Talk:Douglas Bader

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDouglas Bader was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Circumstances of Death[edit]

This article, with citation, states he died on his way after attending a tribute to Sir Arthur Harris at the London Guildhall. However I notice Ask.com, in its answer to the question Where is Douglas Bader Buried?, states he passed on 5 September 1982 from a mild heart attack after a golf tournament. Did the match and tribute happen same day?Cloptonson (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times reported that he collapsed on his way home from the Guildhall, he and his wife was being driven through Chiswick on the way to their Newbury home when he collapsed and died, no mention of Golf. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Aircraft[edit]

The section "Post-war career" says: "Bader assumed control of Shell's aircraft group, which employed around 250,000 people." Following this sentence, someone had written: "Shell only employs 90,000 people in 2013 so this is likely to be a factual error. Provide source." I've replaced this comment with a {{dubious}} template, and I'm bringing the comment here to be discussed. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase should be deleted as no evidence forthcoming SovalValtos (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked it and provided a reference that he was managing director, we dont have a reference for the number of employees and it is not really relevant but I suspect it would have been more like 250! MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good SovalValtos (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Kenneth More?[edit]

Did I dream this? Just in the last week, I'm sure I read somewhere that the actor who played him, Kenneth More, was a second cousin or some such. I can't find any mention of this online. Was I dreaming? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please sort out the quote in the Personality section I've added from Alan Clark's diaries.....[edit]

Sorry. Never used a quote before, and I'd like it to look better but I don't know how to.

It's a great anecdote, though, and really adds to his personality as well as confirming his use of bad language.

Many thanks.

(And if someone could explain what type of quote style would work best here, and tell me what extra I need to type, it would be much appreciated and will help me in future.)

Ganpati23 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you added this in good faith but somebody elses biography is not really a reliable source for what Bader said only for what Clark did and said. (Also note that other versions said to quote Bader are slightly different!) I have removed it for now until a better source can be found. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Firstly, The Douglas Bader Foundation have the quote (though it's not attributed.) http://douglasbaderfoundation.co.uk/page/6/?m
Surely if they are accepting the quote as fact, wiki should at least make the readers aware that this quote has been attributed to him, and the DBF think it's true?
Secondly, Alan Clark talks Richard Ryder recounting the anecdote (one of Ryder's favourites according to AC) to him. So Ryder, who was debating with Bader at Roedean, obviously believed that's what Bader said and was happy for it to be known that he was the source of this story.
Assuming AC's not lying and RR has told this story on many occasions (and if it were true, it is the sort of story you'd tell again and again), can we at least not say 'According the AC, and accepted by the DBF, RR recounted an anecdote of a debate he had with DB at Roedean...{Quote}'?
This means we make the readers aware of an hilarious anecdote which reveals DB's personality (if true - and it ties in with the preceding para's stuff about bad language), while making clear that although it's commonly accepted, this source just comes from RR recounting the story again to AC which he mentioned in his diaries.
If DB did say this, then he'd love C21st wiki-readers to know. Just because the only published evidence is 3rd hand (AC via RR), it appears no-one's disputed it. Surely if we make the sourcing clear, then it allows everyone to judge for themselves given we know the primary source is AC's diaries, referring to lunch with RR, many years after the incident. My view's always been that the more information the better, as long as it's properly sourced, so people can judge the historiography for themselves. And as I say, if it's on the DBF site, that must count for something. Couldn't we just say 'According to the DBF.....'?
Finally (off topic) how do I set it so I know when I get a reply? When I logged on tonight, it had a zero by my log-in name, so I was unaware of your reply. Is there any way to set it so you know when you've been replied to? I only came to the page as I was editing something else and had forgotten how to do italics.
Cheers anyway, mate. Please let us know what you think. Ganpati23 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have met people who knew Bader. They all described him as being a deeply unpleasant person; a psychopath who would certainly have committed a serious crime if the war had not offered a channel for his aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.89.253 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC) A relative who received a serious leg injury in the French campaign in 1940 mentioned being hospitalised in the same ward with Bader. This must have been sometime in 1940 or early 1941, before he was captured - perhaps Bader had issues with his old crash injuries which necessitated a hospital stay. My relative said he found Bader to be quite overbearing, especially towards the hospital nurses. It seems to me the intense drive which helped him overcome his serious injuries had its less pleasant side. That often seems to be the case with famous people - the energy that makes them famous does not make them nice people.Hythlodaeus24 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Edwards[edit]

