Talk:RAF Tempsford

If there is to be a People section for this entry, would it not be a good idea to have some consistency in deciding who should be added and in how the information is shown? For instance, the link to Group Captain Pickard does not show him as having any link with Tempsford, so why add him? Whereas with Group Captain Fielden, there is no link and nothing to indicate what his connection was. Wouldn't it be more helpful to show him as, for instance, 'commanded 138 Squadron from date X to date Y'? Mark126 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. I added a few names just to get the ball rolling without making a detailed check of the existing entries. I've added some brief explanations. I was rather hoping that people might take the initiative and write a page for Mouse Fielden and Odile who deservedly merit a page in their own right.Dahliarose 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was prompt! I thought that the external links which you previously added make a tremendous addition to the article. I will try to add http://harringtonmuseum.org.uk/HistoryTempsford.htm I don't know how authoratitive it is. A bit of Googling shows that Fielden moved to Tempsford in April 42 as Wing Commander in charge of 161. As a newly promoted Group Captain he then became Station Commander of Tempsford in October 42. Wing Commander Pickard appears to have replaced Fielden as O/C 161 at that time. Mark126 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think Fielden did replace Pickard as Station Commander. I took my information from Bernard O'Connor's booklet. I've just added it to the Tempsford page along with a few other books in a new Bibliography section. It's well worth a read if you haven't already seen it. I'm just wondering if the MOD web page reference should now be moved to the external links section. It would look much tidier there. Dahliarose 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - I've moved the MOD link as you suggested. Would it now be a good idea to show Fielden as Station Commander of RAF Tempsford (1942-1944) and perhaps Pickard as a Wing Commander i/c 161 Squadron (1942-1944)? The Bibliography section adds breadth to the article. Mark126 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks much better. I'm not 100% sure of the positions of Fielden and Pickard. Was Fielden in charge of the whole of RAF Tempsford or just 161 Squadron? O'Connor's book says "Fielden’s replacement as 161 commander was Wing Commander Charles Pickard", which rather suggests it was just 161 Squadron. O'Connor says of Pickard: "One of his earlier missions had been to pilot ‘F’ for Freddie, a Wellington of 149 Squadron that featured in the RAF documentary film ‘Target for Tonight’. In early February 1942 he led his Whitley Squadron on a daring raid on Bruneval... In the eight months at Tempsford prior to his promotion he flew over a dozen pick-ups in both Lysanders and Hudsons." It would therefore appear that Pickard only moved to Tempsford in about 1843 or 1844. Dahliarose 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've discovered that Fielden does have a web-page. It's http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Fielden.htm Since 138 squadron were already at Tempsford (from 11/3/42) when 161 moved in on 9/4/42, I think that we can be reasonably sure that Fielden was W/Cdr i/c 161 at that time and that he became a Group Captain at about the time that he became Station Commander of Tempsford in 10/42. It looks as though W/Cdr Pickard replaced Fielden as o/c 161, presumably in 10/42, and he was himself replaced as o/c 161 by S/Ldr Hodges in 5/43. Having said all that, looking at Fielden's web-page on the rafweb site rather makes one lose heart in trying to tie all this up. That page shows him jumping straight from S/Ldr to (T) GP Capt on 1/1/43! Might I suggest that the safest bet is to slightly alter your entry for Fielden to read ... Station Commander of RAF Tempsford (1942-1944) and to show Pickard as Wing Commander, Commanding Officer of 161 Squadron 1942-1943? You could also refer out to Fielden's web-page? Mark126 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Fielden's entry as you suggested. I managed to find Pickard's obit in The Times and I ended up expanding the Pickard page considerably based on the info in his obit. In view of the uncertainty with regards to his dates at Tempsford I've simply added explanatory info about his DSO to put him into context. Perhaps if his dates can be verified then this line can be changed. Feel free to change it if you don't agree with what I've done. I've also now got Fielden's obit from the Times so I will have a go at preparing an initial entry for him and will include the link you've found. Dahliarose 16:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What an excellent idea to make use of The Times' obits : they should be authoritative. Do you have a personal interest in this subject? I do, as my step-father was a navigator with 138 and was interviewed by Fielden as part of obtaining his commission as an Officer, while my uncle flew with 24 Squadron, which worked closely with Fielden's King's Flight.Mark126 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My uncle, Gerald Cruwys, was a navigator with both 138 and 161 Squadron and was awarded the Croix de Guerre. I've put in a link to the piece I wrote about my uncle on the Tempsford page. Too often the squadron leaders and wing commanders get all the credit but the men who were in the thick of the action are the ones who really deserve to have their place in history remembered. Dahliarose 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. You've done an excellent job on the linked article about your uncle. My step-father (who was awarded the DFC), who is still alive, also started at Newmarket as a navigator with 138. It is possible therefore that he knew your