Talk:No. 303 Squadron RAF

Battle of Britain kill-score

According to the main "Polish contribution to World War II" article, the polish 303 squadron accounted for 12% of the total kills in Battle of Britain.

"The 303 Squadron, named after the Polish-American hero, General Tadeusz Kościuszko, achieved the highest number of kills (273) of all fighter squadrons engaged in the Battle of Britain, even though it only joined the combat on 1940-08-30: these 5% of pilots were responsible for a phenomenal 12% of total victories in the Battle"

But this article says 4.7% of total kills for the same Squadron with "only" 126 confirmed kills. So which article is correct?

I have corrected the number of confirmed kills by the 303 squadron.--Witkacy 12:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We can use a reference for this. What sources did you use? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Te 126 pochodzi (jak sie nie myle) z ksiazek Jerzego Cynka - co do tych 273 nie wiem do czego ta liczba nawiazuje, moze do zestrzelen wszystkich polskich pilotow (nie tylko z dyonu 303) podczas bitwy o Anglie.--Witkacy 19:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think 273 is the confirmed amount of kills for 303 Sqn for the entire war Pkmink 15:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Royal Air Force

Was the 303 a RAF squadron or not? The article seems to skirt round this issue.GraemeLeggett 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How could it not be? It was a RAF squadron manned by Polish pilots...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify before altering the introductory paragraph.GraemeLeggett 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And clearing up soe other ambiguity, on 11 June 1940, the Polish government-in-exile signed an agreement wherein the Poles would form two bomber squadrons at the Polish government's cost. The squadron members would be subordinated to British statioon commaners, quartermasters and paymasteres and subject to the King's Regulations (Zamoyski, "The Forgotten Few" 1995, p. 64.). Other aspects of the arrangement included the Poles wearing RAF uniforms, flying aircraft with British markings and the Polish Air Force flag could fly beneath that of the RAF on station. On 5 August 1940, a new agreement between the British and Polish government meant that all Polish Air Force members ceased to be RAFVR and only then did they become a sovereign body. No. 303 Squadron was formed on 2 August 1940, so for a brief time operated as part of the RAF under the auspices of the original formal agreement of June 1940. FWIW Bzuk 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC).

Sorry Bzuk, but Polish squadrons were never part of RAF. Initially Polish pilots could fly in RAF squadrons as volounteers only and then they were RAF pilots. Polish soldiers in Polish squadrons worn RAF uniforms with Polish insignia (Polish Air Force Eagle on caps and "Poland" arm patch) and aircraft had Polish insignia next to British ones. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This question of Polish autonomy within the RAF is a grey area; While politically the Polish government in exile exerted its own chain of command on 'Free Polish' air force units, prior to the formation of 303 many Polish pilots had already served with existing RAF squadrons in 1940 under the administrative control of the RAF Volunteer Reserve. However it should be remembered that just with RCAF and RAAF squadrons, non RAF squadrons were essentially front line combat units under direct RAF strategic and tactical command, and as such were treated no differently to the traditional RAF units. Harryurz 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it isn't grey area. Before agreements about forming squadrons Polish pilots were allowed to fly in RAF units and many Poles fight in RAF squadrons during BoB. Many fought later, till the end of the war, and few Poles were commanders of RAF squadrons too. Polish squadrons were under RAF command / operational use till 1944 when PAF became independent. I don't want to translate all articles and publications released in recent yeras in Poland but it's really hard to prove that PAF squadrons were in fact RAF squadrons. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Poland surrendered to Germany in 1939 and so as far as the Germans were concerned the Polish pilots were RAF personnel otherwise they could have shot any Poles captured while serving after the Polish surrender. They would have been considered what are today known as 'illegal combatants', with no protection from the Geneva Convention which only protects combatants of countries that are at war. Nazi Germany did not recognise the Polish Government-in-Exile, nor for that matter did it recognise any of the other Governments-in-exile.

This situation lead in around 1941 to the British government giving Polish aircrew British citizenship as the RAF had by then started performing 'Ranger' and 'Ramrod' operations over Occupied Europe with the possibility of Poles being shot down and captured. The same went for the Czechs. This is also the reason so many Poles and Czechs were able to stay in the UK after 1945 when Stalin demanded the return of Poles and Czechs back to their former countries. It is also why the Polish Air Force Association Club was founded in South Kensington, and AFAIK, is still there today.

BTW, it is also why if captured, the Luftwaffe put all Empire/Commonwealth prisoners in the same POW camps, as RAF, RCAF, SAAF, RAAF, RNZAF, etc., personnel were all considered 'British' by Germany, as indeed most would have possessed British citizenship. German POW camps were normally segregated by nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.138 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Official name of the Squadron was 'No 303 Squadron' not 'No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbscotland (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Zdzisław Krasnodębski article

The article on Zdzisław Krasnodębski needs some work, if anyone is available to clean up, get references and improve the article. Thanks! Leena (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

V1

Please look for materials concerning Polish pilots take downs of V1 machines (might be interesting). Boys from 303 were the only ones thats ware able to get near V1 (wing-to-wing) and take them out of course. [Greeting to all RAF from PL] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.242.141 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Terry Spencer's Times Obituary http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article5688664.ece claims HE INVENTED the tip 'em over manouvere and used it to take down a record eight V1 doodlebugs himself. Did he fly with 303 squadron ? If so, well, here is your first reference link. If not, perhaps the claim that "only 303 squadron were able to get near" these things needs to be retracted. Johnvoisey (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in article about V rockets... so I'll have to agree with John that anon's unreferenced claim above is not very reliable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Article is inconsistent

The introduction says "It is the RAF unit which scored the highest number of enemy kills during the Battle of Britain." but the body of the text says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one. According to historian John Alcorn, 44 victories are positively verified, which makes 303 Squadron the fourth best fighter squadron of the battle, after Squadron Nos. 603, 609 and 41, which all flew Spitfires.[3]. Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1. However, J. Alcorn was not able to attribute 30 aircraft shot down to any particular unit, and according to Jerzy Cynk and some other Polish historians, the real number of victories of 303 Squadron was in fact about 55–60." We need to somehow make the article consistent.Varsovian (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we use the wording "It was one of the highest scoring RAF units during the Battle of Britain and the highest scoring Hurricane-equipped squadron during that battle". Any thoughts from anybody?Varsovian (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the thoughts are that you are completely wrong.--Jacurek (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh , one more thing, your "analyses" are quite amusing:).--Jacurek (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you kindly stop following me around and insulting me. If you would like to discuss the subject matter of this article, I will be happy to do that; however, I am not going to engage in any discussions about me. If you really do find it utterly impossible to be civil in your communications here, I suggest you leave the project. Varsovian (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, keep it cool and AGF. Attribute the info in the article to reliable sources, pay attention to due weight, and all will be fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Piotrus. However please note that I have always been very clear that I do indeed assume good faith in all of Jacurek's edits. Although given his constant stream of insults directed at me, it is becoming harder and harder for me to do so.Varsovian (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Varsovian, you were "always" assuming good faith expecially here[[2]]--Jacurek (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In that thread I specifically state "I continue to assume good faith on his part". I note that you have again made no attempt to discuss the content of the article (dispite editing it) and instead comment solely on me.Varsovian (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See the revision in the lede made today. It is a long-standing contention that 303 was the "top" squadron based on contemporary records. The revisions made in recent times still list the squadron as one of the highest scoring and that is not being contested. I believe that the compromise is to identify both positions and use authoritative and verifiable reference sources for support. FWiW, Olson and Cloud's work is respected but it does echo the historical position that 303 emerged as the top squadron. The lede is a tricky place to resolve all of this and it may be best to formulate a position here first. Bzuk (talk).