The article describes Thelma Edwards as 'a waitress', but she was in fact a well-bred middle-class lady temporarily helping out the tea-shop proprietors, who were related to her, during a staff shortage. Bader, given the class-bound social conventions of Britain at the time, is highly unlikely to have married a waitress. Brickhill's Reach For the Sky explains Thelma's respectable background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.162.81 (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Brickhill further explains that Thelma's temporary job was a working holiday as therapy for her while she was grieving for a pet dog that had died. Captain Pedant (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear from the references who had the least respectable background and why it should affect their marriage. It might be suitable to describe her as 'undergoing therapy by being a waitress after the death of a dog' SovalValtos (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"German" Luftwaffe?[edit]

Is there/was there another air-force in the world outside Germany named the Luftwaffe? If not, is not the phrase 'German Luftwaffe' a tautology? 121.44.162.81 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cutting off the Hienkel's nose"[edit]

In case anyone is puzzled by the explanation of my edit to the Battle of Britain section saying that Bader was tempted to cut off the Hienkel's nose with his propeller, "nose" was a careless slip for "rudder". So sorry.--Mabzilla (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is an Hienkel? Do you mean Heinkel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.89.253 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tin Legs" Bader[edit]

I can't believe that no-one has updated this entry with the above nickname by which Douglas Bader was known after he received his artificial legs. Will be updated soon. --johnr_roberts (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.21.36.30 (talk) [reply]

I certainly knew of him as "Tin-Legs Bader" when I was a child, but don't know of any "sources" to back this up.115.64.142.162 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Douglas Bader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honours[edit]

The article lists only British honours. According to Brickhill, he also received from France, both Légion d'Honeur, and Croix de Guerre. They should be included. Ptilinopus (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable reference then you are welcome to add these to the list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"lose both his legs"[edit]

Douglas Bader did not "lose both his legs", as the article claims.

He 'lost' a foot from one leg, and the other leg was cut above the knee.

To lose a leg, all of it, means right up to the hip. Surgically, it translates to a hemipelvectomy.

This isn't a trivial point. If authors on Wikipedia continue to describe losing a leg as nothing more than losing a foot, then they are insulting those, including war veterans and civilians caught in conflict, who really have lost all of a leg.

You can lose a foot, and have a prosthesis fitted easily. You can then walk, run, ride a bicycle or pilot a Spitfire.

If you lose a whole leg, you can't do any of these things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.69.119 (talk)

Wikipedia reflects what sources say about their subject. The overwhelming majority of sources describe Bader as having lost both legs. If you can find a reliable source which describes the exact nature of his amputations, it may be worth including though. (Hohum @) 17:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas Bader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

