Jump to content

Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Palestinian contribution

I recently removed the statement about the number of jews who fought in the Battle of Britain, as I could not see it as relevent to a list of the nationalties of non-British personnel. No other religion is mentioned. User User:AWN2 reverted the change with the comment that it is an interesting aside relevant to "Palestinian contribution". The palestinian section already mentions the religion of the individual. I would suggest that as the religion of the other non-jewish airmen is not mentioned and is not really relevant to them joining the Royal Air Force we should refrain from mentioning any religious allegiances. MilborneOne 12:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "interesting aside" marks it down as not particularly relevant to this article. GraemeLeggett 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


There is some dispute over George Goodwin's nationality, as he was born in Palestine to British parents; his father worked in the British Embassy in Palestine.[1] This has been confirmed by the Battle of Britain Historical Society and his RAF record confirms only his place of birth - his nationality cannot be verified completely as, like many other Non-Britians serving with the RAF at the start of the war, he put his nationality as "British" to enable him to enlist in the RAF. As a previously serving RAF Officer (also working directly with the surviving Battle of Britain Pilots) this was the subject of a Freedom of Information enquiry we recieved from a member of the general public and I did substantial research at the time (Nov 2005). The RAF website bases the 'nationality' on the place of birth and is in fact wrong. --KizzyB (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to my above comment, the information on the Battle of Britain Historical Society website is kept up to date - http://battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/index.html - refer to the Aircrew Honour Roll. --KizzyB (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is the article says he was from Palestine it doesnt mention his nationality and indeed if he was born in Palestine then he was from Palestine. You mention research but dont mention why you think the place of birth is wrong. The Commonwealth War Graves Commisssion gives his nationality as United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the ambiguity of the statement from Palestine. Without further clarification of the nationality of Goodwin, I think that Wikipedia users could reach the wrong conclusion of Goodwin's nationality. As by the nationality of his parents and his father's occupation (working in the British High Commission), and additionality of the nationality stated by Goodwin on his RAF enlistment papers are all British, then perhaps the passage should read:

The RAF's official "Battle of Britain Roll of Honour" recognises one pilot from Palestine, then a British Mandate territory. (This contribution is sometimes described as "Israeli", although the State of Israel was not proclaimeduntil 1948.) Pilot Officer George Ernest Goodman, was born in Palestine to British Parents (his father was working in the British High Commission to Palestine at the time of his birth); he was keen to fight in the RAF and enlisted early in the War.

I agree with your comment from June 2007 that the comment regarding Goodwin's religion is not relevant unless the denomination of all other BoB pilots is given. I think that it is interesting to see, especially in light of internment of many but not all non-British Jews, and as such further research should be carried out and a separate page be made giving information on this area - something on the lines of Jews fighting for the Allies. May I add that I appreciate Wikipedia greatly - and the fact that it is a encyclopedia that grows with shared knowledge. --KizzyB (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with your suggested words although a reference/citation to his parentage would be usefull. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Officer George Ernest Goodman born in Haifa, Palestine in 1920 but was registered at birth as British with the High Commission. Goodman was killed on 14th June 1941 in the Western Desert serving with No.73 Squadron. Here is his entry on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission register [1] I cannot find a weblink to prove his parentage in exact words, but the CWGC entry states his nationality and it also shows that his parents were in Lagos, Nigeria at the time of death. Hope this helps. --KizzyB (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The RAF's official "Battle of Britain Roll of Honour" recognises one pilot from Palestine, then a British Mandate territory. (This contribution is sometimes described as "Israeli", although the State of Israel was not proclaimeduntil 1948.) Pilot Officer George Ernest Goodman, was born in Haifa, Palestine to British Parents (his father was working in the British High Commission to Palestine at the time of his birth); he was keen to fight in the RAF and enlisted early in the War. Goodman was killed on 14th June 1941 in the Western Desert serving with No. 73 Squadron RAF. [2]

Might still be a problem with (his father was working in the British High Commission to Palestine at the time of his birth) not that I dispute it is true but we dont have a reliable source that says that. The fact that his parents were later in Lagos implies that he moved around but doesnt prove it. I would suggest just leaving out the statement in brackets until we can find a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem, will try and find a source, but in the meantime will amend the article! --KizzyB (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