uncle. I will ask him. I understand what you say about the senior officers, but isn't it partly a question of numbers? If this article was to list all the aircrew who flew from Tempsford, there would be hundreds of names, wouldn't there? Mark126 16:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree there would be no point listing every single person who flew at Tempsford and the list would in any case get quite out of hand. I think the idea of the Wikipedia biography is that people who have made a notable contribution and who have been written about elsewhere are eligible for inclusion so the same criteria will apply for inclusion in this list. There are existing categories, for instance, for people who have won the DFC and the Croix de Guerre so anyone in these categories is eligible for inclusion but the Wiki entry must not be an original piece of work so the entry can only be based on external sources. Has anything been written on your stepfather? I would have thought that with his DFC he would have merited an entry in a book or a newspaper somewhere which could then be linked from the Tempsford page or you could perhaps compile a biography for the Wiki so long as you can quote from other sources and you're not writing an original article. Dahliarose 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work on the Tempsford article. I learned to fly at Little Gransden (hence the paragraph in the article) and would often stop and visit Tempsford and the barn with the memorials when I was driving to or from the airfield for a flight. I tried to imagine how the flying done by the pilots there differed from my own. Many went to war with far less flying hours than I had. I always wanted to land there but never did. A friend did and got very short shrift from the farmer. --Cheesy Mike 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - interesting story. Dahlia, I'm still trying to absorb the significance of the rules on Verifiability and No Original Research. I had no idea that such restrictions were supposed to apply. I've found the warnings on biographies of living persons, but not any rules on biographies of people no longer alive. Are there any specific rules to cover the latter case? Mark126 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is probably the page you want. WP:BIO I get the feeling that the rules are more strictly applied to living people. Dahliarose 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous person who added the link to the village hall website : I would suggest that this link does not add anything useful about the airfield. The airfield does not appear to be mentioned anywhere on the hall website. I've looked at the map which you can download and it does not show where the airfield was. I would suggest that this link would be more appropriate in the Wikipedia article for TempsfordMark126 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that the link to the village hall website is already present in the Tempsford article and have therefore removed it from this article Mark126 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first C/O of RAF Tempsford was Group Captain A H H McDonald. In Sept 42 Mouse Filden took over the post and in Oct 42 Pickard took charge of 161 Sqdn. In December 1944 a new C/O for Tempsford was appointed - Group Captain Palmer. Information taken from the Diary of RAF Tempsford. (National Archives ref AIR28/820) --Makkum 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Copied from User talk:Neddyseagoon - I see that you are suggesting that the tone of the section beginning "A visitor to the site in 2002 reported as follows ....." is of an inappropriate tone or style. I added that section, following a visit to the site by a close friend of mine. Would you please tell me in what way you think that it offends the guidelines? I would then be able to consider how it might be improved. Mark126 (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the nearest template I could find to describe it - didn't mean to suggest it was offensive in that sense. I was just wondering if such a long quotation could be boiled down into ordinary text, with references etc.? Neddyseagoon - talk 10:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed the text about the agents meeting terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans on the grounds that it contravenes NPOV. I have looked at NPOV and I don't agree. Near the beginning of the FAQ section for NPOV it says "The policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them." What I wrote about the nature of their deaths was not taking part in any dispute, it was factual. I doubt if even any Germans would dispute that many of the agents were killed by Germans and that the manner of their death was terrible - quite literally. Mark126 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you treat the content of this statement with some respect and not point to the guidelines. Without these people you might not be having the free young life you are having. Deben Dave (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You both misunderstand. I respect these men and women's sacrifice, and do not dispute that it is factual that they were killed at the hands of the Germans, nor even that their deaths were terrible. Nor do I accuse you of opening or engaging in any dispute. What I do point out is that the way that it is phrased here may lead others to accuse yourself and the article of pro-British, anti-German bias, an impression they might find compounded by Mark's family links to the airfield (listed on your userpage). I do not believe this has led you into bias - but others may. Under 'Let the facts speak for themselves', users of Wikipedia can link from here to the agents' pages and see from the facts that these agents' deaths were terrible, were at the Germans' hands etc - it does not need stating here.