Copying this over from your talk page: wouldn't it be better to say in the intro that 303 was one of the best scoring squadrons and the best Hurricane equipped one (there is consensus among the sources as to that) and then discuss in the body that there are varying views as to whether it was the best? Doesn't an intro give the essential summary and the body is where the detailed info is best put? Best if we don't get into Olson and Cloud here (their statements about Poles and the Victory parade flies in the face of sources from the 1940s and memoirs of people involved at the time).Varsovian (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the way to proceed as we are also gaining a consensus among the various interested Wiki editors as to the direction that the article should follow. The lede is a precis and summary of the salient points to be determined. I would certainly concur that an introductory statement providing an accurate picture of the contributions of 303 during the Battle of Britain would be useful. Whether the squadron was No. 1 is still a contentious issue and has now slipped into the realm of modern myth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

I'll move this back to full page width so as to avoid tiny columns. I very much agree that the fame of 303 being 'number one' may now be a modern myth (odd how the Polish military tend to attract those: cavalry charging tanks etc). Perhaps there is the need for a subsection of the article dealing with this point? Either way, I suggest that the intro section is kept shorter. How about "303 was one of the best scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources listing it as the best." ?Varsovian (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The statictics say it was the highest scoring unit with Joseph F. the highest scoring pilot, then big "No" to your proposal.--Jacurek (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please produce statistics showing that 303 scored more kills than any other unit. Not claims, confirmed kills.Varsovian (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This chart shows confirmed kills for 303 Squadron (left column) and all other allied squadrons (central column) as wall as real German losses (right column) - so positively verified confirmed kills - on each day of the battle when 303 Squadron was involved in combats:

http://www.konflikty.pl/photos/tabela_303.jpg

I have one question - what is the number of verified kills for 41, 609 and 603 squadron? Because Jacek Kutzner writes that 41 squadron was the most efficient after Polish squadron (126 confirmed kills) with only 57 confirmed kills. How many of these kills were positively verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter558 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter558 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There you go user Varsovian-303 had the best kills to losses ration among all the units, which took part in the battle[[3]][4][[5]] Page 25.--Jacurek (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please provide statistics showing that 303 scored more kills than any other unit. Please also provide reliable secondary sources which discuss, analyse and disprove the sources which state that 303 was not the best scoring squadron. Thank you for now discussing the article and not me. Varsovian (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you will find everything you need to convince yourself that 303 unit was the highest scoring unit of the B.o B in the references I have provided as well the related links within, including statistics. Yo ucan also read details about them here[[6]]. Happy reading. Bye for now.--Jacurek (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

John Alcorn published a revised version of his article, 'Battle of Britain Top Guns Update', in Aeroplane Monthly, July 2000, pp.24-29. In this version (p.28), 303 Squadron is the *third highest-scoring* Fighter Command squadron in the Battle of Britain (July 1 to 31 October 1940 -- dates given p.24), with 45 'credits' (up from 44 in the 1996 article). It is the highest-scoring Hurricane squadron. 609 Squadron (Spitfire) comes second with 51.5 credits and 603 Squadron (Spitfire) is top with 57.5 credits. (Table 3, p.28)

303 Squadron is the fourth-placed 'Bf109 killer' with 30 credits, following 501 Sqn (Hurricane) with 30.5, 41 Sqn (Spitfire) with 34 and 603 Sqn (Spitfire) with 47. (Table 4, p.28) Total Fighter Command claims were 2,480; but total verified German losses in air combat with RAF single-seat day fighters were 1,197, plus 34 whose loss cannot be assigned to an individual squadron. (p.27) The Germans actually lost 1,609 aircraft, but not all of them were lost in air combat and 37 were lost to other RAF fighters, mostly Blenheim IFs. (pp.27-28) 529 German aircraft were shot down by the 19 Spitfire squadrons, including 282 Bf109Es. 656 German aircraft were shot down by the 30 Hurricane squadrons, including 'about' 222 Bf109Es. The average Spitfire squadron killed 15 Bf109s, the average Hurricane squadron 7.5. (p.29) Evidently 303 Squadron killed four times as many 109s as the average Hurricane squadron, which is quite good, especially considering that the squadron only became operational at the end of August.

In Table 1, 'Summary of Results', p.27, 303 Sqn is assigned 121 claims to 45 confirmed credits, an accuracy of 37% (compared to 257 Sqn, top for accuracy at 69% and 111, 145 and 616 Sqns on 68%). 303 Sqn is assigned 16 losses and 17 'days engaged'. The kill-to-loss ratio appears to be 2.8 to 1, compared to 603 Sqn's 1.9 to 1. But then Spitfire XIV squadrons in Second TAF in 1944-5 had a kill-to-loss of about 20 to 1, so, y'know.

Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources by user Varsovian

Removal of sources by user Varsovian[[7]]+plus untrue interpretation of the source in his edit summary is quite disturbing.--Jacurek (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources? A single source is not 'sources'! And that particular source does not say only 303 pilots were invited: it says all 303 pilots were excluded! What is very disturbing is the ceaseless barrage of insults and accusations you hurl at me: I would be most grateful if you could be so kind as to stop it, now. Varsovian (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why you keep edit warring[[8]][[9]] and reverting sourced information? This is not only rude but also against policies.--Jacurek (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In the first edit you quote I do not revert sourced material: I moved it to another part of the article. In the second, the source says the complete opposite of what you claim it does. Please stop lying about me and stop lying about what sources say. Please stop following me round WP and insulting me. Varsovian (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lying?! This is an insult ! Do not edit war[[10]] user Varsovian. This is all I'm asking.--Jacurek (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to say it? Both of you retreat to your corners and do not come out till you can play nice together. (Lots of remarks that are completely facetious but with a sprig of truth. LOL) Bzuk (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

Let's sort out the squabbles and then do a thorough review of the article's "authenticity."

