discovered, I suspect DNA testing is not an option for those already re-interred.

In some ways it comes back to the core debating point: concepts of proof. If the starting point is an unidentified body the burden of proof lies with the CWGC if it is to amend the records. If DNA is not an option they rightly demand extremely high standards of proof to make changes. There have been examples of this on the forum on the In From The Cold project as well as other misidentified examples.

My sense is that in this case the CWGC is not living up to the standards of proof it requires from other independent submissions. It has effectively made an understandable mistake back in 1992 and this has been compounded. The media interest is only due to the celebrity of the subject's father. One can understand the CWGC, standing on rather shaky foundations, why it is so eager to accept the Parker Legg 'discoveries' and to issue a press release followed by media interviews with the BBC etc. I wonder how many press releases have been made about individual soldiers by the CWGC.

In the sharp-elbowed struggle to get into the limelight of this story, I cant help thinking if this was Pte Paddy Murphy, Irish Guards MIA at Loos presumed dead, no-one would be writing articles for Stand To!, making press releases, discussing groundbreaking (the irony) research on the BBC or releasing self-congratulatory summaries on websites or having feelings hurt in Canada for not being consulted (Christie).

Jackanory.

MG

[TTracer44]

In the case of using the father Rudyard for a DNA match, there is a post on page 4 that says he was Cremated, having spent the weekend reading through the whole thread I thought I had read about it.

[Guest]

Would not a national newspaper like Daily Mail or similar be interested in this story.

Mike

[Muerrisch]

I fear the subject is far too complicated [and unsensational] for ANY national newspaper to be interested.

I do not know the mechanism for adding to Wiki but that might be a way to set the record straight.

[Guest]

How about The Kipling Journal

Mike

[Guest]

Is it possible that the number of Great War myths has increased during the centenary years?

[laughton]

I fear the subject is far too complicated [and unsensational] for ANY national newspaper to be interested.

I do not know the mechanism for adding to Wiki but that might be a way to set the record straight.

I am a member of the editors team for the WikiProject:Military History so I can do that on behalf of the GWF and CEFSG. If you read the page linked you will see that is the precise purpose of the WikiProject team.

[Steven Broomfield]

Is it possible that the number of Great War myths has increased during the centenary years?

I'd say it's a nailed-on certainty.

I loved the one, elsewhere on the Forum, about the British burying Irish troops with republican sympathies outside cemetery walls.

[laughton]

Laughton: that is a very interesting thought.

I shall go away and think it, and do some consultation.

If anything is done is must not go off at half-cock of course.

I had filed the preliminary request page, to initiate the process. Once the link is generated I will post it here. Remember with an open Wiki that anyone can provide comment or make changes at any time. By opening a Peer Review there will be a separate page to add comments and participate in the discussion without changing the original page. In my opinion, it is better if the author of the page has the opportunity to review the comments, check the facts, and alter the page accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_Kipling/archive1

Here are the guidelines for a Peer Review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines

The Wiki editors may also change the status based on the submissions.

Richard

[Guest]

I don't think this is the best approach. If anyone wants to engage directly with the theorists, they can. I am sure if anyone wrote a coherent, measured summary of the counter arguments Jon Cooksey at Stand To! would at least read it and probably publish it. He is a decent level-headed man who would provide a vehicle for alternative views. Similarly if CWGC received a coherent counter-argument, or the Parker Legg or Stormin Norman Christie, I am sure they would all read it and pass comment.

Direct interaction is surely the best way. I prefer Colonel Messenger's approach. MG

edited.

[stevem49]

As ever - It ain't what you know, it is who you know that counts

I got nowhere when I spent years proving my man was buried in an 'unknown Nott's and Derby' grave. Apparently a Sgt died on that day and the unknown private the day before (we know all about death dates) . First attempt to send my large file - someone lost it! Second attempt, quick reply 'what about the unknown Sgt' So after Sgt's death, they removed his stripes and buried him as an unknown private. That is much more logical than my theory

[Guest]

As ever - It ain't what you know, it is who you know that counts

I got nowhere when I spent years proving my man was buried in an 'unknown Nott's and Derby' grave. Apparently a Sgt died on that day and the unknown private the day before (we know all about death dates) . First attempt to send my large file - someone lost it! Second attempt, quick reply 'what about the unknown Sgt' So after Sgt's death, they removed his stripes and buried him as an unknown private. That is much more logical than my theory

J Kipling's father had a view on this:

" If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you

But make allowance for their doubting too......."

[stevem49]

I do and I do

[keithmroberts]

Can I just make it absolutely clear, that no action can be taken "On behalf of the Great War Forum" without specific approval from the owners of the GWF.

Most of he GWF is open to internet search engines, and it is perfectly possible for people to refer elsewhere to to discussions on the GWF, and even to link to them, but no member can act "on behalf of" the GWF" without specific authority from the board of directors.

Keith Roberts

GWF Team.

[laughton]

My intent was only to assist with the question posed. I have removed the option to participate in the Wiki review and you may delete my post. Anyone who feels otherwise can register with Wiki and initiate the review.

[keithmroberts]

Just to be clear, the GWF obviously does not own members actions, and if a member wants to submit amendments to Wikipedia as an individual then that is not a matter for the GWF.

We don't take up positions as a corporate entity on matters of fact or interpretation, and I can't think we would ever do so.

Nothing in my post and the preceding one that I made should be taken to denigrate in any way the research that members have done, or the discussions here for which I have considerable respect.

Keith Roberts

Edited 4 April , 2016 by Keith Roberts
for clarity only

[David Filsell]

Stand To! does not have an 'angle' the excellent editor prints that which he is sent. Neither is it a magazine with a department of 'fact checkers' with time and money to spend time on examining every article in minute detail. It simply published in good faith a submission which was received. Whether any article is the subject of research carried out by others, plaigarisation or simply inaccurate should not be held against it. Perhaps someone should consider submitting a corrective article correcting the errors published.

[corisande]

Like many, I have got lost in the length of this thread, and the detail therein

A simple question on Stand TO articles - did the Richard Laughton article in Kipling's grave that was originally (I recollect) to have been published in Dec 2015, ever get published, or was it withdrawn by Richard Laughton ?

[laughton]

Answer:

Stand TO! did not publish the material in the Digital Edition as they had proposed. The WFA has not responded to any of my submissions in any form. I did not withdraw my information.

[johnboy]

Jon Cooksey at Stand To! would at least read it and probably publish it. He is a decent level-headed man who would provide a vehicle for alternative views

Even if they are at odds with his Vice President?

[keithmroberts]

Stand To is not linked to the WFA's digital newsletter or website. . Stand To and The Bulletin have different editors, and neither control the content of the digital product from the WFA. Until March 2015 the digital editor was David Henderson. he was replaced later in the year by Jonathan Vernon.

Edit: Johnboy- yes. He is I think his own man.

Keith