Talk:Battle of Britain

Name of the battle in German - should be included?

Recently registered user Westbrabander engaged this afternoon in removing name fo the battle in German language with various untrue edit summaries - i.e. referring to non-existent "toolbox" and "languages" section making German name in intro supposedly supernumerary. I reverted to the last consensus version (and undid edit name which is not actually used in German), but I'm surely open for discussion if other editors would express the same opinion of unnecessity of German name of the battle (AFAIK name of the battle in languages of major combatants is something of a standard on Wikipedia). Thank you for your ideas. --ja_62 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been usual practise here, & offering translation does no harm AFAI can see. Leave it in. I'd also be interested to know why not keep it. (OT, I think he meant "infobox".) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The German translation of the English name should not be in the lead section. If people want to know the translation of "Battle of Britain" in German, they can easily put their cursor over the 'languages' sidebox. If the German included in the lead would be the German name of the operation to achieve air superiority of Britain (the existence of which I'm unaware of; but it's not "Luftslacht um England") then I would support that; but not the German translation of the English term. Westbrabander (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You had been explained what interwiki links are for, hadn't you?--ja_62 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the term - Luftschlacht um England is 1) traditional designation of the battle in German, 2) is not a translation of English name (see: England x Britain), 3) is precisely the name you've just suggested people to put cursor on. What is your real problem? --ja_62 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please adjust your tone. I am not a dog. Also, please refrain from linking to 'official' Wikipedia guidelines and presenting them as supporting your point, eventhough in reality they do not. Thank you. Adding; you seem to think my objections have somthing to do with incorrectly translating "England" with "Britain", this not the case. Please read more carefully. My objections are that "Luftslacht um England" is a calque of the English term; not the name of the German operation; which would be acceptable to include in the article. Translations belong to Wiktionary or the language box. Westbrabander (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't say you are one.

I will do, as they are supporting. You are trying to remove name of the battle in language of one of the major combatants, which is also contrary to the neutral point of view.

Luftschlacht um England is certainly not a calque of Battle of Britain. Have you any sources proving your claim?

Couldn't you present your problem on German Wikipedia? Obviously they are gravely wrong, as they are using you alleged incorrect 'calque' as title of the article. Just try put your cursor.--ja_62 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see from your reply that my suspicions were correct. You do not seem to understand my problems with the inclusion of a German caption in its present form. Please re-read my comments.Westbrabander (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read them. Please do explain what your objections against including German name are based upon? You started with suggestion that if German name would be included, than other language variants would have to be included too, then you sidestepped into repeated references to nonexistent sections of the article, the you came with your opinion that "Luftschlacht um England" is actually the calque of "Battle of Britain". What your problems with the inclusion of a German caption are in its present form?--ja_62 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: If the term is the correct name that the Germans give to the battle, then leave it in. If it is wrong - adjust it; i dont see why it should not be included.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If Westbrabander claims the Lufschlacht um England is not correct, he should be also able to prove his point. What he does do (now, he was removing with other rationales, i.e. "toolbox" etc.) he is repeating here "Luftschlacht um England is incorrect, remove it" but still hadn't produced any source proving his point, while German Wikipedia uses Luftschlacht um England, regardless whether in sense of "[the] Air battle of England" or "[an] air battle of England". OR?--ja_62 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I say keep the German name, but it should not get such prominent placement as the first sentence, especially since the first three sentences discuss the specific English name of the battle. How about following Churchill's quote? Something like:

The name derives from a famous speech delivered by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the House of Commons: "The Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin..." In Germany, the battle was called Luftschlacht um England (Air battle of England) or Luftschlacht um Großbritannien (Air battle of Great Britain).

My two cents. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would do rather nicely.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Bink's got it (except it's a trifle wordy for my liking ;p). I don't see any reason Westbrabander is objecting, beyong stating "it's wrong". FWIW, it appears it's a reference to Adler Tag. Am I mistaken? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many notes to make one point?

In the information box pertaining to "Decisive British Victory" we have no less than seven notes quoting different historians. This too me is "overkill"; surely all that is needed is ONE note stating that the listed historians agree with the BofB being a British victory. The section on "Divisions Amongst Historians" is also overkill - as long as history has been written Historians have been divided as to whether such and such a battle was decisive - again all that is needed is a note stating that these historians agree, while these historians disagree with this POV.