That would work well with me. Let's all work together here.Varsovian (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources

The article currently states that "Considering that these victories were scored in only 17 days of combat, it was also the most efficient unit, with high kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1." However, the Operations Record Book of the No.303 Squadron [11] clearly show that the squadron entered the battle on 30 August and flew their last combat mission of the battle on 11 October. This is slightly more than 17 days (although on two days in that period no combat missions appear to have been flown). Unfortunately though, this is clearly a primary source and so we need it to be confirmed by a secondary source before we can insert the dates into the article. However, I would suggest that it is good enough to justify removing the (currently unsourced) statement regarding 17 days. Agreed? The Operations Record Book also contains interesting data regarding losses. According to the records, only seven pilots were killed during the Battle of Britain. How does that equate to a kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1? And do we have any sources which support that 2.8:1 ratio? When I google, all I can find are links back to this article. If there isn't a reliable source, should the ratio be included?

Even worse, I notice that none of the three sources given in the introduction reliably state that "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit in the Battle of Britain." Olson & Cloud (a source which I have severe reservations about) say that " By the Battle of Britain's end, it was credited with downing more German air craft than any other squadron attached to the RAF." (this is discussed in the article) while Zaloga & Hook say "303 squadron became the highest scoring RAF squadron in the Battle of Britain". Unfortunately page 25 is one of the few pages of Gretzyngier & Matusiak which is not available online but searching shows that the word 'ratio' is not in the book and that page 26 of the book says “The first Polish squadron (No 303) in No 1 Group, during the course of one month, shot down more Germans than any British unit in the same period.”, which is an odd thing to say if on the previous page there is information that the squadron was the top scoring unit in the RAF for the entire battle. Given that we have no sources which support the “measured by kill ratio” statement, should it be included in the text? I suggest not.Varsovian (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having left this for a week, I propose to replace the part of the introduction which says "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit in the Battle of Britain." with "303 was one of the best scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources listing it as the best." Any objections or comments?Varsovian (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I object on the grounds that Wikipedia guidelines state it is not for us to challenge sources. I'm not defending O&C per se. You may be proven right. But because you are likely to face a lot of resistance to your idea the way to avoid lengthy debates and edit wars is to file a request for moderation right away. See WP:DR and WP:3. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my point regarding O&C. Despite the fact that I find their revisionist 'history' a disgrace (see for example their lies about the London Victory parade), I do not wish to here challenge what they say, I simply object to their work being used to support a claim which their work does not make. The current wording is "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit in the Battle of Britain." but O&C make no mention at all of kill ratio. They actually say "By the Battle of Britain's end, it was credited with downing more German air craft than any other squadron attached to the RAF." Firstly they make no mention of kill ratio and secondly they refer to figures available in 1940, i.e. the claims which are discussed later in the article in detail.

How about "303 was one of the best scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources list it as the best, and the best Hurricane equipped squadron."?

How can we say "Measured by kill ratio, No. 303 was the best performing RAF unit" when we do not have even a single source which says that? We have sources which say 303 had the most claims and we have sources which say that other squadrons had fewer claims but more kills: in other words the sources do not agree and the article needs to reflect that.Varsovian (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. The intro must be concise. So I suggest "Some sources say No. 303 was the best scoring RAF squadron during the BoB". Details about Hurricanes and contradicting sources should be added lower down. We can even have a section heading on contradicting sources. That would be a fair, accurate and concise solution. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to put the undisputed fact first, i.e. that 303 was one of the highest scoring squadrons? If conciseness permits, we could then say that some sources have it as the best. How about "303 was one of the highest scoring squadrons during the BoB, some sources listing it as the best."? Varsovian (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You would entirely convince me if you showed me a source that said 303 wasn't the best, or that another squadron was the best. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

John Alcorn wrote an article in "Aeroplane Monthly"(Sept. 1996) called "Battle of Britain Top Guns". That is where the number of confirmed kills of 44 mentioned in the article comes from. Check http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=6874&st=45 for details. Alcorn also wrote an update in July 2000.Varsovian (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the content of the source in the link... Can you post the relevant quote from Alcorn here? -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was away for the weekend. I'm having trouble finding a copy of the articles online. Lots of people quoting them. Apparently he compared Allied claims with German losses and then cross referenced to see which squadron was where and when for each kill. Of 2,475 victory claims by the Allies, only 1,218 German planes were actually lost. Let me keep looking for a copy somewhere.Varsovian (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We were having a dialogue about this. Please don't go ahead with unilateral changes until we've reached WP:consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You had made no contribution to the discussion for two weeks.Varsovian (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course - I was waiting for your answer to my question "Can you post the relevant quote from Alcorn here?" and we left it with your "Let me keep looking for a copy somewhere". I'm in no mood to have an argument about this. Its all about WP rules, not fixed agendas, and I'll be more than happy to support your changes (and help you fend off complainers) if you can provide what WP demands. Please give it your best shot. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that all sources need to be online in order to be included. Do they need to be? Also, please note that the Alcorn articles to which I refer are already included in the text. Varsovian (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't need to be online. But the three sources say the 303 was the best scoring squadron, period. Which sources says it wasn't the best? Unfortunately, we cannot assert a 'suggestion' - what we think is a suggestion isn't in keeping with WP:Verifiability and it is WP:OR -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For a start the two Alcorn articles which I tried to include as sources. Perhaps it might have been better to move the sources to the section which goes into detail about post-war work rather than simply deleting immediately? Also, please remember WP:3RR.Varsovian (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Regarding [12]: how does WP:REDFLAG apply to this? How does WP:OR apply to this? Alcorn's work is highly respected and is already covered in the article. 303's claimed and credited kills simply do not and can not reflect the actual number of kills. See for example this table [13] by a Polish historian: on 26 September 303 claimed 13 kills and were credited with that same number (a total of 34 kills were credited to all RAF squadrons that day); however, the Germans only lost 9 planes that day! If we are going to mention that 303 was credited with the highest number of kills at the time, we need to mention that the number of credited kills was inflated and that studies have shown that 303 was one of the top squadrons but probably not the top squadron. Could you perhaps explain what you mean by PPOV? And also detail what you see as the disagreement of the verifiability of sources? Varsovian (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately wikipedia has not yet sunk so low that that third opinion would mean an involved party repeating their (flawed) reasoning once more as a "third opinion". Third opinion means an opinion of a third, uninvolved party. Please wait for it.  Dr. Loosmark  16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that that topic of this section is "Third opinion request": I am discussing Chumchum7's request and asking him to clarify it. I am not giving a third opinion myself. Thank you for your kind words with regard to my reasoning, as you are an expert on reasoning perhaps you could be so kind as to explain how 303 Squadron managed to shoot down 13 German planes on a day when the Germans only lost 9 planes?Varsovian (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for you to "discuss" and "clarify" Chumchum's request, if the person giving the third opinion will need any extra information/clarification from Chumchum before giving their third opinion, he will ask. As for the for your other question it's not clear what does it have to do with anything.  Dr. Loosmark  16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian, thanks for your input. I requested a WP:3O because we could not reach WP:Consensus on the Talk Page. This is nothing personal, just an initiative to reach a constructive way forward towards WP:Consensus. Aside from that, I'm not going to debate why I asked for a third opinion, because in my opinion that would be counter-productive. The WP:3O process has been created to fairly and objectively handle differing opinions on articles. Note that guidelines on WP:3O state that a third opinion does not and should not over-rule either of our opinions in this matter. It is just a proven way of making positive progress. In the meantime, I'm going to re-read the following guidelines and I humbly invite you to do so too:

