Talk:Roderic Dallas

15 what???
Historians Christopher Shores and Norman Franks cite Dallas with 1 aircraft captured, 15 destroyed and 15 (and 1 shared) for a total of 32.

1 captured, 15 destroyed and 15.... What happened to those last 15 planes? Pburka (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Once again, Roderic Dallas
COLLATED AND POSTED HERE FOR EASE OF CONSIDERATION

While reading my old talk page entries, I realized that your suggestion for ranking Stan Dallas by victories is exactly opposite the method used for the other aces in these lists. When doubt exists, the ace is ranked by the number of victories confirmed by a reliable detailed list of victories (usually http://www.theaerodrome.com). The ace may then be annotated as having a disputed score.

If your method were applied throughout the list, Rene Fonck would become the top rated ace of World War I because there are French sources that claim his confirmed and unconfirmed victories total 140.

I did check your reference to the Australian autobiographical dictionary, and it agreed with http://www.theaerodrome.com's listing of 32. I have the other two books you referred to on order through interlibrary loan.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi George. As I stated before, the aerodrome is the only source I have seen that lists Dallas' score as 32 confirmed; all others I have seen state 39 confirmed with a possibility of 50. Also, as I stated before as well, the entry on Dallas with his score was previously unreferenced until I changed and referenced it, and the aerodrome may not quite be a reliable source in some areas and must be treated with care. I'm sorry, but the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry actually states "His official tally of 30 victories soon rose to 39". I will re-check the other sources, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-checked the book source I cited, and it agrees with the score of 39, stating: "Australia's second highest-scoring ace, credited with 39 kills, was the Queenslander Rod Dallas ...". I must say, also, that everything that mentions Dallas on the Australian War Memorial website agrees that his official tally stood at 39. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you be kind enough to tell me in which of these sources there exists a victory by victory list, comparable to the ones on http://theaerodrome? And while you are at it, explain why Greg van Wyngarten is a reliable source in print, and not in the aerodrome?

I made the request of you for a victory by victory list back when you first typed that you were re-ranking Dallas. When you re-ranked him, I took it on faith that you had cited such a source. Now, it seems that you have not. So why is Dallas entitled to be an exception to the informal rules we have used in compiling this list?

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * George, you requested that I provide a reliable source, not a victory by victory list. I also said that the aerodrome may not quite be a reliable source as many of its assertions are unreferenced and several other editors have been weary of it in the past. May I ask what "informal rules" you are referring to, and why this should be baised on the assertions of one source as opposed to several? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I first mentioned a detailed list as proof of victories in our original exchange, now in your archives. You ignored it then; you are ignoring it now, just as you have ignored several questions of mine.

If the sentence you quoted as proof of 39 victories is continued, the rest of it reads, "...though in correspondence he claimed only 32 as certain." Awards of victories were based on a pilot's written claims, as contained in their after-action reports. Dallas would not receive credit for seven victories he never claimed. Thus, your own reference supports a victory total of 32.

The aerodrome list is based upon a compilation of those same after-action reports, squadron daybooks, and similar primary sources. It also totals 32 wins. On the other hand the airy claim to 39 victories is based on...what? An unsupported assertion.

The estimate of 50 victories is as worthless as any similar guess. Rene Fonck did not score 140 victories; Stan Dallas did not score 50.

I checked the Australian War Memorial website, and found no listing of Dallas's victories.

I do not understand your consistent insistence on violation of NPOV. In Stan Dallas's case, it is so unnecessary to steal valor for a hero of such stature. The Dictionary of Biography listing describes a military nonpareil. Working that into his article would burnish his name. Why not give that a try, instead of claiming a special exception for Stan Dallas?

Ah, yes, the informal rules....as the primary author of this list (and its companions), I set them. I needed some guideline for adding my 1500 or so entries to these lists. My guideline became a detailed list of victories; any other method renders the list impossible. As it is, the aerodrome is the only detailed list extant.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring anything, and I would ask you to please read WP:AGF, which you do not seem to be doing. I re-checked my archives, and I see nothing in there that suggests you requested a "victory by victory" list. I think that statement by the author of the ADB entry is wrong, as I have read some correspondence letters by Dallas to his father, which states that he scored more than 32 victories. Awards for victories are based on a senior officer's recommendation and witness reports from other individuals, not from the person themselves.


 * I am not violating WP:NPOV; I have provided sources which you do not accept. I am not "stealing valour", I am correcting facts, and I would ask you not to make such rude assertions without facts. I have provided several reliable sources that state the tally as 39.