I am changing the citation style to find missing or wrong references. I am not changing content of the article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just change the reference style because it make it easier you need to get agreement per WP:CITEVAR, edit warring doesnt help your case. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind reminder. My intensions are purely in the interest of finding reference errors, I already found three missing or bad references, fixing them will be interest of all. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If all that is changing is <ref>Author, year, p.nn</ref> to {{sfn|Author|year|p=nn}}, then I support it, since it is more useful, and maintainable imo. What is the argument against? (Hohum @) 14:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to fix a number of broken references, eight unresolved reference remain, they are marked accordingly. Maybe someone has access to these sources, or maybe they are just an editorial error. Either way, feel free to revert if you believe the previous format in supperior. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have an opinon on the style just that WP:CITEVAR discourages changing the citation style without asking per "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Just because the user thinks its nicer doesnt mean they can just drop by and change the citation style. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the normal course of events I would revert such a cavalier editor per WP:BRD. However CITEVAR is only a guideline and, more significantly, was last ruled on in 2006, thirteen years ago. Citation templates have come a long way in that time and I cannot find it in my heart to discourage what is obviously improving the quality of the the citations. For example Template:Sfn, extensively added by this editor, was not created until 2009, three years after the Arbcom ruling. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMvHO, use of {{sfn}} to replace a ref in the format of "Author, year, p.nn" is an improvement. As such, it has my support. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how dumping the same data into yet another unreadable template call (and thus bloating the page further and adding potential for breaking them) makes it more useful or maintainable? Can someone explain how this would be better? - NiD.29 (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once the template salad is in place, others such as Template:sfn automate some of the legwork in creating a citation to a source already listed, including the formatting details and a clickable link to the main citation. Many editors regard this as a Good Thing. Personally I am in two minds about it, I do agree that some citation templates are overly obscure and rigid, but I also find others useful. For example it would be nice to have a template for plain-text citations which acts as a bookmark for sfn and similar functions. We could write something like
{{bookmark|name=mycitation}} free-form wikitext
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NiD.29: use of sfn and correct rendering of {{cite book}} to accommodate the use of sfn means that the reference generated is clickable, and takes you to the cite in the references (as does the other method), but use of sfn means that if you click on the cite in references, it then take you to the citation of the book, which the other method doesn't do, you have to physically scroll down. This is why sfn is an improvement (IMvHO). Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - is there a problem with changing references to the cite book format? I don't do Harvard and I leave those when I find them but I have been reformatting the plain text ones for a while because it makes it easier to ensure all the info is correctly and consistently formatted - and I have every book I use as a reference written down in cite book format. On the other hand, I am usually adding a bunch of new books to the reference list, and I update the ones in plain text to match at the same time, assuming I don't find better replacements for them and write out the crappy sources entirely. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shot down by own side[edit]

It is widely believed Bader was deliberately shot down by one of his own pilots in August 1941, because he kept exposing them to risk unnecessarily. (86.163.135.42 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Source? (Hohum @) 18:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the sections about his being shot down, can we find a consensus on how "bail" is spelled? Bail and Bale seem to be used interchangeably. I believe the bail spelling to be the American favorite, while bale seems to be more in use in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.166.4 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baled out is incorrect, unless you're a farmer[edit]

"In August 1941, Bader baled out over German-occupied France"

I think "bailed out" is the verb one ought to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.150.196 (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bail-out is correct, based on etymology. As a sailor and former aviation radar operator, I can attest that marine & aviation terms are very closely linked; Bail is a common marine term. "Bale" OTOH, is a farming term, as in 'bale hay into bales of hay'.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/bailout#:~:text=bail%20%28v.1%29%20%22to%20dip%20water%20out%20of%2C%22%201610s%2C,baiulare%20%22to%20bear%20a%20burden%22%20%28see%20bail%20%28n.1%29%29.
= bailout (n.) =
also bail-out 1945, in aviation, from the verbal phrase in reference to pilots; see bail (v.1) + out (adv.). As "federal help for private business in trouble," from 1968; it is unclear which sense of bail is meant there.
=== Entries linking to bailout ===
bail (v.1)
"to dip water out of," 1610s, from baile (n.) "small wooden bucket" (mid-14c.), from nautical Old French baille "bucket, pail," from Medieval Latin *baiula (aquae), literally "porter of water," from Latin baiulare "to bear a burden" (see bail (n.1)).
To bail out "leave suddenly" (intransitive) is recorded from 1930, originally of airplane pilots. Perhaps there is some influence from bail (v.2) "procure (someone's) release from prison." Related: Bailed; bailing. Markus451 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From checking the Google Books Ngram Viewer, as well specific examples in Google Books, it appears this is a variation between British and American English which I was previously unaware of. While Americans would use the form "bail out" when speaking of parachuting from an aircraft in an emergency, the British would use "bale out" instead, especially during World War II. Nowadays the form "bail out" dominates even in British English, but this was not the case during Bader's career. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sarkar's Biography[edit]

Hi, I was reading Dilip Sarkar's "Fighter Ace: The Extraordinary Life of Douglas Bader, Battle or Britain Hero"

Has anyone else read it? How reliable is it (I know he mentions "Buck" Casson as perhaps shooting down DB)? I know that the Brickhill book very much 'romantacized' Douglas, and Sarkar's book seems to show a more rounded person, flaws and all!

I only ask as I see that it is not mentioned anywhere, let alone used as a source at all!