WP:Consensus

WP:Verifiability

WP:POV

WP:NPOV

WP:REDFLAG

WP:OR

WP:3O

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

WP:PRIDE

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Wikipedia:Wikilove

Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification Chumchum7. I happen to have a three hour plane journey tomorrow so I'll print those guidelines off now as suitable reading. I completely understand why you have asked for the third opinion, I just have some questions (as outlined above). Please note that I may not be able to contribute to this discussion again until Monday of next week, I'll look forward to working with you again then.Varsovian (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on No. 303 Squadron RAF and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interim note re 3O request: As I see it, this dispute is basically this: Do the two sources provided by Varsovian justify this edit and, if so, should that information go in the lede or in some lower section of the article? I am studying the matter on the presumption that is correct and hope to provide an opinion soon. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by to help us out. To my mind yes you have identified the short term issue. But it goes quite a lot deeper than that, as you'll see if you have the time to read through the discussion above. My point is that the short term issue might (repeat might) in fact point to either a long term POV disagreement or some misunderstandings about how WP works, or some other fundamental issue. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TRANSPORTERMAN, basically what Varsovian did was he arbitrarily inserted text which makes it look as if 2 highly reliably sources (books by Zaloga & Hook and the other by Gretzyngier & Matusiak) are wrong based on 2 articles by the same author in a Monthly Magazine.  Dr. Loosmark  17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TransporterMan: thank you for your kind offer of help. You have correctly identified the issue. As you can see from the article, the sources I provided are already in the article and have been discussed by Polish historians. I personally do not feel that the lead is the place for this information and as far back as October 22 last year [14] the lead say "It was one of the highest scoring RAF units during the Battle of Britain and the highest scoring Hurricane-equipped squadron during that battle." Obviously more information can be provided in the body of the text.

Loosmark: you fail to understand one very simple fact: all the sources are correct. The number of claimed and credited kills is correct and as stated in the sources; however, the number of real kills is not the same as the number of claimed/credited kills. This is best shown by 26 September when 303 claimed 13 kills and were credited with that same number (a total of 34 kills were credited to all RAF squadrons that day) but the Germans only actually lost only 9 planes that day.Varsovian (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have POV-pushed the following text into the article: Although 303 was credited with the highest number of kills of any RAF squadron during the Battle of Britain, post-war analysis of credited kills compared to actual German losses shows that 303 Squadron was only the fourth best scoring squadron. which makes it look like the highly reliable sources by Olson and Clound plus Gretzyngier and Matusiak are plain wrong when they say that that the 303 squadron had the highest number of kills. Your verbal acrobatics above cannot change the fact that you have tried to paint those sources as being wrong.  Dr. Loosmark  18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are clearly correct when they state the number of claimed & confirmed kills. Alcorn also gives precisely the same number. However, the number claimed&confirmed kills is very clearly not the same as the number of actual kills (as the events of 26 September show). Thank you very much for your comments regarding POV-pushing, they are most helpful.Varsovian (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because one author says something it doesn't mean that other authors don't have a different opinion. Confirmed kills are to a degree always a speculation, given the chaotic nature of most air battles sometimes it is very hard to precisely assign a kill as certain to one squadron rather than to another. Your wording that the 303 Squadron was only fourth makes your agenda clear. At the same time you keep repeating that 26 September over and over and over again as it would proof anything. In reality it proofs nothing, first the German records are far from complete and in some cases the Nazis were known to doctor the numbers down a little bit. Also the Germans weren't the only Axis forces present in the battle, Italians were there too. Well I guess the positive thing is at least that you have stop claiming that Frederic Chopin was a "bastard" as you did the last time I have encountered you.  Dr. Loosmark  19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't say 303 squadron was fourth: an internationally recognised expert says that it was. There certainly can not have been any Italian aircraft in the sky on 26 September: Corpo Aereo Italiano didn't fly its first mission until 24 October. Yes the Nazis did doctor numbers downwards: in publicly available information. Alcorn uses records which were not intended for public viewing, as do Kutzner, Cynk and the rest. You might like to have a look here [15]: I do not claim that Chopin was a bastard, I quote a source which says he was and ask if anybody knows any more about that. Perhaps if you read a little more carefully, you will not get so confused about what people and sources say.Varsovian (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Chopin was a bastard you found in some pocket guide about Warsaw and you thought it is more reliable information about the great composer than the books dedicated exclusively to him right? Also the title of the section you created was initially "Chopin a bastard?" which was later changed to "Chopin an illegitimate child?" only after many editors protested their disgust at it. Now back to the topic at hand, what exactly does the author you use say I don't know because I don't have that specific Magazine at hand. I don't doubt that he's a very respected author but so are Olson, Clound, Gretzyngier, Matusiak and many others who put the 303 squadron at top. Regarding the Corpo Aereo Italiano it flew its first official missions in October that's true but what was happening before is less clear, I know as a fact that in some other theaters of war German allies were flying semi-official clandestine missions to help, at the moment I don't feel like excluding this possibility here. In any event until the majority of sources will claim that the 303 squadron was "only fourth" your edit is nothing but a provocation.  Dr. Loosmark  19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not lie: the total number of editors who objected to me using the wording of the source in the title was two, and you were one of those two. You plus one is not "many". As for your comment that my edit "is nothing but a provocation", I strongly urge you to read WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you do not cease your accusations that I edit in bad faith and your attacks on me and your lies about me, I will have no option but to take all available steps to ensure that your behaviour is brought within the acceptable standards of WP.Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Opinion: WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." WP:NPOV#Balance says "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." None of the four quoted sources, Olson (Knopf), Gretzyngier (Osprey), Zaloga (Osprey), and Alcorn (Aeroplane Monthly), are academic publications; all are "popular history" publications. Accepting for the sake of argument that the first three are acceptably reliable sources, I see no reason to not consider Aeroplane Monthly to be equally reliable, especially since it has been widely used without objection in Wikipedia as a reliable source. WP:NPOV therefore clearly says that the alternate claim and its source advanced in this edit should be included in the article. To avoid a false impression, both conflicting claims either need to be mentioned in the lede or neither should be mentioned there. To put both into the lede will require an amount of text that, in my opinion, will give undue weight to the unit's performance in the BoB. My opinion is, therefore, that the unit's performance in the BoB should not be mentioned in the lede at all except to say that, "It was one of the best scoring squadrons during the Battle of Britain" (with nothing more; the appended refs should point to all four sources). Let me note in passing that the fact that two or three sources take one position while just one takes the other does not mean that the majority position is "mainstream" or somehow dominant over the minority, especially when none of the sources are academic. Finally, in light of the last discussions above, let me also note that sources say what they say. Analysis of what they say is forbidden original research. An author asserting a non–online source is not required to produce a copy or extensively quote the text since, in part, either of those can be a copyright violation and since we are to presume good faith. If another editor questions whether the source really says what it is claimed to say, then it is the questioning author's obligation to presume good faith, find a copy, and check it. WP:LIB can sometimes help with this. What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplement to 3O — I just caught something I hadn't noticed. The editor who advanced the Alcorn source was able to give an exact citation, but also said that he couldn't locate copies of those articles. If that editor has not actually read the sources themselves, and is relying upon what someone else has said that they say, then the person who is characterizing them is the source, not Alcorn. If that source is a blog or message board, that is not a reliable source and Alcorn cannot be cited as a source until the articles are examined to see what they actually say. If that editor has seen the actual original sources — and I must point out that we must presume in good faith that he has, unless he specifically says otherwise — then this point is moot. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed this too, so Varsovian does not have this source nor has he seen it, he used as source a discussion forum where somebody mentioned what does the source in question say. Clearly the source needs to be removed ASAP until somebody who actually has access to this source can confirm it.  Dr. Loosmark  21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we assume the good faith of the editor who included Cynk's letter (which mentions Alcorn's work). Please do try to remember about WP:AGF, it is one of the fundamental principles of WP.Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am reading the discussion in that forum and like usual Varsovian "forgot" to provide full information. Apparently according the source used by Varsovian 303 squadron had the best own losses vs kills ration (1:2,8) plus the highest numbers of kills in such short period of time. In other words however one looks at it, it's not possible to escape the fact that the 303th squadron was the best.  Dr. Loosmark  21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations of bad faith editing and the accusations of habitual bad faith on my part. I did not forget to mention the 1:2,8 figure: it is already in the article. As to the short period of time, 303 joined the battle precisely two days after 603 squadron. Please also note that WP does not run on how we "look at it", what reliable sources say is what goes into WP.Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that I have not read the articles in question: I am simply going on what is already in WP. However, I have found a copy of the update article for sale in a second-hand bookstore and will be ordering it today. However, Alcorn's work is also mentioned in another source which is used in the article (i.e. the letter of Jerzy Cynk to Skrzydlata Polska 1/2006 magazine, which I can not find online anywhere). If we assume the good faith of the editor who did include that source in the article, we can conclude that the figures presented therein are the ones included in Alcorn's studies.Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have not read the articles in question you had no business in linking it to the article. Period.  Dr. Loosmark  09:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Transporterman, thanks so much for a stellar 3O contribution. Please stick around as we go through this. Aside from whether or not Alcorn can be used in the first place, which is an important point, are you satisfied that Alcorn isn't a lone source that contradicts mainstream opinion, and therefore a WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories issue? To reluctantly use an extreme precedent, we discount David Irving's verifiable views when introducing the Holocaust because of WP:REDFLAG and/or Wikipedia:Fringe theories, don't we? Or have I misunderstood the guidelines? I am sure there are better, less emotional precedents that I could use, this is just the first example that springs to mind. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing a historian whose work you disagree with to David Irving? That isn't exactly helpful. Sorry but the idea that RAF squadrons overclaimed kills is not a new one. In addition to Alcorn's study, Cynk estimates that despite its claimed&credited 126 BoB kills 303 squadron actually had 55 to 60 kills and Kutzner estimates that it had 58.8 actual kills. Varsovian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this line: "I am sure there are better, less emotional precedents that I could use, this is just the first example that springs to mind" ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I repeat, I am not pushing an agenda. I haven't disagreed with Alcorn, nor have I agreed with any sources. Please refrain from making statements about who I agree or disagree with, even if I may appear to you to be taking a biased stance on this. All of us are bound by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This about consensus and verifiability, not personal agendas. I am trying to follow WP guidelines. Please read the list of guidance notes I posted above. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think that after having to reply to yet more personal attacks from Loosmark, I wasn't in the best of moods when writing a reply to you. I do not think that you are taking a biased stance on this but I do think that perhaps it might be better if the lede of this article was slightly less precise than it could be: all of the sources agree that 303 was one of the best squadrons during the BoB and the best Hurricane equipped squadron. Perhaps the lede should say simply that and the long discussion as to who was the best squadron can go in the body? I hope you can accept my sincere apology and that we can continue to work together to improve this article. Varsovian (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