I know how much acrimonious "discussion" has taken place over these issues but, putting it bluntly, all that has happened is that this article has become one to avoid, and it continues to languish in category B, while for the general reader it continues to look like a battleground. How about having an article that concentrates on narrating the events of the Battle itself, with much of the background information (eg Strategy and Tactics) being developed into another article? Minorhistorian (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that there isn't much division that it was a decisive victory, but there is division on how badly affected the Luftwaffe was for the rest of the war. Which the article currently reflects - perhaps, I agree, with too much focus on the latter. To some editors, for the Luftwaffe to have been decisively defeated, they must have been "destroyed" (rather than just discontinuing the battle) - this has been their personal synthesis, and not the conclusion of sources - to my knowledge no sources have been offered to contradict a decisive victory.

To avoid uninformed POV editors from repeatedly changing the decisive victory entry, a number of reliable references have been added to support it. It hardly detracts from the article to have a few small numbers in brackets in an infobox, and removing them will likely invite restarting the cycle again. Compounding them all into one reference, is in my view; stylistically poor, and more difficult to maintain.

Certainly, there is much that can be done to improve the article, and your final suggestion sounds good. (Hohum ^@)

My $0.02? Mention there's broad agreement on "decisive" is needed, & perhaps some clarification of its meaning in context (i.e., Luftwaffe lost & didn't come back). Esthetically, I'm with Minor, put all the sources in a single fn, since it's on a common subject. (That appears not to be WP SOP, however.) As to expanding the strategy & tactics elsewhere, agree, with the proviso it not be chopped back too radically here; IMO, understanding the Battle depends on grasping at least some of the nuances: why the CHL was useful, how the Sector Stations fit in, fuel & SAR & replacements, even (arguably) the disadvantage FC suffered not using finger-four. Do they all need to be explained in excruciating detail? No, just mentioned. (I'm not suggesting this is a laundry list of minimums, just illustrative.) I wouldn't think it was good if it got cut back to "Luftwaffe bombed radar sites & fighter stations, FC Spitfires & Hurricanes fought them off, the Germans began bombing London, & England lived happily every after"...OK, gross oversimplification, but let's not avoid detail too much in the name of ease of understanding, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Since people are now weighing in on this contentious subject, this topic may be a segregated to a separate article, which can leave all the various sources in place and link to this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Concentrating on the info box: How many quotes from historians are needed to make a point? Take a look at the layout of the notes attached to "Decisive British Victory"; we have a quote from Terrain citing General Kriepe followed by a Schulman cite. Why is Shulman there?

Shulman is followed by a quote from Bungay. After Bungay is another quote from Hough and Richards. Then comes a cite from Overy who is actually citing Addison and Crang who, in turn, are quoting A J P Taylor, all of which is followed by a Deighton cite. Why is Deighton cited?

After Deighton are quotes from Keegan, then Buell followed by cites from Terraine and Shirer. After Shirer is a direct quote by A J P Taylor then (finally) another quote from Bungay citing Middleton.

How messy and confusing is this? Do we really need all of these quotes? Why not simplify the whole issue by using one quote and list the other authors or simply stick to one quote and drop the others?

From memory this happened because of one editor who did nothing but start the argument on the discussion page; he then made one amendment to the article and has contributed nothing to Wikipedia since January 2009. How seriously should we take such a "contributer"? I don't believe that a riposte requires all of the effort of using seven quotes.

A suggested layout could be User:Minorhistorian/Sandbox/; I don't believe that other authors need to be listed, but I left them in to see what it looks like.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but your sandboxed version seems to confuse the issue more than it clears it up.

Several editors had repeatedly altered the Decisive Victory entry until the current citation style was introduced. (Hohum ^@) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Overy is not quoting Crang Minor. He's only in the book. I believe I wrote 'Overy in Crang et al', before it was changed. The long list indicates mass agreement and prevents anyone from dragging up the same old arguments. I do not believe we should have just one person being used to cite the result. Perhaps one note tag leading to the many people who support D.V. Dapi89 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Many historians with same opinions dont indicate mass agreement. Espcially when 95% of them are british and they are judging about a "glorious" british battle. When the leading historians of different countries agree, then we can assume a mass agreement. Blablaaa (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Leading authorities on the BoB tend to be British. Unless you have conflicting views on the decisiveness of the battle from authorities, no matter their nationality, your point has little merit. However, since the current list includes Germans, it has even less. (Hohum ^@) 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I contested the statement that listing many historians indicates mass agreement. This is indeed wrong. The quality of the historians is important and and also their nationality. And writing one book about the BoB makes NO leading authorities. This is a major problem of wiki.Blablaaa (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Postmodernist guff to me Bla'. Dapi89 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

cant understand the sentenceBlablaaa (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Now i understand. Whats the guff for u ? that the nationality is important ? that it easy to pick historians with same opinions? wheres the guff ? Blablaaa (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, u are the editor quoting the bungayguy? the guy who explains the "body blow" for the LW ( which was still the strongest airforce in europe ^^ ) , or who explains that the luftwaffe was never as strong relativ to its enemies? LOL.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