This article is called "Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain". George Ernest Goodman was born in Haifa to British parents, therefore he held full British citizenship and had a British Passport. Whether he was Jewish or Mandate Palestinian (which is not a Nationality) or any other description, he should not be included in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right but the RAF list calls him a "Palestinian" and not "British", hence his inclusion in this article. But it does explain he was born to British parents. If we remove him because we assume he is British then we would still need to explain why the Palestinian contribution has been removed. This article makes no mention of his religion as it would not be relevant to him being a pilot in the RAF. Also refer to comments above. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The commonwealth wargraves commission lists him as nationality: United Kingdom. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.cwgc.org/search/SearchResults.aspx?surname=goodman&initials=g+e&war=0&yearfrom=1900&yearto=2000&force=Air&nationality=&send.x=53&send.y=12. He was a British Passport holder. The memorial in London lists him as British. He had an English education and he volunteered to fight for his country for which he died and is beried in a British cemetery. That he was dual "nationality" Mandate Palestinian is irrelevant. He was NOT Non-British. His contribution to the war effort as a "Palestinian" is adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, so it does not need to be here. It is, in fact, an insult to his memory to place him here. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest you move this section to a new article called "Mandate Palestinian personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain" and delete it from here. If you don't, I shall just delete it and make a formal complaint. Mark Sheridan 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.37.150 (talk)

