Talk:John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Fair use rationale for Image:John Cunningham CBE - Famous Grouse DH Moth Rally 1979.jpg

Image:John Cunningham CBE - Famous Grouse DH Moth Rally 1979.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Sale of medals cited to Daily Mail

I removed the content as only tangentially related to the bio of the man; I'm preserving this content by providing this llink. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

All of your edits have been reverted as vandalism. I'll remind you again: you will not delete relevant information from articles at your whim. And following other editors around Wikipedia and attacking the articles they've contributed to is disruptive. You have been warned. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC where Daily Mail was essentially black listed as the result. I also found the section heading "Sale of medals" to be derogatory, as it read as if the subject sold his own medals. I would appreciate an explanation where the editor sees "vandalism". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest. Your edit summary said "trivia", now you're looking for another excuse. In any case, this information can be found anywhere. It isn't trivia, the derogatory claim is bizarre, and it is relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversions today

Tried having a conversation here with an editor that doesn't pay attention. I'm going to say this one final time: the information is sourced to Cunningham's biographer. Pay attention and think. Dapi89 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are unacceptable. Your posting on my talk page after being told not to is unacceptable. The text you keep restoring has been challenged, as so requires an explicit citation (and not merely a citation in a different part of the paragraph, separated by unrelated content). Restoring it with out such a citation is unacceptable. The use of quote marks does not class as a citation. Lastly, your edit-warring (four reverts in under seven hours) is unacceptable; you should revert yourself before someone blocks you for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out your illogical reverts are not personal attacks. You were told REPEATEDLY it was sourced in a way that is appropriate for wikipedia; it would not have become a good article otherwise. Despite all that you've continued to edit war on a false premise—so if anyone of us has displaying unacceptable behaviour it's you. Think, pay attention, grow up, or go away. Dapi89 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only are my reverts not illogical, but the abuse to which I referred - and which you have since escalated - was not "pointing out" any such claim. So that's a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this the hill you guys want to die on? Arguing what kind of feathers were sucked into the jet engines? There must be a worthier battle out there somewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Its the principal. He refuses to think. Its sourced, he has been told that several times. I've even told him what citation in the edit summary. Ive cleared the hill B. Dapi89 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at https://archive.org/details/johncatseyescunn00goll/page/196/mode/2up?q=plover

I read "Looking ahead he saw a huge flock of plover returning to the airfield and there was nothing he could do to avoid them. His engines ingested numerous birds, lost power and died."

That's not identical to Kentish plover, which is a single species of plover (unless Kentish ones are the only possible plover available for him to run in to, but that needs somebody who knows something about birds to work out}. Couldn't you just agree on On 20 November 1975 at Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey, a flock of plover birds collided with the British Aerospace BAe 125 aircraft just after takeoff? --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: RSPB volunteer and British Trust for Ornithology member here. There are six kinds of Plover common in the UK (Golden, Grey, Ringed, Little Ringed, Dotterel, and Green, though the latter are nowadays better known as Lapwing). Kentish Plover, a rare visitor, is not one of them (the BTO give a figure of ten individuals - not flocks - per year; and the RSPB do not list it on their "plover" page). Our own article on the species says "Kentish plovers either forage individually or in loose flocks of 20-30 individuals (outside the breeding season), and occasionally can incorporate into larger flocks of up to 260 individuals of multiple species.", meaning a "huge flock" of KPs anywhere, let alone in the UK, is almost unthinkable., and doubly so in November, as they're summer migrants. See also [1], which further notes "Breeding numbers peaked at around 40 pairs in the early to mid-20th century". So it appears that the claim is not only not (properly) cited, but the claim that the source says what Dapi89 added to the article today is as false as the separate long-standing false claim (that the birds were Snowy Plover, which do not occur in the UK) which I initially removed. Given the vast difference in size, flocking behaviour and habitat preferences of the aforementioned plover species, "flock of birds" is fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well maybe there are only 40 breeding pairs because Commander Cunningham's engine ingested the others. EEng 05:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: As no-one has responded, I've removed the Kentish Plover claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The hill, in this case, is whether or not claims in Wikipedia have to be both factually accurate and correctly cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

They have been. So leave the article or explain your disruptive behaviour and dishonest edit summaries, which repeatedly claim no citation is given when there is, as already been acknowledged by one other person besides me, even if their behaviour has been illogical. Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The only response needed is this diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me understand

I noticed this issue on Andy's talk. Please let me understand. We talk about an accident he had with birds, right? I am surprised to find the complete accident without an inline citation. In a GA, really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) It sourced. How many more times? Dapi89 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The source, Golley, John (1999). John "Cat's-Eyes" Cunningham: The Aviation Legend. Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing. pp. 197–199. ISBN 978-1-84037-059-1., only occurs some four sentences later, after the topic has shifted to his retirement. But it nevertheless is sourced (eventually). I've unfortunately felt it necessary to block Dapi89 for the completely unwarranted personal attack that I've redacted above. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How would I assume the same source is used for the accident as for the retirement? And the next sentence after retirement refers to a car. Which car? No GA quality, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted the latest attempt to insert a link to Kentish plovers when there is no source for "Kentish". Does it even matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not just that, but the undoing of every improvement to the article since 10 July. Shocking behaviour, and utterly unaccepteable. You were right to revert. Also notifying User:RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Sadly. The nominator of this article has been blocked from editing it and there are outstanding citation needed tags AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more citation issues I find, including claims not supported by sources, and sources which predate the claims they purport to support.