 * In regards to the final paragraph, please read WP:OWN. In conclusion, I don't think I should even bother with this anymore. I have been fair, civil, patient and abided by Wikipedia policy, despite being accused of bias and ignorance. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems my memory played me false, if you did not find an original request for a detailed list. My apologies, if it seems my faulty memory impugned you. However, there is still that same request above, along with several unanswered questions. That request was made as a condition of equity with the other aces listed. If it is fair to rank all the other aces by that method, then it is fair to rank Dallas that way, unless convincing evidence to the contrary is shown.

As for the matter of good faith, scroll up and you will read, "...I took it on faith that you had cited such a source." How can you overlook that?

Now you have turned and are doubting your own supposedly reliable source. You also refer to several other reliable sources stating 39 victories. I have checked those I could, and have the others ordered on interlibrary loan.

The net result of your actions is to inflate the military record of one of your compatriots. I view this as a violation of NPOV. My background as a combat veteran colors my attitude toward stolen valor. However, I did not accuse you of such; I told you I considered it unnecessary to do so, as Dallas's record stands for itself. I did this as part of a plea to draw you into improving the biographical article on Dallas.

You asked for an explanation of the informal rules. I explained them, and my basis for them. I stake no claim to ownership of these lists; I have had way too much technical help along the way to even dream such nonsense. However, it is a matter of historical record I did most of the data entry work. It is a matter of common sense that I had to develop some guideline for that work. I did so, and informed you of such because you requested it.

As for civility and patience, I have patiently engaged in this lengthy exegis with you while refraining from reverting your change. I did this because I have no wish for an edit war, wished to avoid hurting your feelings, and have no intent to insult you. However, your answers have been evasive and your proofs unconvincing. For instance, your reply about the victory confirmation process ignores the fact that the very beginning of a victory claim had to depend on an ace's combat report. The confirming witnesses and vetting by a senior officer followed.

To summarize, you are ignoring two reliable sources (one your own) claiming 32 victims. To do that, you select an assertion that a higher number should be entered. Then you almost instantly repudiate a portion of that same source because it doesn't suit you. Might I mention that the source in question is a tertiary source, while a secondary source like the aerodrome is considered more reliable? My source for that is the very reliable sources you referred to above. It says, "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources..." And in this case, the secondary source lists 32 victories by date, place, and type of enemy aircraft.

Ball's in your court. I am still open to being convinced. You just have not done it so far.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Claims (and counter claims)
There has been some lively discussion elsewhere on the number of victories (copied above) that we can attribute to Stan Dallas. I would like to place this discussion where it belongs, here on his biography talk page, and help broker agreement on how to present the figures. The article currently states 32 victories as authoritative, based on the book Above the Trenches by Shores and Frank, and the website The Aerodrome. There has also been the suggestion that 39 is correct, based on various items at the Australian War Memorial (here for example), and his Australian Dictionery of Biography entry, which also mentions that a figure as high as 50 has been advanced but says he only claimed 32 as "certain".

In the face of varying claims I agree with George Jorner that we have to ascribe the most authority to sources that list all the victories one by one, which so far are in Above the Trenches (I gather, as I don't have access to the book) and on The Aerodrome site. However, like Bryce Abraham, I believe we need to mention and cite the various higher claims as well. At this point I might mention that I treat Shores and Frank as authoritative, but we'd need to check what the Supplement to the original volume states, as there can be differences. I believe The Aerodrome is a useful site but without a citation for its list it cannot be treated as authoritative in itself.

As to other sources, Australian Fighter Aces (1999) by RAAF officer and historian A.D. Garrison states 39 but does not list them. Over the next few days I'll check out Dennis Newton's Australian Air Aces, which I also regard as authoritative as it contains victory lists of the highest-scoring Australian aces. Newton's book, for instance, lists Harry Cobby's 29 victories, including 24 aircraft and 5 balloons, as opposed to the oft-quoted 29 aircraft and 13 balloons. If you check what I wrote in the Cobby article, I give Newton's 29 in total as authoritative (confirmed by Above the Trenches), but also note and cite the 29 + 13 balloons for the simply reason that it's so often mentioned in otherwise highly reliable sources that it must be acknowledged in some way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Shores, Guest and Franks tome 'Above the Trenches' Dallas' score (page 132) is given as 1 captured, 15 destroyed, 15 and 1 shared 'out of control', for a total of 32. These are itemised and listed too. Franks on page 44 lists the RFC/RAF communiques, RFC/RAF combat reports, ORBs ( operational record books) and surviving Wing and Brigage records as primary sources. Owing to its reliance on primary MOD archives the book tends to be more accurate than most reliant on secondary works, so although never definitive I'd take the lower tally as more representative; Hope this helps Harryurz (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry, that's the same as what George reported - can I just confirm that the Supplement to Above the Trenches doesn't include any additional claims/numbers for Dallas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ian Rose and Harryuz for their volunteering to bring light to a subject that has rather tended toward heat.