I oppose you deleting it and I would suggest you did not delete it without a consensus on this talk page, and also please dont make threats on wikipedia as you may be blocked from editing. Happy to change the text to make it clearer he was British, have you a reliable source that he held a British passport? MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clearer I have moved the Israel mention further down and linked it to the listing in the film, although I am still looking for a reliable reference. I have also add that he is listed as British on the London memorial. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of his British birth registration in English issued by His Brittanic Majesty's District Commissioner N.D. at Haifa Palestine. Take him out of this section. I object to him being referred as "Non-British" in any way. He was neither "Israeli" nor "Palestinian". I'm not the one making erroneous entries for dubious reasons, you want to block me, fine, but it will not stop me from objecting to this entry, I shall just move to a more public forum. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont disagree that he was considered to be British but the entry explains why he is refered to as an Israeli and Palestinan and I cant see anything in the article that appears to be factually incorrect. Your are welcome to raise this in another forum, can I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history may be a good starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Israeli refers to anyone born or living in Israel after 1948. Palestinian refers to any "native" born person born in Palestine before 1948 or anyone now born in the Palestinian Territories on the West Bank or in Gaza. George Goodman does not fit any of the above categories. He was born British to expatriate British parents who happened to be in Palestine at the time. He was educated in England while his parents moved on to Lagos, Nigeria. If he had been born there, would you call him Nigerian? I think not. There is no Non-British Palestinian contribution to this article or to the RAF during the Battle of Britain. George Goodman was not "considered to be British", He WAS British. Any other interpretation can only be considered anti-semitic. I reiterate; You may create an article for Palestine born British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain if you wish, but you must delete George Goodman from here. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose removal. Some of your comments dont make sense. The article doesnt say he was an Israeli it just notes that the Battle of Britain film called him that and explains it was wrong. It doesnt say he was a Palestinian all it says he was from Palestine, although Palestinian is a correct term for something or somebody from Palestine at the time not just native, and the RAF did not have a problem calling him Palestinian. But as for some strange reason you are now throwing religious bias (I had to look up anti-semtic!) so you appear to have some other issues with this. As a consequence I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_BritainMilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be to one with issues. The problem is the term "Non-British". Goodman was NOT Non-British. The RAF is going to correct the Palestinian reference. The Memorial already has him as British. What is your problem? And I do not believe you do not know the meaning of "anti-semitic". I am not attacking anyone, I am just trying to correct an historical error. The fact that you are defending an untenable position brings your motives into question, not mine. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No I dont have any issues just presenting the facts in accordance with the references, and yes I did have to look up anti-semitic its not a word that I normally come across so please dont assume. If you have a reliable reference that the RAF are going to change their list then all we need is to explain that in the article. Still no need to remove it just because it may have been in error (or that the modern terminology has changed) you just need to explain it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry did not see this. If the sources say he was British (assuming the RAF sources changes) then we could not include him unless oterh sources claimesd he was not British. At this time the RAF have him listed as Palestinain, so we can say he was a Palestinian, if thyat changes and the ARF say in fact tehy made a mistake we cannot go on repeating the mistake. I agree that if the IP has a source saying that the RAF are going to change his nationality then we need to see a source for that claim. Perhaps he should be in a section of his own, rather then under nationality (and also removed from the list as his nationality is disputed)Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am actively following up with the RAF to change this reference in light of the documentary evidence that I have in my possession. The one version of the Roll of Honour is the only reference that there is that refers to George Goodman as "Palestinian". There is another that does not quote nationality at all. This article itself refers to: "List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain" which defines George Goodman as British with the rider "Often listed as Palestinian as he was born in the Palestine Mandate to British parents". The "often" is an exaggeration as there is only one source , all other references come back to the one Roll of Honour. The point is, in this article he is British first, from Palestine second. This article under the banner of "non-British" strongly infers that although he was legally British, he was in fact a Palestinian, which is not true. He was not "from Palestine" in the sense that he lived in Palestine, he grew up in England. His parents were not dual nationality, they were expatriate British working in Palestine for the British Government. They subsequently moved on. He joined the RAF in England straight from Highgate School, which is not mentioned. The sentence, thrown in at the end: "On the Battle of Britain Monument in London Goodman is shown as British" has an air of skepticism, "even though he is "shown as" he is not really". His nationality is only disputed by people with ulterior motives. All the documentary evidence shows that he was British. There is none that shows he was "Palestinian". The RAF Roll of Honour is not based on evidence, nor is it evidence itself, it is just an error. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I commend you actions to correct what you see is wrong information and only wish you can achieve something, but you have to understand we only have the factually information that is available to the public. The RAF Roll of Honour was created in good faith not as some sort of conspiracy, not based on evidence is a bit unfair as you probably have a connection or interest in Goodman and have documents not available to the rest of us. It would be interesting to know why they choose to list him as such. I presume that the statement His nationality is only disputed by people with ulterior motives is addressed to others outside of wikipedia. The comment about the BoB Monument was to support the view to the reader as being British, so as you have interpreted wrongly (and so might others) I have changed it Goodman is correctly listed as British. User:KizzyB was also interested in correcting the wrong impressions of Goodman it may be worth leaving her a message to see if she can help with her Battle of Britain contacts although she has not been that active recently. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your assumption that I have a connection to Goodman is in error. The document I have is in public domain in the UK archives, it is just filed in a way that makes it difficult to find. If you give me an e-mail address I shall send it to you. You can find me on Linked-In. How much faith was used in creating the Roll of Honour, I do not know. Neither do I know of any "conspiracy". But there is a bureaucratic inertia there that works against change. Someone decided Goodman was "Palestinian" with whatever evidence and motives he had at the time. Someone else needs to decide to change it, and finding that someone is the challenge. Meanwhile, even if he were dual Nationality (which he wasn't, the British passed the Nationality Act 24 July 1925, he was born 8 October 1920), he was still not non-British. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We look forward to being able to amend the article entry when the RAF have amended theirs. Until then, though, as MilborneOne has explained, the article has to remain compliant with our core site policies. While we appreciate your position, these aren't negotiable. If you read our verification policy you might be surprised by the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I know I was when I first started editing. However, with some careful thought it does make sense - it's the only way we can produce an encyclopedia free from the personal opinions of whoever edits each article. As a tertiary source we must reflect what's already been published in reliable secondary sources - even where this is not "the truth". What you're suggesting is that we amend the article based on your own research into primary sources. That avenue is, unfortunately, closed off to us; we are specifically forbidden from conducting what's known on the site as original research. A number of changes have been made based on your information, but I think we've probably gone about as far as we can go in the absence of an actual change on the Roll of Honour so at this stage there's little point pushing for more.
While we're on the subject of site policies, it would be helpful if you completely refrained from speculating about motives. Such speculation is not only meaningless but actively unhelpful, and being against our editor conduct policy of commenting "on the edit, not the editor", will eventually lead to you being prevented from contributing. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 13:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert. The document I have is verifiable and held in the public domain by a reliable source, the British Government. You can go find it yourself. It is therefore not original research. What you call meaningless speculation is not unhelpful or irrelevent as it speaks to the reasons why the data is presented the way it is. Your threats, on the other hand, violate freedom of speech. Gagging the messenger does not change the message. You just devalue Wikipedia. I shall focus on the RAF. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer illegitimi non carborundum as an editing philosophy ;-) Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a privately-owned website which means neither you nor I have any freedom of speech here, only such editing privileges as are earned by contributing in accordance with site policy. If you choose to interpret friendly warnings as threats that's your prerogative - as long as the message gets across, my job as an administrator is done. I think concentrating on the RAF is probably your best course of action for now, but please feel free to return here when they've updated their information and we'll make any required changes to the article. I wish you well with your endeavour, EyeSerenetalk 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The RAF have changed the Roll of Honour to read British. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Men of the Battle of Britain, Kenneth G. Wynn ISBN 978-1902074108

Czechoslovakian contribution

"..,Soviet Union, which occupied Czechoslovakia after the war." Czechoslovakia wasn´t ocuppied by USSR. It was liberated by Soviet Union, but soviet soldiers went away a few months after war. Occupation begun in year 1968 as reaction on the so called Prague Spring.

