This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Neutral point of view
Much language in this article (and the Big Wing) is both pointed and loaded. A quick check of the edit history points to a single editor, conveniently without a talk page, who apparently has an axe to grind, valid or not, against Bader in particularly and Leigh-Mallory, and conversely, has exalted Park and Dowding. Opinonated assertions have been inserted without documentation and worse, without being challenged. I don't know the truth of it, and am not likely to ever find out, but inflated assessment of these articles reflects negatively on assessments of other articles in the wikiproject, including articles I do care about.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. There is a lot of emotive language in this material that is not fitting for an encyclopaedic work. It still requires serious revision to bring it to an acceptable standing for a non-partisan reference summary work. 193.208.9.78 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a number of Park's critics, such as Leigh-Mallory, Bader, etc., failed to understand Fighter Command's primary purpose, which was not to shoot down enemy aircraft per se, but was actually to prevent attacking enemy bombers successfully bombing their targets. This remained so until the formation of RAF Strike Command.
... shooting them down after they had successfully bombed and destroyed Britain's means to fight back, e.g., the airfields, the factories producing munitions, etc., was too late. That was the difference between strategy, and tactics. Park understood this, and could see the big picture, as did Dowding; Leigh-Mallory and Bader didn't, and it appears, couldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
translation in french
hello
I see that this article is not complete trantlate in french. Any help is welcome.
.svg)