Not wanting to start an edit war, I have refrained from re-reverting your edit until I have sought arbitration from the WikiProject Military history and more specifically its World War II task force. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clearly explained response. I understand the points which you are making and will be content to abide by the arbitration which you will be seeking. Mark126 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neddyseagoon has asked me to comment on this article as one of the assistant coordinators at the Military History Wikiproject. I don't see anything wrong with saying that many of the agents who were flown out from this airfield met "terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans" as this is likely to be factually correct - it is well established that a high proportion of Allied spies landed in occupied Europe were captured and that the German counter-intelligence services often killed captured spies through brutal methods or following torture. The statement should be cited, however, and while the use of 'terrible' seems justified, more neutral wording could be something like "many of whom were tortured and killed by the German security services" or whatever the source for this states. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree in principle, though I still feel that this may be unneccessary in this article under Wikipedia:Relevance, when details of the agents' deaths are already given on their own pages - to play devil's advocate, how are details of their deaths relevant per se to the history of the airfield from which they flew?Neddyseagoon - talk 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A very brief description of the fate of many of the agents seems neccessary to explain why there are still memorials to them at this site. I agree that anything more than about a sentance on their fates in this article would be exessive, especially given the article's short length, but as some of the agents are mildly famous as a result of the circumstances of their death it seems appropriate to say that here. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that "This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women)" be edited to remove the word 'brave' as this is unnecessary as the fact that they did something heroic is established by the fact that there are memorials to them at the airfield and that many of them died while conducting their tasks. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the request at [1], I have reviewed the sentence in question, and in its current state ( This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women) who were flown from the airfield, many of them to meet terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans ) I believe it to be WP:NPOV.

As such, I would suggest editing it to: 'This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the agents, both men and women, who were flown from the airfield, many of whom were later killed by German soldiers.'

Is this acceptable to all editors involved in the NPOV Dispute? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting here sooner. After reviewing the discussion and Nicks proposed solution I concur with his take and solution to the problem, and would suggest using the text provided by Skinny87 above. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Skinny87, I do not find that acceptable. "...killed by German soldiers" makes it sound as though they were killed in combat. I understand that this was not the way that most of them died. Mark126 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps it could be '...killed after being captured and tortured.'? That way we retain the fact that they were captured and tortured and were not killed in combat, whilst refraining from any breach of NPOV. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think that's an acceptable compromise. Mark126 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if no-one has any objections, I'll edit the article to add this in! Skinny87 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Per the request at [2], I have reviewed the sentence in question, and in its current state ( This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the brave agents (men and women) who were flown from the airfield, many of them to meet terrible deaths at the hands of the Germans ) I believe it to be WP:NPOV.

As such, I would suggest editing it to: 'This barn contained several plaques and memorials to the agents, both men and women, who were flown from the airfield, many of whom were later killed by German soldiers.'

Is this acceptable to all editors involved in the NPOV Dispute? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)