You're right, but the communists in the Czech Republic came into power shortly after the war, and since the future of this country wasn't certain since it was occupied by Hitler and then saved by Russia, and had no real government, I think the british wanted to refrain from recognising the Czech pilots since the communist coup was expected right after the war. I'll try to rephrase the section (Me being a Czech myself) and please sign your posts. Thank you!--Dominik92 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish contribution

Not only Czechoslovakian were not present on the Victory Parade in London in 1945. There were none of the Polish unit. The only Polish unit invited was the 303 squadron which refused to take the part as none of other Polish unit was not invited, however total Polish engagement placed it among four European allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.156.2.201 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph:
RAF pilots were often sent into the air for training with no ammunition, and told that if they were faced with a problematic situation they should return to the ground to have ammunition loaded. When Polish pilots found themselves in this situation, rather than obeying orders, many tried to ram the German planes, sacrificing themselves to destroy German bombers and illustrating the deep hatred of the Poles for the occupiers of their homeland.[citation needed]
Has no basis in fact and appears to have no supporting evidence to back it up. For your freedom and ours provides a far more accurate and succinct version of events, which has now been included in the article.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Witold Urbanowicz.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Reilly

The article The Pre-Eagles by David A. Johnson also mentions one Hugh Reilly, killed by Werner Molders some time in October 1940. Drutt (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one of the Canadians involved in the Battle. This is a summary not really a list. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He was apparently an American with a forged Canadian passport. Drutt (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was overlooked by the authorities other Americans wore "Canada" insignia on the uniforms to cover up their origin as the USA was neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

The article appears to growing into a list of non-British pilots rather than an overview of the national contribution. Perhaps it is time to have a British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain? MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

the majority of the article is about the pilots who flew during the battle. Perhaps the main sections should concentrate on these and notable non-flying officers should get mentioned separately alongside figures for non-aircrew contributions from outside Great Britain? Not that it will be necessarily easy to find this out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could rename to "Non-British aircrew in the RAF during the Battle of Britain" GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not necessary as the officers in question were aviators as well or were linked to the flying operations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

