Talk:Eric Lock

2.5 in November 1940?

I can't find a reasonable explanation for the half kill. What does it mean?

In the table, we have "November 1940 Royal Air Force Spitfire 2.5 * unknown". According to the table, that would be kill number 20 (a Bf109 shot down in October according to the text?!?) and then 1.5 more. The next line in the table referes to the incident in the section "Shot down".

So what's true here, and what's the 0.5 about?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking a general question about how people receive credit for a half-kill? I don't know the specifics of this instance but basically it means you and somebody else were credited with shooting down the same enemy aircraft. There have been people ending up with quarter scores, like Australia's Bobby Gibbes who finished the war with a score of 10.25, which implies he was one of four people to have shared in the same kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is that information present in en.wikipedia? If so, can we find a nice way of linking to it?

There is another issue in my question, though: There seems to be an inconsistency between the count of the kills in the article and in the table, as e.g. kill number 20 isn't the same.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Top scorer in Battle of Britain

Page 402 of Aces High- C.Shores & C.Williams (Grub Street , 1994) specifically lists all of Lock's claims, derived from the archived RAF combat reports (forms 540 and 541), logbooks and squadron summaries. If my maths doesn't fail me his claims within the accepted period of the Battle of Britain i.e -10th July 1940 to 31st october 1940- is in fact 21.

There is no other pilot within this acknowledged reference work with more claims in this period - I've checked. Irrespective of what has been published in other accounts, this is a suitably referenced source consistent with Wikipedia requirements , and therefore I respectfully request that the claim total revised and submitted into the entry. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but such a score significantly rewrites the history of an important statistic in the battle and must be researched and referenced very carefully. To suddenly elevate Eric Lock to the highest scoring slot 68 years after the event must not be taken lightly. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With due respect I'm not sure I understand your reasoning; one can't 're-write a statistic'. Lock -according to information logged in the 1940 battles themselves, and published by Shores in 1994- was always the top-claiming pilot of Fighter Command in the specified period, even if it was not widely known. He hasn't been suddenly elevated though any desire on a historian's behalf to compromise accepted history, but to put the actual truth of the matter into the public domain. In my own humble opinion Eric Lock's combat record deserves full recognition in light of his acheivements, which ( like many combat pilots) have been forgotten for too long. Hope that answers your question, thanksHarryurz (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me Harryurz. Nobody will be more delighted than me if we can effectively make this change. I wrote this original article and researched the basic material and references. While living in Eric Lock Road, Bayston Hill back in the 1980s I visited Lock's elderly frail sister for tea and chats many times and looked at the original documents the family holds. I think he was a smashing little chap and will dance with joy if your figures can be confirmed and referenced properly. A large number of RAF histories will have to be amended as a result. No, all I was saying is we have to be absolutely sure that the 1994 figures Shores quote are accurate - that is crucial. My concerns were not for Lock's memory, they were for the accuracy and stature of Wikipedia.21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; as far as Shores is concerned I've also reviewed the Aces High Volume 2 'supplemental', published in 1999; Lock's claim list is validated (and his date of birth given as 19 April 1919.) I'm not sure where we go from here as far as further validation is concerned, as the RAF form 540s and 541s listed remain the primary source, archived at the MOD, and are Shores' reference material anyway. I agree alot of B Of B accounts seems to draw reference from each other and list Frantisek as the top scorer, ( tho one or two go with Lacey). I suspect the first account to list Frantisek calculated the claim tallies from othr sources, and this has been taken as 'gospel' ever since. It would be interesting to see when and who/where the older traditionally accepted listing came from. Incidentally i've also reviewed all the RAF top scorer's totals in the B Of B from the same volumes and am thinking about posting on the B of B article, although it will probably cause an edit war!! Harryurz (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Lock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments by MisterBee1966

Lead

• "Lock had his first taste of flying as a teenage but showed little further interest in flying until 1939" I find this a bit too colloquial! Maybe start with where and when he was born.
• "He joined the RAF": first use of RAF should not be abbreviated
• "offensive sweeps": is this a well known term for a offensive fighter patrols? Maybe link to combat air patrol?
• nickname "Sawn Off Lockie": is not cited

Battle of Britain

• link first use of Luftwaffe
• "Lock flew as Red 2" is that a position or his aircraft?
• "Lock followed it down. He quickly realised his mistake but it was too late." Why was it a mistake. Too colloquail I think