and now u deleted all the historians claiming that BoB wasnt so important like british historians explain? :-) Blablaaa (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dapi has removed, (perhaps for rewriting) rightly in my mind, the undue weighted section about divisions among historians - it was almost entirely about differences about how much damage the Luftwaffe sustained - which is beside the point regarding why the BoB is generally considered decisive. It was decisive because the Germans failed to gain air superiority, not because the Luftwaffe was destroyed, or crippled for future operations. (Hohum ^@) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This "discussion" has been held many times before and has gotten the article nowhere. It is so easy for Blablaaa to make criticisms based on accusations of national bias because it is a hard accusation to counter without going into yet more endless argument and blather about which authors are more trustworthy - German, British or Martians? Take a look at the archives to see how fraught things got.

I brought this up in the first place to simply ask why so many notes are needed to make one point and wondering whether there is any way of "streamlining" things a little to make the article more readable (probably not by the look of things) - I was not asking about national bias, and I have no intention of arguing the point here, yet again. If Blablaaa wants to argue the point go back to the archives and add to the "discussion" there. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to counter nonspecific allegations of national bias. They have no merit unless you can prove them, and/or get a source thrown out as unreliable. I doubt that is possible for the ones used. Sadly, it's this kind of generic, unfounded criticism that has led to the use of so many sources where normally one would do. (Hohum ^@) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have attempted discussion before I did that. But judging by the mood and comments, I thought I had been given the green light to do some chopping and rewriting of the mentioned sections. Dapi89 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@hohum&Minor U should unterstand what i said, i said : many historians dont indicate mass agreement. Thats all. U want to contest this? U cant... . In my opinion the 10 notes behind DV imply ( thats everything whats count ) how massiv this victory was and how important for the world. And this is disputed, the LW remained strongest airforce and germany always saw their major enemy in the east. And i think everyone knows that the nationality of an historian affects his opinion. Blablaaa (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

and Hohum, many "historians" do exactly what u said, they claim the damage which was inflicted was so hughe and that why it was decisive..... Look the bungayguy ( after reading a bit of him : really bad choice for wiki ) Blablaaa (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above editor makes these alagations on a somewhat regular basis, unless a British author has wrote a book on the SS he is inclined not to believe a word they have said. It is sad to see the same problem occuring again and again...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

face the point or quit Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. It seems the major regulars to this article are already sorting out this "issue" whereas you have made numerous comments here (not to mention in other articles) about nationalty; quality of work should not be lambasted because you are an anglophobic (or at least act it) i.e. "wasnt so important like british historians explain", "when 95% of them are british and they are judging about a "glorious" british battle", and "and also their nationality".

Also you do realise we can see your "deleted" comments, its not my fault you do not want to educate yourself on who people are and rather relay on amazon to explain everything to you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

i deleted my comments not because iam afraid of reaction, i deleted thme because its useless to talk and argue with u. I simply wanted to kill this discussion which seems to evolve again between us. Like u proved in allied warcrimes u act like a troll who searches conversation with me. Here its the same, u dont face the point that 10 notes behind a victory imply a certain degree of importance, no wiki article does this. And its totally uncommon to do this. Iam correct here nothing else. Face the point enigma or go away. And my amazon arguement is a perfect argument because it shows what type of books your prefer and what types of historians. Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Amazon argument is as pointless as the general point you made on the allied warcrimes article and half the point you are making here; if you are ignorant to who these authors are, explore further than amazon and you will find them to be professors, uni lecturers, members of Sandhurst, military historians and basically experts in their field - nationality has not stopped them from presenting balanced accounts, something to the opposite you have asserted here.

I wouldn’t flatter yourself either, i dont search you out; you end up popping up on articles, that i have already have watch listed/have worked on/contributed to/aided making ridiculously points ala the nationality argument here. I have not engaged the rest of your argument because it is already being dealt with...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the statement, that 10 notes behind a DV are to much, ridicoulous? lol... . Beeing a prof makes somebody a good historian for writing military books? OMG..... Your criterias apply for millions of people. You only support my opinion about your weird opinion about historians. Only because u introduced off topic: its always better if a author was at the army for along while. Thats why other people prefer Frieser or Glantz for example. Thats why the make better books, books which u can find on amazon. That u dont think this is obvious for me, your source selction shows clearly. Blablaaa (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This topic is now straying far from its original question. Please stay on topic and leave all the other comments to editor's home talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, enough is enough; if anything this reinforces my point; this article has been virtually wrecked because of the political stance some editors choose to make over which "version" of history is accurate - it has long gone past being worth discussing because such "discussions" always ends up being banal, repetative, and devisive. Few people want to edit this article because it has become an unpleasent chore. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think the squeaky wheels are in a minority. (Hohum ^@) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless the fact that u think iam here to cause trouble, 10 notes behind a victory are bad. No good or featured article has 10 notes. That u, after many discussion, found no solution for this issue doesnt speak for u. Instead of finding a solution u attack people who critizise the obvious problem. Blablaaa (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Imho 10 notes simply look unprofessional and childish. My easy suggestion : one note with a statement that many historians support the DV and then a collection of some refs .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any criteria that prevents an article being good or featured because of "too many" reliable references. Please move on to doing something constructive. (Hohum ^@) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Iam pretty sure style is a crtiteria. Avoid telling me what i should do. ok ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

