User talk:Flt Lt Spencer

No. 20 Squadron RAF

Thanks for contributing to the article No. 20 Squadron RAF. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - As previously requested please do not add unsourced material to wikipedia. You seem to have added the following sentence three times without a source: "Their Bristol fighters conducted reconnaissance, both independently and for the Army in the field. It supported Army columns or posts with fire from the air, and delivered warnings and punitive attacks on areas which were deemed troublesome." Please urgently read WP:3RR. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Flt Lt Spencer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk (talk) Is there any better way of contacting you so I can talk through what I am doing? Flt Lt Spencer (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - It should be done either here or on the talk page of the article so that there is a public record of any discussions. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk I am currently a member of the newly re-formed 20 Sqn (ASACS OCU, as mentioned in the article). As part of the Sqn history team, we are trying to get more of the history known and published for public viewing - hence updating the Wikipedia. One of the other Historians has carefully referenced this content from the sources I have cited. We have access to the Sqn's F540 and Air archives. I have no other intent other than publishing a more indepth page of 20 Sqn's history. We can gain further references for the content if you wish. But most is coming from Books accessible by the public and the Sqn's archives. I hope this helps. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions. Regards Flt Lt Spencer. Flt Lt Spencer (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Thank you for the explanation. The key point is that you need to use reliable published sources: see WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Quite a bit of what you have added is not referenced at all. e.g. the sentence I have referred to above. Also the information needs to be independent: see Wikipedia:Independent sources. So just lifting material from the squadron's archives is not adequate. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk) I may have been misleading in a previous message, as the archives the Historian used are the UK National Archives (freely accessible by all) which includes the Operational record books cited throughout.Flt Lt Spencer (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. But the national archives are not published. It is all explained in WP:RS. Please take a look. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

talk copied that. So you are happy with the cited books so far? Can I ask your position on Wikipedia? Flt Lt Spencer (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The books cited so far are fine. We don't have positions on wikipedia: its not like the RAF: we are all part of a community. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk (talk) Thank you for your editing work as we (the Squadron Historian and myself) have tried to edit the 20 Squadron page ourselves. It has led us to examine Wikipedia’s policies in far more depth than we expected, which is a good thing as learning has occurred! We require your expertise/help/guidance on the below if you'd be so kind to:

Could we walk you through our understanding of those policies in relation to our edits, and particularly sources, and get any feedback with a view to us all coming to a consensus? We’re aiming at the same thing as you – making the page better.

Firstly, we have read the Three Core Content Policies, and will discuss them in turn, in relation to editing a page of history of a RAF Squadron.

No Original Research: ‘Facts for which no reliable, published sources exist’ – we believe that we’re posting facts, and ‘reliable, published sources’ is discussed below in Verifiability. We also note that edits are not to include ‘analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources’; this is why you deleted our claim that 20 Sqn was ‘one of the most successful Sqns on the Western Front’ and this now makes sense to us and we’ll aim to stick to this standard as we propose future edits.

Neutral Point of View: ‘Representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic’. We think we’re on solid ground here. There aren’t that many ‘views’ published on the history of 20 Sqn, and we can’t see any of a nature that require a neutral viewpoint to be taken. The vast majority of the sources aim to create a factual, historical record of the Sqn’s activities, rather than assessment of how well they did it, or the rights and wrongs of what they did. That’s not to say we will ignore neutrality in what we propose to edit!

Verifiability: ‘Other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.’ This is probably where you and we have the most concern, particularly in the definition of Reliable Sources.

Firstly our use of the Sqn Operational Record Books (F540s), held at the National Archives in Kew, as a verifiable source. We believe they meet the criteria for ‘published’ – ‘made available to the public in some form’. Indeed, Footnote 7 of the relevant paragraph specifically states that ‘published’ ‘includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives…’. Of course, this still leaves the issue of ‘independence’, as the authors of the original documents were members of 20 Sqn at the time and therefore could be said to have a vested interest. However, the authors of all F540s are under a public duty to capture an accurate historical record of activities, the RAF had (have) mechanisms in place to check the accuracy of those documents before being committed to archive, and those F540s are widely used throughout academia as reliable sources, particularly relating to dates, people and events, rather than opinions or viewpoints. Indeed, Jefford stated that he used significant archive material from the National Archives (then Public Record Office) for his ‘RAF Squadrons’ book (Forward and Preface of the book in question). While we don’t want to use the F540s exclusively we believe that, by their very nature, they do represent a reliable source for factual information about 20 Sqn where no secondary source exists.

Secondly, the book The History of No 20 Squadron Royal Flying Corps-Royal Air Force by NJ Roberson. There are 2 potential issues with this source. Firstly, we believe he was a member of 20 Sqn when he compiled the work, which raises the issue of independence. Secondly, it is self-published, which we should usually shy away from. However, there are a couple of defences to the use of this book and author as a reliable source. Firstly, the book has very few (if any) opinions and very little (if any) analysis of primary material, and is mainly a compilation of archived material from the 20 Sqn F540s. The current historian has cross-checked the dates / people / locations / events against the F540s which are available online, and has found no discrepancies or omissions which could lead to a charge of partiality. Secondly, the Wikipedia policy on using self-published works does not preclude using them, but that we must exercise caution and establish the expertise of the author. In this case, NJ Roberson has clearly gone to some length to collate and cross-check archival material for this book and present it in a neutral manner, and therefore we would judge that, in the context of a page on the History of 20 Sqn RAF, he would meet the criteria for being a reliable source.

That leaves one problem for us (The Sqn Historian and me). We are both members of the reformed 20 Squadron and therefore, as you pointed out, we have a Conflict of Interest. We can’t really solve that problem ourselves, but we hope you would be able to help if we posted requests for a change on the talk page? In addition to the changes that have already been made, we will be proposing sections on The Cold War 1970-1992, and Harrier Operational Conversion Unit 1992-2010. We would also like to add more sources to the existing material, and we are also working on a few more photographs to add, for which we’ll need advice. Is this a good way to proceed, and could you help with this?

Thank you in advance. Flt Lt Spencer Flt Lt Spencer (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I suggest that you now open up a discussion and raise these issues on the article talk page. Personally, I don't know what the answer is on the use of F540s: other editors may be able to advise. I would personally be OK with you using Roberson's book, but again other editors may have a view. And I agree it would be good to expand the post-war sections. My main objective is simply that there should be a citation for all new material. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

F540s are not reliable in that they are a primary unattributable source. They are not published publicly with either ISBN or ISSN numbers. Better to sieve the information from books written by reputable authors who have perused the 540s at the National Archives. Journals published by the RAF Historical Society have ISSNs, so are, in my view reliable, (see link [1]) and are sub-primary, but written by established historians like Sebastian Cox, though as he works within the RAF framework, caution should be observed on certain points of neutrality (WP:NPOV). Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Syle

Hello Flt Lt Spencer. I just thought I would point out some salient things when you are updating the No. 20 Squadron RAF article. As Dormskirk has pointed out above, Wikipedia has certain rules and styles that we adhere to. Being ex-RAF myself, I had to adjust in not capitalising ranks and squadrons routinely, but the general rule of thumb is:

No. 20 Squadron is in caps for the word squadron after the numerical identifier, as it is naming the squadron. Just saying squadron, without identifiers does not need caps. IE:

No. 20 Squadron deployed to RAF Boulmer in 1944. The squadron flew missions for Coastal Command until 1945.

The same is true of ranks, so naming your rank would be something like this:

The first flight lieutenant on the squadron to achieve 10 kills was Flight Lieutenant George Bloggs.

Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)