References

'Most effective'

Here is another cast iron verifiable source on the 303: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4935429/BNP-uses-Polish-Spitfire-in-anti-immigration-poster.html

It refers to the squadron as the 'most effective' in the Battle of Britain. This is an important phrase, different from best- perfoming or highest-scoring. After much research, I am satisfied this is mainstream thinking on the matter. Going back through the edit history of our article, it seems that Varsovian had an issue with the phrase 'highest scoring', because he said 303 didn't have the highest number of kills, but the best kill-to-loss ratio. In military history this is termed 'kill ratio' and is a measure of effectiveness rather than total achievment. So we altered something like 'highest scoring' to 'highest kill ratio', in fact to satisfy Varsovian's query. Now Varsovian doesn't like our use of 'kill ratio' on the perfectly legitimate grounds that no source actually uses this phrase, and we are imposing it on the subject. But it starts to give me the impression that we are straying away from mainstream thinking far too much. Every subject has its conventional wisdom and some minority counter-thesis, but I understand that WP does not use the minority view to dilute mainstream opinion at the start of an article. The minority view is included later, not in the opening paragraph. On grounds of verifiability and consensus, I would argue that 'most effective' is a better phrase for us to use than 'one of the best scoring'. It appears that 'most effective' could even be the common ground beteween Alcorn and the rest of the sources. Please refer to my replies to Transporterman's contributions above. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to read the article again more carefully: the precise wording is "The 303 Squadron was the most effective Polish squadron during the Second World War." There is no mention of 303 being the most effective RAF squadron and no mention there of the BoB. Indeed in the part about the BoB the author says nothing about 303 being best or most effective.

