Talk:Edwin Benbow

Benbow and Richthofen

According to Benbow's entry in Shores' 'Aces High' biog, Benbow certainly claimed a Albatros on 6 March, yet all Richthofen biographies state he was forced down on the 9th of March. Accordingly I've added a citation required tab in the article.Harryurz (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I don't believe the arbitrary removal of a reliable citation of source is the proper way to handle this. There is apparently a conflict between sources that should be settled, but I see no grounds for removing a citation willy-nilly. I am restoring the citation in question until the conflict is settled. If it is indeed mistaken, then it will have to go. In the meantime, this needs more research before input.

Would you happen to have the citation for the source(s) you claim contradicts the removed cite? The cite you removed is from a text over 30 years newer than "Aces High", so the latter may not contain the latest historical research.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was begun in American usage

I know, because I am the Yank who created it. The "British English" tag above promulgates a change in usage in violation of standard WP practices.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

---

An added note:

I have no objection to the complete conversion of this article to the English variant that best fits the subject matter. I DO object to the false statement of its origin (which I hasten to add is probably a simple error), and I DO object to piecemeal conversions.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello George, are you saying that there have been piecemeal conversions? (in which case can you point out where there are still conversions left to be done and I will happy to help). And has someone made a false statement as to the origin? Again I'd be happy to put them right, though as you of course rightly note British English is the correct usage per guidelines, and is I suspect the only reason the tag above was put on, without meaning any disrespect to the version you originally used to write the article. Best, Benea (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Changing a single word to British usage ("honor" to "honour") in an article created in American English is piecemeal, isn't it? And, as I clearly stated above, the tag above is a false statement. However, I am not here to quarrel with you about that. I am trying to make sense out of an ambiguous policy, and in the process, see that the article ends up in a consistent style.

The policy concerned says an article should be continued in its usage of origin; in this case, American usage. It also implies that usage should match national origin of subject. However, there is no prohibition on an American writing on a British subject. There is no provision for a case like this.

Simply put, for the article to become the best it can be, it has to be in a consistent usage. That is all I am trying to negotiate here.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the single word ("honor" to "honour") as it is the only word (so far as I can tell) which is spelt differently in British as opposed to American English in use in the article. Which is why I asked if you if you could see any more, as I can't or I would have changed them too. As you rightly point out, consistency is key. It's not true however that there is no provision for a case like this. On articles with a strong British connection, even when they were started in American English, the usage can and should be correctly changed to British English. The same would be true if a subject with strong American ties were started in British English. You are absolutely right that there is no prohibition on an American writing on a British subject, but you must be prepared to accept that people would be acting within the guideline to change any usage of American English that you used in the article to British English, such as "honor" to "honour". Similarly if a British user wrote an article on an American flying ace, and used the spelling 'honours', another user would be quite to correct to change the spelling to 'honors', citing ENGVAR. Consequently the tag is quite correct on this article. Benea (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If I could spot the terms that differed between American and British usage, I would be capable of writing the article in British English. I'm not; I'm American. When I read British usage, words like "tyre" and "windscreen" clang against my eyes; I could easily convert such to American usage, but I am incapable of the reverse.

I acknowledge--and have acknowledged--that the most fitting usage for a British ace's bio would be British usage. However, there is no mechanism in the policy for the conversion you suggested. An article is not supposed to have its usage changed willy-nilly. Slapping a lying tag on the article is no substitute for a means of insuring consistency in translation; indeed, it will lead to misunderstanding amongst the casual reader who will be misled. "This article is written in British English" is a factually untrue and misleading statement. My initial sentence at the top that began this entire exchange still holds true. It can only change if the article is entirely converted into British English.

Not so incidentally, I must admire the calm and civil spirit you show in this discussion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you George, but I must say I'm confused In what way do you consider the tag to be untrue? Articles are indeed not meant to have their usage changed willy-nilly, only in the instances where one variant of English is the appropriate one due to national ties. This article by the worry currently uses only British English terms and idioms, the only American English spelling used in this article has 'honors', which is now spelt 'honours'. Benea (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If my Yankee style fortuitously overlapped British usage, then serendipity struck. If the single difference is that 'u', then I am content to let the present rendering stand. However, the tag is still factually untrue. If it were true, it would say something like, "Because of its subject matter, this article should preferably be rendered in British usage." The present tag does not change the fact an American began it in his native usage.

And if you wait for a Brit to write bios on all these lesser-known aces that are still lacking one...well, I hope you are longlived.

In the meantime, I continue my self-selected mission of creating a bio for every notable World War I ace. If you should care to keep track of me and convert the Brits, it would be a good thing for Wikipedia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Oopps! A closer look at the tag shows it is now factually correct. My apologies for the erroneous statement above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)