For example, the paragraph:

In his retirement... John Cunningham died six days shy of his 85th birthday in July 2002.

had (until I just tagged it) just one citation, placed after its final full stop: {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=215–216}}. So that's a 1999 publication which speaks about the subject in the present tense, used to cite his 2002 death.

One 135-word paragraph is cited simply to {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=171–199}} - that's 28 pages.

Elsewhere, we had a 23 August 2012 press article, talking about a forthcoming event, falsely cited as having a September 2012 date, and used to support a claim about the auction price paid at a September 2012 event.

Unfortunately not all of the sources cited are online, and the Internet Archive's copy of John 'Cat's Eyes' Cunningham : the aviation legend that is heavily cited is missing several of the pages cited (e.g. page 24).

Though a secondary issue, the article's prose is also clumsy; see recent edits for some fixes, but they do not address all of the issues. For example:

Attempting his usual tactic, the British crew approached from behind and below. Suddenly the Heinkel lurched into a tight left-hand turn allowing the gunners to fire a broad-side.

The listing of every crew member of a German plane shot down by the article subject is also probably not necessary.

On top of all this, attempts to rectify even minor issues have met with edit warring and abuse, as a result of which a block is currently in place.

I leave it to uninvolved editors more familiar with GA criteria to determine how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ouch! this will need someone to really check more of the citations to fix the failed verification issues. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been able to cite the dod and the sale price of his medals. In trying to verify the bequeath of his medals to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Trust, I came across the de Havilland museum website which mentions him. There could be a potential copyvio there as the phrasing of the last paragraph of the postwar activities section is similar to the description of the museum website (although it could be because the museum copied the Wikipedia page, not the other way round). Zawed (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know what the full details of Thomas 2013 and Hooton 2010 are?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  An do we have better details of the Air Pictorial reference - like a title and page range for the article - even if its a news item, it should have a title? I'm also pretty sure that Air Pictorial didn't have anything to do with the Air League of the British Empire by 1992.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  "He was promoted to wing commander (war-substantive) on 1 September 1944, serving in a series of staff positions for the remainder of the war." - while its fine to use the 26 September 1944 as a reference to Cumminiham getting promoted, it cannot be used to describe what he did for the rest of the war, after it was written. (and can someone sort out the London Gazette sfns to give a proper cite, without the &?)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the mention of staff positions as the next section discusses his roles for the remainder of the war anyway. I also moved mention of the promotion to better put in chronological context. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is sufficiently sourced. Everything is covered. End of story. There is no copy violation. The museum has used this article. The article has been reverted back to its original state before this nonsense started. If you have any doubts about sources, by all means question me. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your claims are patent nonsense, as outlined above. Your revert has been undone, and an admin has blocked you from editing it in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

` Comment Nigel Ish I took "Thomas 2013" to be a typo, and changed it to match the other Thomas references. The Gazette issue can be cured by using the correct template ({{London Gazette}}) instead of {{sfn}}. The Hooton2010 ref is the one causing the ref error issue raised at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Hooton2010 ref issue has now been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Cannon

Re: "He expended all the Beaufighter's ammunition against it from the working cannons—one cannon jammed.". If this is so, how did he transfer ammunition from the jammed cannon to the others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A Beaufighter in early 1941 would have drum-fed cannon - which would be reloaded by the observer lugging drums about, so it would be possible to fire all the unused drums through the working guns, and even to take a drum from the jammed gun to one of the working guns, assuming it wasn't the drum that jammed - this is of course assuming that this is what was meant (rather than the remaining three guns fired all their ammunition).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wells

"Wells, Somerset is quoted, then Burnham Overy is mentioned. This is not possible! It is either "Wells, Somerset" and Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset or Wells-next-the-Sea and Burnham Overy (more accurately Burnham Overy Staithe), Norfolk. I don't know which is meant so haven't altered the text. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Occam's Razor suggests Norfolk; the "the sea north-west of Wells, Somerset" would more likely be referred to as "the Bristol Channel", and any competent writer referring to that stretch of water would be unlikely to mention its relation to the inland city of Wells. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed to Wells-next-the-Sea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Timing

"The Luftwaffe began operations at 22:00 that night," - is that UK time, or German? Is it when they took off, arrived over the UK, fired at a British plane, or dropped their first bomb? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No response, so I've removed this wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)