B of B aircraft

Hi, interesting article, but I spotted one thing of note - which in no way detracts from the author as it reflects a widely held but inaccurate view of the different aircraft. The article claims the Me 109 could not out turn the Spitfire. I have seen film footage of Douglas Bahder saying this so he truly believed it to be true as a pilot. In Len Deightons book Fighter it makes it clear that the Me 109 could out turn the Spitfire. The real difference was that the elliptical wing of the Spitfire meant that if too tight a turn was pulled the outer wing stalled before inner, forcing it to even out a little in to a shallower turn, while its multiple box main spar acted as a leaf spring giving it both flexibility and strength so it could handle the tightest turn it was able. By contrast, the single main spar of the Me 109 simply sheared if it went too tight - meaning it wasn't who could pull the tightest turn, but who would dare. In an epic battle- sometimes called the battle of the two Adolf's, Adolf 'sailor'Milan versus Adolf Galland, Spitfire versus 109, neither could get an advantage, and after they had run out of ammunition, they saluted each other and both flew back to their respective bases, knowing they had met their match.

Tim Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.72.49 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim, you cannot believe everything Len Deighton wrote (for example, he also maintained in Fighter that the 109E had a cannon firing through the propeller spinner; long since disproven); as explained in Aircraft of the Battle of Britain some Spitfire pilots failed to use the smaller turning circle of the Spitfire for fear that the wings would fall off, hence some German pilots convinced themselves that the 109 could turn tighter, nor is there any evidence that the wings of the 109 would shear if the pilot turned too tightly. Have you got any evidence of what you say, aside from Deighton? Nor can you take one or two actions as being definitive; there were plenty of other pilots with plenty of experience who either flew in combat, or tested the Spitfire against the 109, and they were always able to out-turn the 109, no matter how much the 109 pilot tried eg; R S Tuck, who tested both aircraft at Boscombe Down, Geoffrey Quill Supermarine's chief test pilot and others. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor text & markup questions - Galland, Dowding sections

I leave this instead of going ahead with edits of which I'm unsure.

• Under "The Dowding System," is this: "It has been pointed out by that much of the original air defence system...."

Something missing here? Either some source (e.g. "So-and-so has pointed out...") or the sentence should just start with "Much of the..."?

• Same subtopic, "the use Radio Direction Finding...." The words "the use" ought to be replaced with "using" or "the use of"? S'pose I could've just gone ahead and edited that one! :)

• Under "Tactics," there is a quote from Adolf Galland. The quote seems to have the correct double-braces+quote| markup but doesn't appear to indent at many resolutions, because of the left-set picture of Galland (or is that just my Opera browser?). Maybe right-set the picture box?

(Help a discussion newbie--should I click the "minor edit" box when I didn't edit?)

General Usage (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the General! Don't worry too much about discussing every edit you wish to make - just go ahead and BE BOLD; you will soon find out if there are any problems but, for "newbies", more experienced editors don't bite (mostly). I see no problem with your proposed edits to the article, they make a lot of sense. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Civilian losses

Should the civilian losses be included in the main summary box? There were 20-30,000 civilians killed during the period of the Battle of Britain. It puts the other figures into context, that it wasn't just aircrews that were killed on the Allied side. The civilians were killed by combatants in the battle so should surely be considered as a part of the battle themselves -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Other conturies

You forgeting, that in battle also fought Czechoslovakia, Poland and Usa, and Polish "No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron" shot down the most enemy airplanes. I will add their. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.157.66 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They've not been forgotten, they're mentioned several times in the article, including a nice photo of a Polish squadron aeroplane marked up with their victories, and in addition the detailed article on Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain is linked from this article. No need to add anything, but if you do want additions made please make proposals on this talk page, giving citations to the sources that support your proposals. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still think, that respect for them, will be add their to this article.