AVM Richard Saul

It would appear from the wiki article Richard Saul was of Irish birth and was a noteable Battle of Britain commander - see RAF BoB page [3]. Perhaps he should be given a SHORT mention on the Non-British personnel page and his own article expanded further on his role in the BoB? --KizzyB (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is not clear that he is a non-British when he was born in Dublin it was part of the United Kingdom. Certainly by the time of partition he was in the British Army not the Irish Army which could indicate he stayed a British citizen. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ditto to MilborneOne nothing currently supports that the man was not a British subject.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
He became an RAF officer in 1918, he appears have been doing a lot of Army cooperation (attached to the Army?) around the time of the Anglo-Irish treaty, but is at HQ RAF Iraq Command in 1922 when it comes in force.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No one said he wasn't British. All members of the British Commonwealth including the UK were British at the time. That doesn't mean he wasn't Irish. He was Irish, as he was born there, in Dublin. Wallie (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
By adding him to the list of non-British personnel thats pretty much what you said however though Wallie; that he wasn't British.
As discussed before him being "Irish" shouldnt detract from the fact it appears he doesnt belong on this list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that the entire article is being used as a soapbox and that is not its purpose. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
Are we sure that Paddy Finucane was officially non-British as his family had emigrated to England when he was sixteen. I have to agree with Bzuk as I made a point further up the British pilots are not treated in the same depth with just a list at List of Battle of Britain pilots. While not distracting from the contribution of non-British personnel perhaps we should reduce some of the details for pilots who are not notable enough for their own article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, although one would have preferred to see a single article covering all the pilots/groundcrew etc that fought instead of one split up like this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Prehaps this article and List of Battle of Britain pilots should be rolled into one; the squadrons who fought listed, the total number of pilots listed and then a simlar list like this page but noting only the notable pilots?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea it would then give equal weight and balance to the contributions from all. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are Irish (that's Irish born) pilots being given "special" treatment? It seems to me that anyone Irish of any note has to prove that they are not "British". These rules aren't applied to Australians - Australians clamp down on this treatment of their people very smartly. To me, being born in Ireland means you are Irish. If a person is not of good character and born in Ireland, you can be assured they will be called Irish. I would like consistency here. Wallie (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont start with the accusations again Wallie!
As stated with Dowdling; being born in Scotland does not make you Scottish it generally makes you British.
As stated, Saul was born in Dublin when the modern state of Ireland was still part of the "United Kingdom of GB and Ireland". He was born prior to the creation of the Irish Free State (i.e. a state with the same status as people from Canada and Oz etc - a dominion. Hence why Aussies are Aussies and not British.) and the Irish Republic. From the information at hand it appears that he is a British subject not an Irish subject and therefore should not be on a list of non British people.
As stated, and you appear not to read, the nationality of people from Ireland is a tricky situation not only due to the above but also because of the nationalist movement prior to the creation of the state and ethnic groups based there etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't get personal. Where am I "accusing" anyone? This is an important issue which must be sorted out. I am not a constitutional expert, and I doubt you are either. I do know enough to know that Australia was not always a state in its own right. Wallie (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You are permanently accusing editors of bias and by saying "a person is not of good character and born in Ireland, you can be assured they will be called Irish." your damm well making accusations (not to mention accusing people of extreme bais because of this very subject on the BOB page)!
As for not being a constitutional expert, that has nothing to do with it. Myself and other editors have attempted time and time again over the last few days to explain these matters to you yet you seem to be just ignoring us.
Just because Saul was born in Ireland, a geographical area were people are called Irish, does not - as we currently have no evidence to suggest otherwise - make him an Irish national i.e. a national of the Irish Free State or later the Republic of Ireland. Yet again; he was born when the geographical area known as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. From that piece of information he doesn’t belong here, provide evidence to contrary to add him to the list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have not accused anyone of bias. To make Saul Irish, he merely has to be born there. If someone is born in Scotland, he is Scottish, is he not? You are bringing in terms like "national" which are technical terms. I never quite understood it. I don't think many people do. Wallie (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wallie i suggest you go and look at the section header you created on the BoB page.
Am not wasting my time repeating the same things over and over to you; please read the posts by myself and other regarding being "British" etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You have firm ideas about this and so do I. The whole point of the non-British contribution was that the powers to be felt in 1941 that people from outside Britain were thanked for their efforts. It was not supposed to be some complicated discussion about nationality. I understand what you are saying, and you understand what I am saying. We agree on some things, and not others. People often avoid discussions on countries, etc, as patriotism, politics, etc. comes into play. Also, as you know the unions, borders etc. of countries change all the time. Wallie (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