Thanks 193.9.4.8 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was used or not. The issue with Wikipedia is that pages have self-appointed guardians who feel they own the articles and who revert changes they disagree with whether factual or not. This can simply be because someone altered "their" page. If you add references to Buck Casson, for sure they will just get reverted without the courtesy of a prior discussion or note here as to why. The guardians typically have more time and patience than you do so they will just keep doing this.

The Buck Casson theory has been out there a while and is well supported circumstantially, in that no German records uphold Bader's account of collision with a 109. To be scrupulously fair to Bader, he'd never been in an aircraft hit by 20mm cannon shells before. He might have seen the effect of strikes by German fighters' cannon on RAF fighters, but the German gun was less effective than the Hispano that Casson was using (much lower muzzle velocity, for example). Bader may not have realised it was possible for cannon strikes to shoot the whole tail off, and assumed instead in good faith that there had been a collision.

You are right about Sarkar versus Brickhill. The latter was very much a fan and his source was interviews with Bader. As a result, the story takes the shape that Bader wanted, and an attentive reading brings up many anomalies. We hear nothing of his brother 'Derick after Bader's schooldays - Derick in fact died in the 1930s. Did this make him unhappy? No idea. We hear nothing of his mother after he leaves hospital minus his legs. Did she just leave him to get on with it? No idea. She died in the 1930s too I think. We hear no more of Mr. Dingwall, the schoolmaster who paid for him to attend Cranwell. By page count we hear a lot about his war, which was actually only about a year, but not much about his captivity, which was four years. It is also glossed over that while he was a PoW his 'Big Wing' approach was completely debunked by its total failure in action. In fact RAF top-scorer Johnnie Johnson amassed his tally of 38 by flying in a pair, sneaking up on big, easily-spotted formations and shooting individual aircraft down pretty much undetected before stealthily withdrawing. The same thing was done to Bader's own Big Wing by individual 109s - 60 would take off, 57 would land and nobody had noticed them getting shot down. Brickhill relates how the Big Wing once claimed to have shot down 60 aircraft from a raid; the German records show they lost six. When Bader left the RAF post-war because everything had changed, what had really changed was that the tactics he had championed were found to be the opposite of good practice.

Some of the above probably belongs in the article as a critique / legacy section, but will be instantly reverted if added. Bader was an opinionated, unpleasant, inspiring, indomitable lion of a man, perhaps too much so for his own good.Tirailleur (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not only updating me on the truth of Bader, but on why there's no point in trying to correct "bale out" to "bail out"... due to the "self-appointed guardians". The reason that this irks me (other than a being Nazi :)) is that I believe the marine traditions of aviation should be better understood. You'd be amazed at how aviation took all things marine and just added a 3rd dimension. Bail is a marine word. Bale is a landlubber word.
Anyhow, as for Dilip Sarkar, MBE he explains very well that Bader's shoot down was a "blue on blue" incident, and how that could have easily occured: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT2c_UEJBI
Cheerio Markus451 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There were eleven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE (if applicable): ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. +
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
The second paragraph of the External links lead states, Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
External links article: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Any that can be used as a reference should be incorporated into the article.
Trimmed excessive links moved here for any possible future discussion on exchanges or incorporating into article.
  • Ministry of Defence article on the unveiling of the Blue Plaque
  • The Douglas Bader Foundation
  • RAF Museum online exhibition of Bader
  • Douglas Bader at CricketArchive (subscription required)
  • [1] The RAF side who lost 0 – 16 to the Royal Navy in 1931. Douglas Bader is on the far right in the front
  • Imperial War Museum Interview from 1982
  • Flying Scholarships for Disabled People. A charity set up in Douglas Bader's Memory.
  • "Dougls Bader on a visit to New Zealand, 1956 (photo)". National Library. 1956. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autism[edit]

Modern biographers believe Bader showed definite signs of autism. (Aardi18 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

General[edit]

Can someone explain in plain English what this means? "In Warburg, Rademacher liked enforcing harsh searches and long Appells.[136] With regularity, he commanded the ferrets to storm a barrack, and 'bastard search'.[136] He also delayed Appells in the freezing cold." What are Appells? What ferrets? What's a "bastard search"? Thanks. 2601:5CC:C900:345:8B69:8A1D:5CA8:F8C7 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Bader&oldid=1213338040"