This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Much language in this article (and the Big Wing) is both pointed and loaded. A quick check of the edit history points to a single editor, conveniently without a talk page, who apparently has an axe to grind, valid or not, against Bader in particularly and Leigh-Mallory, and conversely, has exalted Park and Dowding. Opinonated assertions have been inserted without documentation and worse, without being challenged. I don't know the truth of it, and am not likely to ever find out, but inflated assessment of these articles reflects negatively on assessments of other articles in the wikiproject, including articles I do care about.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. There is a lot of emotive language in this material that is not fitting for an encyclopaedic work. It still requires serious revision to bring it to an acceptable standing for a non-partisan reference summary work. 193.208.9.78 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a number of Park's critics, such as Leigh-Mallory, Bader, etc., failed to understand Fighter Command's primary purpose, which was not to shoot down enemy aircraft per se, but was actually to prevent attacking enemy bombers successfully bombing their targets. This remained so until the formation of RAF Strike Command.
... shooting them down after they had successfully bombed and destroyed Britain's means to fight back, e.g., the airfields, the factories producing munitions, etc., was too late. That was the difference between strategy, and tactics. Park understood this, and could see the big picture, as did Dowding; Leigh-Mallory and Bader didn't, and it appears, couldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, a very good read. Not actually too familiar with Park except for, naturally enough, his BoB service and the abortive RAAF command episode. So I learnt a lot, especially re. his acedom in WWI and times in South America. Some thoughts for future assessments:
I'd say this is pretty well good to go for GAN -- my copyedit was mainly for prose rather than content but the balance and tone seem reasonable to me, and image licensing and sourcing look satisfactory (as they should be for B-Class of course).
For A-Class/FA, I think we need to try and nail down his somewhat confusing record of victories, which on a quick scan seem to range from 11 to 20 -- I'd have thought Above the War Fronts would give the most definitive answer but you haven't used that as the source for his total; the Osprey edition on Bristol F.2 aces would also be worth a cross-check (I don't have copies of either book).
I don't have access to "Above the War Fronts" but think that my library may have the Osprey book on Bristol aces. I will have a look next time I am in there. Zawed (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
George, that would be fantastic -- would you be able to just scan or photograph the tally page and wiki-email to Zawed and me? I've never seen Above the Trenches, does it have a specific entry on each ace, as well as a tally sheet? If there's an entry on Park, it would be great to get that as well as a tally sheet, if not too much trouble... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed victories in the list are numbered and listed chronologically. This is a complete listing of all Park's known victories, per Above the Trenches, page 297.
Park's observers are listed in the Remarks column. Their cites are from Above the War Fronts, page given.
Tks so much George -- I don't think tables like being indented so removed that (it now appears at the end of the discussion but at least as you intended otherwise)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zawed, my suggestion FWIW is to leave as is the combat descriptions already in the article where they agree in essence with what George has supplied, and replace or add in the details from George's table that disagree with what's there or aren't in there as yet. As far as his total goes, you could still report the pair that give him only 11 as well as the 20 from this source, although I'd obviously put my money on Above the Trenches/War Fronts. Then again, if you get hold of the Osprey Bristol Fighter book and it says 20 (which I expect it would given Osprey usually agrees with Grub Street in my experience) then maybe it's simpler to just drop the other total sources entirely... WDYT? George, if you want to weigh in this point, would value your opinion too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I have gone through and revised the relevant section as needed. There was the odd inconsistency between Orange and Above the Trenches, which is probably the Fog of War (and time). I also added some discussion regarding his final tally. See what you think. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just re-reading, I can see a couple of discrepancies as you're alluding...
First, the initial victory is 24 March 1917 in the AtT table but 24 July in the article -- I'm guessing 24 July must be right as he doesn't seemed to have joined his fighter squadron until July so I'd leave as is.
Second, Orange reckons Park killed Otto Hartmann on 3 September, which isn't in the AtT table at all. I think it's likely Orange has made an error, if we check Hartmann's WP bio his death is cited to another Grub Street publication, Above the Lines, as being at the hands of another Bristol Fighter crew. Given the doubt, I'd take Hartmann out of Park's article.
Third, the DFW destroyed after claiming Pernet is implied in our article to be on the same day as Pernet but AtT indicates 9 September, so I think I'd tweak that and add a cite to AtT. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll head over to the GAN and pass it, and add a link to this discussion. Now that we have that resolved I think you're ready for ACR, unless there was anything else you wanted to add or revise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing with sourcing is that the more recent bio by Rowland seems underused compared to Orange's work. I'm sure Orange is fine -- I used his bios of Coningham and Tedder when taking Peter Drummond, another antipodean air marshal in the RAF who was considered for C-in-C of the RAAF, to A/FA but given Orange is originally from 1984 and Rowland is just last year, before considering ACR/FAC we probably need to go through the latter and augment Orange where necessary (assuming you haven't done so already and found little new, of course).
The Rowlands book isn't that fantastic actually: it is focused mostly on the BoB and doesn't go into detail regarding Park's career either side of that. That said, I have worked in a few more details that I have cited to Rowlands. Zawed (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be fair to try and work in Tedder's quote on Park (in Bungay but no doubt elsewhere too) that "if ever any one man won the Battle of Britain, he did".
The Military Offices table at the end -- this is a bugbear of mine as it's so common -- is not well cited. I don't think the predecessors and successors should be cited in the table, rather they should be mentioned and cited in the main body if they're to be included in the table. I've tried to do this for all my bios. ATM there's nothing in the main body about Hill, Sowrey, Welsh, Pattinson, Harries, Foster, Douglas (re. ME Command), Medhurst or Gowrie.
Finally (for now!) do either of the full-length bios discuss Trevor Howard's portrayal in the 1969 film? If so it'd be fair to mention this in the Legacy section (please no In popular culture section!). The film was very much a vindication for Dowding's and Park's leadership, and I think was seen as such at the time.
Ian, thanks for the feedback. I have enacted your suggestions where I can (see my comments above) and will nominate this now for GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