I have refrained from reverting a changed listing in hopes we could have a definitive result. If--note I said IF--I were listing Stan Dallas at present, I would place him with 32 confirmed victories, and note in a footnote that he also has a disputed score of 39. That is the same method of listing used for other aces with disputed victory totals.

As it is, I think it best to leave the listing or relisting to one of you gentlemen.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, it occurs to me that the page that was causing dispute was not actually this one but List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories, however list entries and bios need to be consistent so I think we may as well keep the main thread of the discussion here - certainly better than on user talk pages. As I said earlier, I'll check a couple of other sources and report back here before I make any changes here or at the aces list page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked a few more sources as promised. George Odgers' Air Force Australia says 39, while Norman Franks' Sopwith Triplane Aces of World War 1 says 32, neither providing claim-by-claim analysis. The definitive one that I've reviewed personally is Dennis Newton's Australian Air Aces, which gives Dallas "a score of 32 (one captured, 15 destroyed, 15 out of control and one shared out of control) according to the latest research, although in most lists he is credited with 39". Newton goes on to say "it is possible that his score could be as high as 56". He then lists the 32 victories that appear beyond question (essentially the same as the list at The Aerodrome and presumably similar to what's in Shores et al's Above the Trenches). Interpersed with the 32, he notes another 11 claims that "some accounts" give Dallas.

The upshot of this is that I think for the list of aces we probably do need to say 32 (per Shores and Newton) with a footnote about 39 being a common attribution (cite Newton and Odgers) and as high as 56 being mentioned (cite Newton) - IF my reading of what's needed for consistency with other figures in the list is correct. For this bio, which I plan to expand soon now that I've got interested, it'll probably read something like "though Dallas' final tally for the war is often given as 39, and has been estimated as high as 56, detailed analyses of his victories credit him with 32, made up of one captured, 15 destroyed, 15 out of control, and one shared out of control. " Feedback welcomed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Most recent take on Dallas's victory list
As a result of the interest sparked within me by Abraham, B.S. (talk), I have further researched Dallas's combat records. Ian Rose (talk) and myself have compiled a provisional victory by victory list, which has been posted in the article. We are tweaking it into a still more definitive rendition. His total for confirmed victories has risen to exceed 40; with known unconfirmed victories added, the total rises into the 50s.

More important is the realization that Dallas was one of the great aerial leader/warriors in the realm of Boelcke, Mannock, and Richthofen.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo flipped?
A minor point but from the position of his ribbons, the main photo seems to have been laterally reversed.Flanker235 (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The original Australian War memorial shot has a couple of his mates - one on either side. They are both in army officers' tunics, as opposed to Dallas' double breasted naval coat. It is apparent from the way that their jackets do up that the picture HAS been flipped - the buttons on a man's jacket (coat, tunic) are on the right (checked my own to make sure). The medal ribbons, incidentally, seem to be on a pin rather than sewn on - as they are at an angle - and higher than they should be, but yes, they do of course belong on the left (HIS left, not ours). Incidentally, the lair has had an army captain's pips sewn onto his sleeves together with his naval lieutenant's rings, just a little earlier, that would have given a senior naval officer apoplexy (see Reach for the Sky). Finally - a right handed person would normally cross his arms the other way. Of course Dallas could have been left handed, but... So for what it's worth the picture needs re-flipping to get it right - although the original mistake was made at the War Memorial - presumably by taking a print from the negative while it was upside down. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have flipped it, for what it's worth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally - he WAS left handed - just crossing my own arms in front of the new version of the picture! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wonder if the AWM realises. Clearly it's not a major problem, except for the watermark. I did actually seek out the original and noticed one of the other subjects had his wings on the wrong side.Flanker235 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll mention it to them -- they've usually been pretty good when I've pointed out errors or inconsistencies in images/captions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The jacket buttons are the real give away - in the awm version they're all three of them ladies! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this was a long time ago but there was a comment about the position of his ribbons. As far as I know, the Royal Navy - and presumably, the RNAS - wore them a lot higher up on their tunic than did the other services, the RFC and the Army. Flanker235 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I had never realized one could figure out handedness by the way a person folds their arms. Then again, I am the product of a lefthanded father and a righthanded mother and still sorting things out in my old age. I can't claim to be ambidextrous because I am equally awkward with either hand!

