Talk:Jack Wong Sue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WA state Library catalogue[edit]

Has his name as Jack Sue - but also includes the jack wong sue designation as well http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/aSue%2C+Jack%2C+1925-/asue+jack+1925/-2%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=asue+jack+1925&1%2C7%2C SatuSuro 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for this is that -- in less politically correct times -- "Wong" was treated like an Anglo middle name, when Jack prefers to use his full name. I go past his shop from time to time and it certainly says "Jack Wong Sue" there. Grant | Talk 03:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offical Rank[edit]

Hi all,

I am having a dispute with a fellow editor (as you will see in the history). Can other editors please look at Mr Wong Sue's rank when he was discharged and confirm if he was a Leading Aircraftman or a Sergeant please? I state/source/reference that he acted as a Sergeant for some time but was discharged as a Leading Aircraftman (I have sourced two official government sites) but another editor states he was a Sergeant when discharged.

Thank you for your time and help. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definitive source would have to be his "Clearance Certificate, Discharge Squadron", (see Page 8 - NAA: A9301, 83783). It states the following:

No: 83783 Rank: LAC A/SGT

To make matters worse, if we look at page 14 of NAA: A9301, 83783 it shows his rank between 02NOV43 and 21JAN46 as: AC1, AC1, SGT, SGT, LAC A/SGT (in chronological order).

Based on the records, I'd say he was an Acting Sergeant at time of discharge.

Don't you love WWII records? Clear as mud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.102.123 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this info, would love to have a read? As this government site states this: http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/script/veteran.asp?ServiceID=R&VeteranID=930600#summary1. Think I have found where/what you are talking about. You have great eyes or a great computer to see what it says exactly but I'll take your word for it - so who is correct? Does one keep their acting rank when discharged, was he that rank when discharged, etc? I'm happy to go with consensuses. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malware site as ref[edit]

I don't know what has happened, but the link to the report on Lynette Silver's take on Jack Wong Sue's career takes you to a malware site. The ref is cite web|title=Investigation of Claims (Silver Vs Jack Wong Sue - decreased)|url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/48076498/Silver-vs-Jack-Wong-Sue-Report%7Cpublisher=Australian Investigation Corporation|accessdate=27 February 2011 but I wouldn't click it if I were you! I have removed it from the article for now. Can anyone provide a safe link as I want to read the report? 86.133.55.210 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine for me on my PC, laptop and phone, reinstating the source in the article. CanberraBulldog (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL works fine on mine too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.102.123 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Triumph Banjo (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Works ok for me as wellTriumph Banjo (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in having this article viewed by a wikipedia administrator[edit]

How does someone ask a Wikipedia administrator to check this article? as it is very unreferencedCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have added a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Hopefully we may be able to get some people with knowledge of the topic involved to sort fact from fiction and add the required references. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, I like your work. CanberraBulldog (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that administrators generally have no particular say over the accuracy or otherwise of articles (except for where there's unsourced material concerning living people or hoaxes invented by editors). As an editor It seems to me that the solution here is simple: we have reliable source reporting claims that Jack Wong Sue embellished his war records and we have a reliable source reporting his family's response to these claims, so let's include both - anything else would be censorship. Lynette Silver should be taken seriously - she's a published author who specialises in this area, and has runs on the board uncovering fraudulent war records: [1] and a book she wrote was launched by the Governor General last year: [2]. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest if you are to take Silver seriously, you consider her book "Deadly Secrets" where she writes about Denis Emerson-Elliot as Ian Fleming’s original 007. She dedicates the book to him. He was discovered to be a fraud by his own daughter Penny Graham who spent 40yrs researching her farther's history only to find him to be a total fraud, it's all explained in chapter 17 the book is called "What Ever Remains" this was the book that led me indirectly to question Lynett Silver's credibility and got me interested in the Jack Sue story. Just something to considerTriumph Banjo (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks Nick, looks good, what about all the information not sourced? Cheers, CanberraBulldog (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, attempts should be made to source it (and not from his book as autobiographies are generally not considered good sources). Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something, The article of Silver's/comment that Sue was a liar, her facts/argument totally relies on her reading of Sue's memoirs (autobiography) written 50 years after the action, he apologises through his memoir for any inaccuracy in dates and times. How much scrutiny originally went into the addition of the Silver article? Is it possible Silver's article should not have been in the wikipedia page? I noticed a comment that the article has been there for 10yrs to imply it must be credible or has it not been challenged before? On reading the article of Silver's and the references it reads more like unfounded accusations rather than facts. I don't think the article does anything for the credibility of wikipedia, to put what is more or less only an accusation with questionable/unreliable evidence is more gossip. I see his family must have gone to a bit of trouble rebutting this and yes that's there but why have either there when the grounds for it being there in the first place is flawed. It becomes just gossipTriumph Banjo (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment[edit]

Please note that it is totally unacceptable to use Wikipedia as a forum to speculate or comment on the integrity of living people unless such comments are fully supported by reliable sources. It is important to note that such speculation is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and may lead to blocks from editing. I have deleted a number of comments from this talk page (including responses to these comments which, while not problematic in themselves, needed to be removed to ensure that the discussion was no longer visible), and any further comments along these lines will lead to immediate blocks from editing. Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Article[edit]

Dear all,

I am proposing that all information in this article that is not sourced and can not be sourced be deleted from this article. I have done a rough draft (below) showing all information that is cited thus showing a representation of how the article may look.