But regardless of the above, I'm not sure if we can use the words "cast iron" to describe this article. For one thing it says "303 Squadron of the RAF – made up of Polish airmen rescued from France shortly before Nazi occupation." In reality 303's top scoring BoB pilot was Josef František, a Czech, Flt Lt John A. Kent, Canadian Flight commander during the Battle had 11 claimed&confirmed kills and Sqn Ldr R G Kellett had another five. It also states "Its pilots were the only representatives of the Polish Army invited to the London Victory Parade in 1946." which is a claim directly contradicted by more informed sources (such as the biography of General Anders and a statement given to parliament by the British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, i.e. the man who actually did the inviting). Varsovian (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"cast iron verifiable" not cast iron article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but the source still says nothing about 303 being the most effective RAF squadron in the BoB, only about it being the most effective Polish squadron during the war. Perhaps we should consider using that description in the lede? Along with a statement about it being one of the most effective of all allied squadrons during the BoB of course.Varsovian (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Numerous sources say that it was either the best or had best loss/kill ratio. This information will stay in the lead because it is what makes the squadron most noticeable.  Dr. Loosmark  15:34, 3 March 2010

And numerous sources say that the number of claimed kills is significantly higher than the number of actual kills. While there is doubt as to the squadron's status as the best (a fact evidenced by the four sources mentioned), the article should not state in the lede the 303 was the best.Varsovian (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it that then if numerous sources exist for that you have managed to present only one source, a source you have never seen in your life but that somebody mention in a forum?  Dr. Loosmark  09:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefully: the article contains more than sources (Alcorn, Jerzy Cynk "and some other Polish historians", plus Jacek Kutzner). As you have already stated on this very page that two is "many", more than three must be 'numerous'. Kutzner is of particular interest, although you appear to discount his work on the grounds that the Italian airforce were supposedly flying secret missions and the shooting down of those planes could account for the fact that 303 squadron alone claimed more kills on one day than the Germans lost to the entire RAF on that day. Do you have any sources regarding the secret Italian flights on 29 September? Varsovian (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to concentrate. I'm not discounting anybody's work, Kutzner does not say that 303 squadron was "only fourth" as you try to POV push into article based on a source you have never seen in your life. Countless sources consider the 303 squadron to be best and/or most effective. That the 303 squadron might have shot down less aircraft than claimed doesn't change the things in the least, as that was the case with every single squadron during the Battle of Britain.  Dr. Loosmark  12:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Every single squadron overclaimed? Do you have any sources which say that? As for Kutzner, I did not claim that he says 303 was fourth best: I actually said "numerous sources say that the number of claimed kills is significantly higher than the number of actual kills" and gave Kutzner as one such source. Please read my statements a little more carefully. Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we decide, Wikipedia guidance on WP:Fringe theories, WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE should be considered here. We may have legitimate intellectual objections to sources; but we are not, under Wikipedia guidelines, meant to raise this intellectual objection to the content of the source, as per WP:No original research. Moreover, we're not meant to express our objection to sources by synthesising evidence, as per WP:SYNTH. My understanding is that we should stick to the mainstream verifiable view in the lede, and if there is one-source minority view we should add it lower in the article. But when we use that minority view, one of us needs to have read it in the first place. We also need to use a direct quote from it, we cannot use an editor's interpretation of what that source might be suggesting or indicating, again as per WP:No original research. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to any source(s). The source you have just offered makes no mention at all of the claim currently made in the lede of this article. Perhaps this shows that we should moderate the superlative claim currently made in the lede. You do seem to be misunderstanding the statement made by Alcorn: he most certainly is not the only source pointing out that the number of claimed kills by 303 is not the number of actual kills, see the work of the Polish historians for details. Varsovian (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "most effective" is a phrase open to different interpretation, I would veto its use unless it is actually borne out in the text. To that end most effective needs a definition that is described and supported by one or more sources and not a synthesis. It is relatively easy to state how many kills 303 was credited with at the time by the authorities and, in hindsight what the true figure may be by researchers with access to German records. The number of losses during the BoB is also capable of being stated. It is therefore possible to state in the lede, something like "303 squadron was credited with n Axis aircraft during the Battle of Britain while losing m of their aircraft and pilots." If this is the highest credited during the BoB, then a further statement could be added to that effect. I would also add a footnote to the effect that "researchers have found that, as with the Squadrons during the BoB, the number of aircraft downed was overstated and modern researchers have (estimated) that the 303 squadron accounted for x German aircraft during the period." GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Most modern researchers support the fact that the 303 was either the best scoring or had the best kill/loss ratio. And besides, the number of kills had been overstated for all squadrons, not just the 303.  Dr. Loosmark  10:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most modern researchers"? Could you perhaps provide us with some of such sources? I for one would be very interested in reading details of which squadrons overclaimed and by how much. Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I will. As soon as you provide the sources that only the 303 squadron overclaimed. Oh yes and if possible quote sources that you have actually seen not the ones about which you "read in a forum".  Dr. Loosmark  17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to provide sources stating that only 303 overclaimed? I have never stated that only 303 overclaimed and would never state that: overclaiming was very very common. As requested above, please read my statements a little more carefully. Now, could you be so kind as to provide links to "most modern researchers"? Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because you are trying to use the fact that 303 overclaimed as an argument that the 303 squadron wasn't the best scoring squadron. But good you now admit that overclaiming was very very common. Also please stop constantly suggesting that I should read your statements more carefully. I read them very carefully indeed.  Dr. Loosmark  18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Overclaiming was indeed very common. More common in certain situations than in others. Alfred Price in ‘The Hardest Day’ describes how a single German bomber was credited as four and a half kills. The 'big wing' formation in particular led to overclaiming, as BoB veteran Major Tidy points out "The mythical high figures have been perpetuated through the years; how did they arise? It was almost impossible to avoid duplication of claims, for when a pilot saw his tracer slashing into an enemy aircraft, saw the aircraft then crash, and claimed accordingly, he often did not even see the other aircraft that also hit and claimed the same enemy." Whether 303 overclaimed more or less than the average would depend on, among other things, the number of times that it was in situations is which overclaiming was particularly common. I'm sure that this is discussed by modern researchers such as Alcorn. If you could be so kind as to post links to the researchers which you referred to above, we can all check what they say. Varsovian (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words so far we don't have a single source which would say that 303 overclaimed more than other squadrons. As for Alcorn there is not much point in guessing what's in his article. Regarding my sources that will have to wait awhile as due to some circumstances I don't have access to them at the moment but I will return to it later.  Dr. Loosmark  19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