10 US Pilots

Apparently the RAF only recongnises 7 US pilots during this battle so where have the other 3 cropped up from? Do we have evidence to support them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE. There are now 13. The RAF list is only one authority. It is already shown as being incorrect, as Flying Officer Zatonski is not even on the list and clearly flew in action in the Battle of Britain. Wallie (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - but would you like to answer the question - where is the evidence?
PS is the US section now coming into conflict with the memoiral rule?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There are references alongside the names. As for the memorial "rule":
It states: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". This certainly doesn't apply! Wallie (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that notability is mentioned, I'm not convinced all those American pilots are notable enough to have their own articles. And that might make those pages memorial by proxy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's unfortunately true for many bio articles. Of those listed with their own articles, De Peyster Brown, John Kenneth Haviland, Vernon Keogh, Phillip Leckrone, Andrew Mamedoff, and Eugene Tobin are almost certainly non-notable (I left out those who achieved ace; if this is not notable either there are a couple more). EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The naming of them in the section is no issue, but it can probably be reworded more compactly to fit in with the other sections. I think I'll try that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That is definitely a step in the right direction. The 7 vs. 13 thing is still a problem though; I've also removed the names MilborneOne lists below until sources are provided. EyeSerenetalk 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about the RAF being just one authority, the RAF must be the official source of information about who it considered to be the few. Seven are on the RAF list, Brown said he was Canadian so is listed as such. Davis was born in South Africa so is listed as a South African and Whitney Straight was a UK resident from before the war so is listed as British. Looks like we are trying revise history. As for the three extras added today Nelson and Reilley are listed as Canadians. Zatonski is not on the official list but appears to have also come to the UK via Canada where his family lived after they emigrated from Poland where he was born. Interestingly he is listed as Canadian on the Canadian Virtual Memorial Database (not sure of the American connection), must be a good reason why he is not officially recognised. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This section should probably be trimmed; there's no reason to list everyone, and it's out of synch with the other sections. Can we just pick a couple of notables and give them as examples? Also, per Enigma we need to stick to the official figure unless there's another source that explicitly states there were 13 instead of 7 (and then we should give both figures). EyeSerenetalk 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes Sir! This source does. 13 American pilots. That is what I based them on. As per your comments above, and I quote "we should give both figures". Wallie (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sir!? :D Thanks Wallie, that helps. I've also found other sources, though typically no two of them agree: "only six"; "at least nine"; "Ten"; and "Seven". We may have to be creative in how we present this information... EyeSerenetalk 12:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
From that website and the following two: http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/BofBamericanpilots.shtml and http://battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/index.html it seems that there is no definite number.
The site you quoted states 13 yanks and the above two state 10 and 9 respectfully.
The RAF roll of honour claims only the following as American pilots that fought in the battle: Haviland, Mamedoff, Donahue, Keough, Fiske, Leckrone and Tobin.
The inconsistencies are: Peyster-Brown (Canadian) that 2 websites state is an American, Davies (South African) that 2 websites state is an American, Reilley (Canadian) that 2 websites state is a yank, and Zatonski (who is not on the RAF roll of honour) and only 1 website states is a yank.
Do we have a published source that backs either the RAF or any of the various websites? Do we have a somewhat more reliable website that supports any of the various claims? Do the websites, bar the official RAF one, pass Wikipedia:Verifiability? To include any of these alternative figures would this count as Wikipedia:No original research?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know there are inconsistencies. To me, and it always comes back to this, if someone is born in a country, that has the greatest weight as to where they come from. In the case of Straight, it is clear. He was born in America and later became British. That means he is both American and British. As for the RAF list, they were going on the information they had at that time. We now have more information. I know it is a can of worms, but we cannot just take one source as being the Gospel, even though we know otherwise. Wallie (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats a matter of debate; being born somewhere doesnt nessercery make you a civvie of that country.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Zatonski didnt actually fly operationally during the qualifying dates 10 July 1940 to 31 October 1940, he was shot down in November 1940 although only one source says he is American others say that he was born in Poland and his family emigrated to Canada. Certainly has been claimed by Canada as one of its own. http://brantford.library.on.ca/genealogy/name.php?id=305 MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This one says he was born in the United States... US Born]. It also said he took part in an operation on August 15. I did check this out prior. Wallie (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is very important, as there is a focus on US pilots - more and more. There is a vast difference between 7 and 13 pilots. People often say that the Americans "only" contributed 7 pilots. If in fact if they contributed 13, that means a lot more. Wallie (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

However as seen by the other available sources they might not have even provided 13 pilots for the BoB. What do the published sources say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had said "if" - I have changed it. We must establish the true number. I think it is more that seven, but could be less than 13. There are people with questionable places of birth. like Zatonski. Wallie (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Which would be stepping into the realms of OR would it not? Hence why i asked do we know what any published sources say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"We must establish the true number" - that's actually what we mustn't do. It's not our role, because it means we'd be doing our own research and making our own judgements about which figures we think are right. We're allowed some leeway in deciding which sources are more reliable than others, but not in taking material from different sources and using it to reach a conclusion that's not explicitly stated in any of them. The ideal source for this section of the article would be one where a reputable historian has analysed the various estimates, but in the absence of that I think we're stuck with the official figures. We could certainly mention that other estimates exist (and why, if we can source it), but the RAF roll of honour should be given prominence. EyeSerenetalk 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

US/non-US pilots

I've moved these here for now as their inclusion apparently contradicts the RAF list EyeSerenetalk 10:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved them where? :) Wallie (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Copy/pasted from the article (they were formerly listed under "United States contribution"). EyeSerenetalk 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the comments on this - we must stick to ONE source as to this. I would recommend the Battle of Britain Historical Society [4]--KizzyB (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sticking to one source and then moving away from the established official figure seems just a little dodgy imo. The website, while having a professional sounding name, does not show its source material; how can it, like the other websites, back up what it has stated?
Personally i would show the official figure and then note that various online resources, as no one has yet provided a published source to counter the RAF/UK governments official position, state extra Americans flew during the BoB.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The Battle of Britain Historical Society is the one that the Battle of Britain pilots give information to, and were the organisation behind the Battle of Britain Monument in London. --KizzyB (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
that doesn't answer the verifiability question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have presumed that the list on the Ministry of Defence/Royal Air Force website must be the starting point for the official figures. Published copies of the same list also exist. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's start with the assumption that the RAF roll of honour does list all the pilots in the BoB, and that the BoB monument does as well. It is then a question of attribution of the nationality of each pilot, and here the RAF and the Bobhs differ. I think it is valid provided both sides are adequately sourced to note the difference of atrtibution and the reason for the difference. The BOBHS is useful in its bio details for the pilots give a clue (albeit unsourced) - Davis and Haviland both joined the RAF (AAF and Reserve respectively) before the war started. (I guess that both were considered British citizens by some element under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 and as such on joining the RAF their service records recorded this.)GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ D.D. Brown
  2. ^ C R Davis
  3. ^ Nelson
  4. ^ Reilley
  5. ^ Zatonski