Jack Wong Sue, OAM, DCM, JP also known as Jack Sue (12 September 1925 – 16 November 2009) was a Chinese Australian from Perth, Western Australia. Wong Sue served as a member of the commando/special reconnaissance unit Z Special Unit. After the war, Wong Sue was a businessman, owning a diving store in the Perth suburb of Midland. He was also an author, a guide for tours of Borneo and a musician, who performed with bands in Perth for about 60 years.

War service

On 25 September 1943, Wong Sue joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). During 1945, Wong Sue was among members of Z Special Unit landed in Borneo, as part of Operation Agas 3.[3] He reached the substantive rank of Leading Aircraftsman,[4] but acted as a Sergeant for an extended period and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM).[5]

In 2010, Australian military historian Lynette Silver disputed claims made by Wong Sue in his memoirs and said that official archives prove that he "lied". In particular, she questioned Wong Sue's claims that he:

• single-handedly killed a group of Japanese soldiers at Terusan, Borneo in May 1945, thereby saving the life of Lieutenant Don Harlen, as there were no enemy personnel in the area at the time; • took part in a raid on the Japanese garrison at Pitas on June 13, 1945, as he is not named in records of the action, and; • witnessed the last Sandakan Death March as he was in hospital when it occurred and was elsewhere when the other marches took place.[6]

In early 2011, Jack Wong Sue's son, Barry, released a report which he stated refuted the claims made by Silver against his father.[7][8]

Return to civilian life

Wong Sue was discharged from the RAAF on 21 January 1946, after which he returned to Perth and subsequently opened a retail store devoted to diving equipment in Midland. His published works include two books published circa 2001: a memoir of his military service, Blood on Borneo, and a collection of anecdotes regarding a 1963 shipwreck, Ghost of the Alkimos. In 2006, Wong Sue was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, "For service to the community, particularly through the preservation and recording of military and maritime history."[5] He died in a Perth hospice, aged 84, on 16 November 2009.[9]

See also • White Australia Policy • Borneo campaign (1945) • Roland Griffiths-Marsh

Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that looks pretty good to me. Have you searched Factiva for old news stories about Jack Wong Sue which you could use as sources though? Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't, but I shall know that you have mentioned it. Thanks heaps. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support the re-written version proposed above. Of course if you can find any more info per Nick's suggestion that should also be added however. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look but can't really find anything to support the article. CanberraBulldog (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Wong Sue. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy accepted by Site[edit]

New here sorry. I see replies to my questions, thanks, not sure how to reply to you, hopefully I will get it eventually. Question regarding previous question. Is an article accepted by Wikipedia even if it's only evidence is an article in a newspaper? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triumph Banjo (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Triumph Banjo: In order for an article to be accepted by Wikipedia, there needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Wikipedia calls this "notability". GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Silver claims[edit]

An editor has removed the section about Lynette Silver's claims about Jack Wong Sue. This doesn't work as the article then follows up with the rebuttal. Will post on the editor's talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Hi tacyarg new here I'm not sure if i'm writing in the correct place but thanks for your help.Unfortunatly the reliable source is claiming Jack Wong Sue is a Lier which is a big difference to being an embellisher.To claim the Author Sue lied is implying he purposely had intent to deceive. His memoirs that's referred to by Silver I have read thoroughly, the start of Sue's book he explains 50yrs have passed and he apologies for any errors in times etc. You could not possibly call the man a lier, it's not possible to prove the intent to deceive, hence I feel classing a news paper article as a creditable source when there's no proof just accusation not creditable. I have read through the reference section which has an investigation by a company specialising in exposing the truth or at least bringing the facts to the fore.This appears to be very thorough with facts dates documents witness reports. Looking at both, one view is an accusation, the other are documented facts. It's obvious to me one is credible the other is not. Does a newspaper article make an accusation reliable? I'm not sure what to make of this site, is there a need for factual truth or does anything go if you can get it into a news paper? Thanks for listening.[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your response. The article seems to me to be reasonably balanced in presenting Lynn Silver's view as just a view - giving the link to the newspaper article but leaving it up to readers to make up their own minds. The best place to discuss it is on the article talk page - go to Jack Wong Sue and click on Talk near the top left of the page. You will see there has been some discussion of this already. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Ok thanks I may be getting the hang of this but don't hold your breath. Is it ok to write here or is it better when discussing theist go to the page itself and click talk? I think when I do that I'm not sure where to stat the text HELP I don't think it gives just a view it states official archives proved he lied and then gives a list of his so called lies, if the article was suggesting he made mistakes it implies something completely different, A mistake has a completely different connotation A Lie on the other hand becomes an attempt to deceive, this implies the person has low morals and questionable principles anyone who read that a person made a mistake would have a much different impression of someone's character than if they were told he or she was a lier. If I made a mistake here which I have a few times I would hope it would be seen as a mistake and not that i was a lier. Where do i look to find the original author of this part of jack Sue's page/ Silver's article? Again I'm not 100% sure if I'm pasting the text in the correct place to explain my edits as I'm new here, I haven't meant to be disruptive as one of your editors suggested and threatened to block me in future which i found a bit threatening, i may have taken it the wrong way but it felt a bit like bullying to me.Triumph Banjo (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Wong_Sue&oldid=1207521396"