None apart from Alcorn and Cynk. Could you at least name a couple of the "modern researchers" you refered to? You say that most modern researchers, so you must know at least a few names. If you post them here and the titles of the work about 303 squadron, perhaps another editor here can find the sources and give us all access to them. Varsovian (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It has now been a week since you claimed that "Most modern researchers support the fact that the 303 was either the best scoring or had the best kill/loss ratio". Can you please be so kind as to post information regarding those sources. Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alcorn? Ah you mean the source which by your own admission you have never seen in your life but sb mentioned in a forum. oki.  Dr. Loosmark  20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth time of asking, please provide details of the "modern researchers" you refered to. Obviously I assume good faith on your part and so assume that the sources you speak of do actually exist. If you could just provide details of them, I will be most happy to help you look for alternative access to them. As for Alcorn, my newly bought copy should be with me soon but I have found a poster on the 12 o'clock high site who has a copy and have emailed him requesting a scan asap. Varsovian (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to you why I can't provide any details at the moment. This might come as a surprise to you but unfortunately there is real life and I'm quite busy at the moment. I have seen these sources time ago when I was still into aviation a bit more, later my interests shifted a bit. Luckily that is not a problem because so far I have no edited the article or added anything to the article based on these sources. But you can are of course free to ask another 70 times "for details".  Dr. Loosmark  22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that "due to some circumstances" you "don't have access to them at the moment" but I'm simply offering to help you look for alternative access. If you can just provide the names of some of the modern researchers you refer to, we can look for access. Obviously the sources do exist, so it can't be that hard for us to find them. Varsovian (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. What you suggest is pretty much what the article already says. Do you mean that the ' "n", "m" & "x" figures should all be mentioned in the lede? It is the lede which seems to be causing the most trouble. Varsovian (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, thanks for your contribution. What about kill ratio as opposed to total kills or claimed kills? I'm really not attached to the phrase 'most effective', only pointing out that it is verifiably used by a published source; this according to Wikipedia overrules editors' feelings about what is the truth and also overrules any (morally legitimate) busting of historical myths. 'Most effective' may or may not be a helpful generic phrase (yes, a suitably vague one) that suits all POVs. We must find consensus some how. If it doesn't work, no problem. But what phrase are we to use that is verifiable? I do have an open mind on this and I am working at consensus. Is it not the case (and please tell me if it isn't) that we have Zamoyski, Gretzyngier and Matusiak, Zaloga and Hook, Olson and Cloud, and very many newspaper articles that would all point to 'most effective' if not 'highest achieving' or 'best scoring'? This would be about 10 sources, wouldn't it? We then have Alcorn and others (please let me know which, as I would like to list them), suggesting something along the lines of the 303 being among the highest-scoring squadrons, with no mention of kill ratio. Which is the minority view and the mainstream view, and how should WP:REDFLAG be interpreted here? I'll wait for responses to all these thoughts before I post my new idea that hopefully might just about tick all the boxes of consensus, verifiability, mainstream thought and empirical truth. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kill ratio we have already discussed: the problem with it is that neither Olson & Cloud nor Zaloga & Hook nor Gretzyngier & Matusiak mention kill ratio. I've just had another look at Olson & Cloud: they actually say "By the Battle of Britain's end, it was credited with downing more German air craft than any other squadron attached to the RAF." They say nothing about how claimed kills relate to actual German losses. Neither do Zaloga & Hook nor Gretzyngier & Matusiak.

It really is not a redflag that pilots claim more kills than they actually get. Just have a look at Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories and check the examples listed there! Alternatively have a look at http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol051dt.html where Major D. P. Tidy (a BoB veteran) quotes from A British Air Ministry pamphlet entitled The Battle of Britain, and subtitled An account of the great days from 8th August to 31st October 1940 "The battle began with a mass attack on a convoy in the Channel on August 8 and closed towards the end of October, when the Luftwaffe, having lost 2 375 aircraft in daylight assaults on England, retired to lick its wounds and think over the lessons of the past three months." and then points out that actual German losses were 348 bombers, 45 dive bombers, and 558 fighters, a total of 951. He also gives more examples "The British claimed 144 destroyed om 18th August 1940, whereas in fact there were 69, and the Germans admitted 36. The Germans claimed 147 British aircraft destroyed, whereas in fact there were 68, and the British admitted 23! On 15th September 1940 the British claimed 185 whereas the Germans lost about 60 beyond repair." Varsovian (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet. I'm pointing out that according to WP guidelines, it is WP:REDFLAG if a small minority of sources contradict the majority of sources. Secondly, we need to read the minority sources. Thirdly, we need to stick to guidelines WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV - all of which require extremely thorough reading. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that I've ever seen a source which claims that all RAF credited kills were actual kills, so one which claims that 303 squadron did actually shoot down 126 German planes during the BoB would most certainly raise the WP:REDFLAG! Varsovian (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Something tells me we're talking at cross purposes. The relevant parts of WP:Redflag is as follows:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in... history

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Olson and Cloud, to take one of the at least 4 sources that appear to represent the mainstream view, are endorsed by The Spectator, The Sunday Times and Newsweek.

Alcorn appears to fit the bill for the redflag. And it also appears that none of us has read Alcorn yet.

I don't agree or disagree with any of the sources. I'm working to guidelines.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the sources say: Olson & Cloud, et al. are talking about BoB kills confirmed by the RAF as of start 1941; Alcorn, Tidy, Cynk, Kutzner, Price, et al are talking about the actual number of BoB kills (i.e. number of kills confirmed as such by German loss records). These are two entirely different statements of fact: I would not expect to read a source which states that any squadron which claims that any RAF squadron had more BoB kills confirmed by the RAF as of start 1941 than 303, such a claim would be laughable. Howwever, we know that 303 (like all squadrons) overclaimed: this is proved by 26 September 1940 when 303 claimed to have shot down more German planes than the Luftwaffe actually lost to all RAF squadrons. The question then becomes: how much did they overclaim by? Here the sources vary. My personal thought is that we will never know how much 303 overclaimed by and thus we will never know which squadron was the best. In the absence of a definitive source which addresses all the variables and concludes that with overclaiming accounted for 303 was still the best, I submit that we should say that 303 was one of the best scoring squadrons. Varsovian (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Varsovian but you are writing total nonsense.--Replyentry (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you could go into slightly more detail about what you consider to be nonsense? Do you means that it is nonsense that 303 overclaimed (in which case how do you explain the events of 26 September? On that date 303 claimed more kills than the Luftwaffe lost to all RAF squadrons)? Do you mean that it is nonsense that the RAF in general overclaimed (in which how do you explain actual German losses being so much lower than RAF confirmed kills?)? Do you mean that it is nonsense that Alcorn, Tidy, Cynk, Kutzner, Price, et al are talking about the actual number of BoB kills (in which case what are they talking about?)? Of course you can not mean that you are Polish and 303 were Polish and thus any comments which suggest that 303 was less wonderful than Poles say must be nonsense. Varsovian (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Varsovian

Varsovian, if you take a look at Replyentry's contribs, you'll see he or she is very new here. WP has policy on this - WP:Don't bite the newbies. The user may not have understood your post and may have expressed that in a rude way. Your response included this line: "Of course you can not mean that you are Polish and 303 were Polish and thus any comments which suggest that 303 was less wonderful than Poles say must be nonsense." You and I both know that you were being sarcastic here. Remember WP:Civility. Please also read the list of policy links I posted above, including WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I'm also giving you a friendly heads up about Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. In case you are are not aware of this, WP takes an extremely serious view of national and ethnic stereotyping, the attempt to out editors' national or ethnic background, and the attempt to use prejudice about national or ethnic background to allege editing bias. One is entitled to an opinion that all Poles cannot accept criticism or that all Poles will talk up their own history - but that opinion has absolutely no place in the Wikipedia editing process. Stick to WP guidelines, not personal feelings. Moreover, every country on the planet has myths about its own history, and it is not up to us to debunk these myths, as per WP:OR. As we continue this discussion, we should be referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than our own personal opinions about sources and editors. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to leave me a message, please do so on my talk page. This is the talk page for No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron, please limit your comments to that topic. If you move this post to my talk page, I will reply to it there. Varsovian (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Ok here is an important source [16]. Starting with page 93. Page 96 has the important quote "Squadron 303 became the highest scoring squadron of the entire Battle of Britain". So source directly contradicts some article text. The article at moment says "Although the number of Battle of Britain claims was overestimated (as with virtually all fighter units), No. 303 Squadron was one of top fighter units in the battle and the best Hurricane-equipped one." The source above says (pg 95): "In postwar years it was found that both the Allies and the Germans exaggerated the numbers of adversary aircraft claimed as destroyed. However, the Polish numbers remained accurate" - and then it discusses why in more detail.