Last battles and death

• "well-known RAF aces" well known to whom? Could be seen as POV

List of victories

• (JG 54 — or Fighter Wing 54) and others: strike the or

Ok done. Dapi89 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career

• last sentence, 2nd paragraph not referenced

Last battles and death

• 2nd paragraph not referenced

Channel Front

• 1st paragraph not referenced

Prestfelde

Prestfelde is not a "public school" in any sense of the word, nor would it claim to be. It is an independent private preparatory school. So I have deleted the reference to "public". Poshseagull (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Johann Schmid

The claim made by this pilot was around 7 hours from Lock's loss. Schmid did not shoot him down. Dapi89 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Copious Amounts of Errors and Generalizations

This article is inaccurate at best and further dilutes the truth behind the man, with a number of generalizations and errors in facts. A number of the issues have already been discussed above. There are others; for example: "Lock was bored by the patrols as it involved chasing lone enemy raiders without success." Absolute garbage, which is not supported by the facts. This is a perfect case of poetic license, which has been repeated many times and is now accepted as truth. Lock undertook only three operational sorties from Catterick before the unit moved to Hornchurch and the real action began. Boredom had nothing to do with his operational flying at any time.

As the author of his biography (released in July 2016), I have taken the liberty of completely re-writing the article. I will continue working on it for a while, so please bear with me, but I will end up with a significantly more accurate article than what has been here until now. I appreciate earlier efforts, and do not intend to be offensive to those who posted them, but the point of the article is to provide as accurate an account as possible, and I will endeavor ensure this is the case. Even Shores, as good as he is, has an error in Lock's score in Aces High. I hope you find the amended article of interest. Please feel free to question any of the new data I include and I will be happy to provide evidence for it. SPB41Sqn (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted all your edits. They show that you really doesn't seem to understand how to write a Wikipedia article or what is expected of one. You've replaced a lot of sourced material with your own assertions and opinions.

Keep your opinions to yourself please, and don't take liberties with other material. Dapi89 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And before you ask, you cannot use your own work in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an extremely arrogant and offensive statement and amendment. I have removed enormous amounts of errors in the article, which you have now put back in. I wrote Lock's biography in liaison with his family, with 41 Sqn, and with the BBMF and based information in the article ONLY on factual information - diaries, letters, ORBs, his Service Record, and other information from 41 Sqn RAF and the National Archives. Your removal of that information means that the article is now reporting erroneous information again rather than fact - they were NOT my opinions. I never do so in any of my books, and cannot afford to do so in my role as Historian for 41 Sqn RAF. Is Wikipedia supposed to be factual or should it just continue to propagate errors? Perhaps you should ask questions first rather than making your own baseless assertions and reintroducing errors. If that is what Wikipedia is about, then there's not much point having people who are in a position to add/correct information do so. SPB41Sqn (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Call it what you like. Unsourced, and terribly laid out. These are the facts. Where do you intend to find reliable and published sources on Lock?

You are not a source, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are no errors here. We don't take people's word for information.

Perhaps you should offer some decent secondary information for these claims, or else further discussion is pointless. Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could have said something along the lines of "Please add your sources", rather than "Keep your opinions to yourself", and "don't take liberties with other material." You might get a better response if you learn how to talk to people and do not treat submitters like idiots. If the material is incorrect, there is no point having it there, cited or not. Your (personal) approach is wrong, and it's clear to me that you would rather have erroneous material on Wikipedia than correct information, as the fact that I am the authority on Eric Lock seems to be quite irrelvant to you. What you're also implying is that someone else can quote my biography as 'fact' but I cannot.

I have long been a supporter of Wikipedia, and have done my utmost to correct information and ensure my research has been done before posting. Your attitude has lost this supporter permanently as you are merely furthering erroneous reporting, and the facts are clearly of no importance to you at all. None of the material I posted comprised "[my] own assertions and opinions" as you put it. Everything I posted was absolute fact, but your own opinions have blinded you to the point of the article.

You do not deserve any assistance to make Wikipedia better. This has nothing to do with the fact you want things to be cited and sourced; I get that. It is because of your rude and arrogant approach that I will have nothing more to do with Wikipedia. I will agree with the nay-sayers in future, because you've just proven them correct. Congratulations.SPB41Sqn (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)