Southern Rhodesia Contribution

266 (Rhodesia) Squadron took part in the Battle of Britain and was (at least partly) manned by Rhodesians. There were certainly more Southern Rhodesian pilots than just the single one mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the official RAF record does not agree with your statement. If you can find a reliable source then please post the information you find there, making it clear that it conflicts with the RAF record. --Shimbo (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Shimbo, I realise the RAF record shows just one Rhodesian and it's likely the most accurate source. He was in 266 Squadron, according to the record, so there is no argument about 266 being involved. There is more digging to be done and it might be that some Rhodesians are listed as British (conjecture on my part). For the time being, I leave this note here. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

References in 'Battle of Britain- Then and Now' list four Rhodesian born aircrew as participants (with two killed) ; there's no differentiation between northern/Southern etc. I suggest we aggregate all Rhodesians together within the article if thats okay? Harryurz (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch contribution

The RAF had a number of squadrons manned by Dutch pilots.

No. 320

No. 321

No. 322

I don't know how may pilots were involved, but I think these should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.53.3 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets see. Squadrons 320 and 321 flew coastal and anti-submarine patrols. Squadron 322 was formed on 12 June 1943, 3 years after the Battle of Britain.  Dr. Loosmark  07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personnel, airmen, pilots, crew

The title uses the word 'personnel', which would include ground crews. But the article and data seems to only refer to pilots. Either we change the title or add more comprehensive data. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The RAF Recognises?

I note that someone has changed the New Zealand figure from 127 to 135 and supplied a reference to the NZ Herald. I'm not disputing that that NZ Herald article claims 135, but the RAF Honour Roll and/or Battle of Britain Memorial is not the source of the 135 figure, so we can't write "the RAF recognises 135", because they don't. I will change this to say The RAF recognises 127 (other sources claim up to 135) unless anyone objects. --Shimbo (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

George Ernest Goodman

Are there any sources that say he was not British? If not (and being born somewhere does not mean you are of that nationality (espeicalky as Palestine was British ruled) does not negate any otehr nationality you might have due to parentage. I would susgest he is removed untill some sources are provided claiming he was not British.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure we need to prove the negative, the official RAF website [[5]] lists him a Palestinian and the entry here is to explain that. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It is also possible that some of the other commonwealth personnel and some of the Irish were also British passport holders. Do we need to prove their nationality? MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If their nationality is iin dispute yes. The RAF do list him as Palestinian so that is what we should call him, a Palestinain pilot.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If you care to read: http://elearning.hebron.edu/EPortfolio/artefact/file/download.php?file=636&view=87 Chapter III Palestinian Nationality in transition 1917-1925, you will find the George did not qualify for Palestinian Nationality, in any variation of the rules. His birth is registered as British and is on file in the UK archives. The RAF Roll of Honour is not maintained or contributed too by the Historical Branch of the RAF (I have this in writing), but is controlled by the Webmaster, which means it cannot be used as a definitive reference. It is quite clear that George is British, and only British, born in Haifa to expatriate British Government officials. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The latest research as to the nationality of the Battle of Britain pilots was done by the Battle of Britain historical society in 2005 in preparation for the engraving of the pilot's name on the Battle of Britain London Monument. Their research led to George Goodman being listed as BRITISH British pilots G. Perhaps we ought to end this discussion and lock the section (? is it possible to lock a section?). The nationality of Goodwin is a source of a large amount of 'vandalism'. KizzyB (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