The highest scoring pilot in the Battle of Britain was a Czech pilot flying with the 303: [17]

Here is another source: [18] (page 31 bottom and it also addresses the accuracy issue on page 31 and 34).

And another good source is "A question of honor: the Kosciuszko Squadron" but that's not available online.  Dr. Loosmark  16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first source "discusses why in more detail"? Where does it do that? I see no explanation at all as to why Polish numbers remained accurate. Which is a pity: I would very very much like to see a source which covers the events of 26 September, the day on which 303 squadron claimed more kills than the entire RAF actually managed!

I note that the third of the sources which you provide states on page 33 that on 26 September 1940 303 "scored 11 downs with no losses of their own". This very directly contradicts 303's own operation record book (available here [19]) which states for that day "Summary. Enemy Casualties. 9 He. 111 destroyed and 1 probable, and two damaged.4 Me. 109 destroyed." So actually the source which you provide states that 303 overclaimed. Thank you for that. Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the source does not state that "the 303 overclaimed". I would advise you to not attribute statements to the source which the source does not make.  Dr. Loosmark  17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source states that 303 shot down fewer planes on 26 September than 303 claimed but you feel that the source does not state that 303 overclaimed. Can you explain the logic behind your thinking there?

However, I note that you have made no comment at all about the first source "discusses why [Polish numbers remained accurate] in more detail". Perhaps you should remember that it is not a good idea to attribute statements to the source which the source does not make. Varsovian (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to explain. The source states what the source states, that and nothing more. Your original interpretation of the source is irrelevant, and against the WP:OR policy. You were aggressively demanding and calling for sources and now the sources are here and will be incorporated into the article.  Dr. Loosmark  13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You could consider explaining why you claimed that a source "discusses why [Polish numbers remained accurate] in more detail" when the source clearly does not do that. Feel free to incorporate the sources into the article, I'll make sure the events of 26 September are included (after we've had the third opinion which was requested). Varsovian (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of the article

I've recently tried to expand the article to include 303's combat involvement after the battle of britain, as they were engaged in most of the Fighter Command's endevours through 1941-44. Also expanded on the 1940 operations too, and tidied the grammar a little. Hope everone if okay with article thus far. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture etc

A horrible section to add because experience has shown that "Popular Culture" can mean that even a tiny, incidental mention of 303 Sqn can be construed as being important, according to the individual editor. For example, "As part of an advertising campaign designed to highlight its concerns about the numbers of foreign workers (including Polish migrants) in the United Kingdom, the British National Party used the distinctly British icon of a Spitfire to illustrate its idea of a Battle for Britain. Ironically, the Spitfire shown in its advertising was RF-D from 303 (Polish) Squadron. It was the Spitfire with Donald Duck artwork of Polish ace Jan Zumbach, who during the Battle of Britain scored eight confirmed kills against Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters."

This is hardly important because a)It was accidental that Zumbach's 303 Sqn Spitfire was put on the poster. b) The accidental inclusion of Zumbach's Spitfire has no relevance to the history of the unit - clearly the BNP had no idea and more than likely couldn't care less that it made a mistake.

"No. 303 is mentioned in the song "Aces in Exile" from the album Coat of Arms by Swedish metal band Sabaton. Also mentioned in the song are No. 310 Squadron RAF and No. 401 Squadron RCAF, which were also manned by foreign pilots participating in the Battle of Britain." So a Swedish metal band mentions 303 Sqn? Is the song in Swedish, or can others listen in? How often and in what context is 303 Sqn "mentioned"?

"As part of the 'Bloody Foreigners' series Channel 4 also commissioned digital agency fish in a bottle to create an online game that allows players to relive some of the history of 303 squadron and its involvement in the Battle of Britain. [20][21]" Reads like an advertisement for fish-in-a-bottle.

If the appearence of 303 sqn is incidental, or accidental, it is not relevant to this article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the BNP's ignorant use of a huge photo of a Spitfire in Jan Zumbach's markings as a backdrop, with the title 'Battle for Britain', when BNP leader Nick Griffin made an anti-immigration speech, was widely remarked on at the time. It was pointed out to Griffin and he tried, unconvincingly, to laugh it off. Along with Griffin's poor performance on the BBC's Question Time around then, it may have contributed to the party's disastrous loss of credibility and votes. The Spitfire in the picture was not in fact Zumbach's EN951, it was the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's preserved AB910, which at that time was painted with Zumbach's RF-D codes and 'Angry Duck' cartoon to commemorate the Polish ace. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Left stairs down

An image caption mentions "Left stairs down". Is that a literal translation of a Polish phrase, or the contemporary phrase used by the 303 or RAF? If not, the current name for the formation is "Echelon left". Lstor (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing

Where is Paskiewicz? He was the first to shoot down plane for 303 squadron.Ovsek (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tadeusz Arentowicz up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Tadeusz Arentowicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Tadeusz Arentowicz to No. 303 Squadron RAF. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for chronicling the brave! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace303 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Poitr Laguna

Should be added to 303 pilots

Piotr’s final flight was on June 27, 1941. Pilots from 1 Polish Fighter Wing were ordered to fly over France in the morning as part of Circus 25 (Z.181). Their _target supposed to be a steel factory in Lillie and the Poles were ordered to fly at 13 – 16,000 feet as top cover for 24 Blenheims. As the weather worsened, instead Poles were ordered to sweep the area of Le Touquet and Gravelines. The Polish formation was led by Wing Commander John Kent and Wing Commander Piotr Łaguna, both using aircraft from 303 Squadron: P8567 RF-D and P8331 RF-M respectively. 2A00:23C7:A31E:F301:2D3E:AEB5:BB71:4914 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Łaguna was a 302 pilot. At the time of his death he advanced to be the wing commander of No. 131 Wing RAF, which contained 302, 303, and probably 308 at that time, so he was the CO above the CO of 303, but he wasn't 303.--Ace303 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Need to say what the losses were.

There is a lot about how many kills the squadron got (including, quite reasonably, disagreements about the exact number), but there is nothing saying their losses. CrickedBack (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference to hacking group is irrelevant.

Not even aviation related nor military affiliated. 72.214.215.25 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

how many ?

I have translated the article into Russian, but still cannot find information on initial number of Polish pilots enlisted to RAF in 1940 or the flying force of #303 for that matter. Please advise. Basicowes (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)