His name is GOODMAN. I repeat, why is he listed under "Non-British"? Move him out of the section into another more appropriate. 'Vandalism' trivializes the motivation of those that want to declare him "Non-British" or "Palestinian" or "Israeli". If you lock the section as it is writen now, you are doing an injustice to a British war hero who was considered one of the best fighter pilots in North Africa when he was killed. If it is so important to include him in Wikipedia, give him his own article and tell the whole story. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
George Goodman (Pilot) now created. KizzyB (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The RAF have changed the Roll of Honour to read British. Mark Sheridan 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

'Irish' Contribution

The table of 'nationalities' shows 41 'Irish' pilots (next to an Irish tricolour), yet 26 of these were from Northern Ireland which was then and still is a part of the United Kingdom, ergo they are British! 2.25.109.91 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No.164 RAF Squadron...composed of Argentine volunteers

Stop that nonsense. Some 20 pilots from No. 164 Squadron lost their lives or were taken prisoner in 1942-1945, including 4 squadron leaders (3 British, other from New Zealand) and one wing commander (British) who led the squadron in battle. As far as I know, only one of the losses was Anglo-Argentine: David B. Bridger (flying accident, Orkneys, Aug.1942). Australian losses in No. 164 Squadron: Bruce A. Schaefer, Ernest A. Roberts, Norman L. Merrett and Douglas W. McCulloch. The 164 was a gift squadron, like the 154 "Motor Industries", the 193 "Fellowship of the Bellows Brazil", the 247 "China British" or the 267 "Fellowship of the Bellows Argentina". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.21.89 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Legacy section

Is this section relevant here? For starters neither the political or music info referenced are really "legacy" items per se (you could add a million items related to the BoB). I find the inclusion somewhat pointless. Just my $0.02. Thoughts? Londonclanger (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree it is just trivia and should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a big historiography about the BoB, as you mention, and a part of this is how it was turned into a quintessentially "British" victory in subsequent popular memory. The legacy section may be very incomplete, but it certainly has a place in illustrating how the contribution of foreign pilots was neglected. There has been a big increase in public interest/awareness about the battle's foreign veterans in recent years after all. As for the "trivia" argument, I believe that is suitably treated in the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content article. In all honesty, though, I think there are much more serious issues with the article at present... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear I dont have a problem further discussion in the article about the foreign involvement but the two entries currently in the article are trivia and not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Title

It's possible that this has been raised before, but I wondered if there would be any support for renaming this page "Foreign RAF personnel during the Battle of Britain" (or something similar). I can understand why the user who created the page might have wanted to avoid using the word "Foreign" but here I think it does not have WP:POV connotations - it's pretty obvious that it refers to non-British nationals. The term is already used on Wikipedia for the comparable articles on the Waffen SS and the Spanish Civil War, among others. It's also worth bearing in mind that the term "Non-British", as well as being a bit cumbersome, is also not free of ambiguity. We've had users attempting to put material about Northern Irish pilots in the article (legitimately not from Britain, but obviously citizens of the UK) and obviously this does not fit within the scope. As for the reshuffling of the words, I hope it would make it a bit easier to guess for the average reader - as well as rather shorter...—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Polish airman killed by British civilians?

In the "Poland" section it is stated that: "...30 Polish airmen were killed during the Battle. One of them died at the hands of an angry crowd in east London". I've never heard of a Polish airman being killed by British civilians and I have been unable to find an online citation. I have read The Forgotten Few: The Polish Air Force in World War II but I don't recall such a thing being included. The claim in our article is referenced to The Guinness Book of Military Anecdotes (p. 76), so I'm suspicious to say the least. I intend to delete this unless anybody has a better source. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This post was archived in error. Alansplodge (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

List of countries

Hi guys, The contribution by country seems to be incomplete. I found this for example (https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/photograph-of-indian-pilots-arriving-in-the-uk) 82.73.183.226 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for raising this, although I'm not sure you are correct. The source you cited doesn't specifically confirm that those pilots undertook "one authorized, operational sortie with an eligible unit" during the battle, which is what the lead seems to indicate is the eligibility criteria. While it seems that those pilots arrived in Britain during the battle, does the source support the fact that they undertook operational sorties as part of operations that constituted the Battle of Britain? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Title

Perhaps this should be retitled "Non-UK personnel" or something along those lines since many of these men were British subjects who came from other parts of the empire and considered themselves both British and Australian, Canadian, et cetera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.215.65 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the title. Canadian and Australian pilots were, I think, literally British citizens and often thought of themselves as British in this period. The difficulty is what alternative might be suggested - even "non-UK" doesn't really cover British-born pilots from the Empire. How about "European and colonial personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain/Archive_1&oldid=1073777645"