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Caption for main picture
OK, so I did get a little bit carried away - a caption is a caption, not an article! But there is no way known that the Royal Navy would have let an Aussie lair stick ARMY rank pips on the sleeve of his Navy uniform coat. So inferring a date after the formation of the Royal Air Force is NOT speculation but common sense - just as much as putting the picture back the right way round was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, FWIW, I'm proud of your detective work too, but anything with "(!)" and "presumably" wouldn't last long around here anyway... ;-) Incidentally, the "c. 1918" was simply reflecting the date the AWM ascribed to the image, however I agree we can safely drop the "circa". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. 1 wing RNAS = No.1 squadron RNAS??
I think this should be "A Squadron, No. 1 Wing = No. 1 Squadron RNAS". Even in the RNAS a wing and a squadron were different size units, a wing having several squadrons. Hesitate to make this change, especially to an FA, without authority, is anyone in a position to check this? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, musicals,

As I recall, when the RNAS was originated, it organized some "wings" that were not several squadrons strong. Instead, "wing" then was used in the sense of a detachment. Later came squadrons, some of which were founded from the original "wings". Then after that, squadrons were grouped into actual wings in the usual sense. This identification of old RNAS units may take some sleuthing, me tuneful old friend.

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure Georgie - that's why I'm asking. If I was sure I'd have hopped in and changed it!! I has me doubts about the exact equivalence however. Early RNAS "squadrons" seem to have been identified with letters rather than numbers (thus "A squadron, no. 1 wing" for instance. A bit like flights in squadrons. At quite an early stage, however, there seems to have been a common system, similar to that still used in the RAF. (Note than an RAF "Wing" is equivalent to a USAF "Group" and vice versa, just to keep us all suitably amused). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hullo chaps... SoM, at least two sources we have, Garrison's Australian Fighter Aces and Shores' British and Empire Aces, both describe 1 Sqn RNAS as simply a renaming of 1 Wing, not a detachment of it or a renaming of its supposed "A Squadron". It may seem a bit odd, however at the early stage of the war we're talking about, I wouldn't expect the RNAS to have necessarily been following the rules of logic that we equate with subsequent RNAS (let alone RAF) organisation.  So I think that unless a reliable source can be found to negate those we have, the bit about the wing becoming a squadron can go back in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken it out yet Ian - just removed the "premature repetition" in the lead. Don't think it belongs there as well as in the main text whatever emerges as the facts of the matter. "A squadron" WAS a real unit, not "supposed" - which seems to indicate there may have been a "B" (or even, perhaps a "C") squadron, although I don't have a source for that. I have a feeling that No.1 wing did have a continued existence - in other words that No.1 squadron and No.1 Wing did both exist contemporaneously. No.1 squadron RNAS was not under any RNAS wing because it was actually administratively seconded to the RFC ("serving under RFC command") as part of an RFC wing. Still, as you hint here, we need to be able to "prove" this. Neither of the sources mentioned are necessarily that good on organisation of the RNAS (however good they may be about Dallas himself). After all - not what they are about. All the same - let's leave it there until a better source about the RNAS and its organisation can confirm (or otherwise). I was really just fishing for someone else to do something I may, or may not, find the time to do myself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Tell me Ian if this will do:

http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn201-205.htm

Air of Authority - A History of RAF Organisation -

The relevant section on 1 Squadron RNAS can be summarised as follows


 * 1 September 1914 - Formed at Antwerp
 * 14 October 1914 - Disbanded during retreat from Belgium
 * 17 October 1914 - Reformed at Gosport
 * 15 June 1915 - Reorganised as 1 Wing RNAS - divided into A and B squadrons
 * (A Squadron equiped with Nieuport fighters, B squadron with assorted bombers)


 * June 1916 - A Squadron, 1 Wing starts re-equipment with Sop Triplanes
 * December 1916 - fully equiped with triplanes, reverts to 1 Squadron RNAS
 * Jan 1917 - joins RFC No. 14 Wing in France

To summarise again, the sequence was:

1. Formed as No. 1 Squadron

2. Two squadron (A & B) No. 1 Wing formed from 1 Squadron

3. A Squadron renumbered No. 1 Squadron and joined No. 14 Wing RFC

This may require changes in the article on 207 squadron RAF - but honestly I think it is too complicated and (in context of an article that is after all about R.S.Dallas) too trivial to be mentioned in this article at all. In fact I think we should simply make a little excision of the incorrect information. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, like TheAerodrome, RafWeb is a great enthusiast's site, but being neither official nor professional it doesn't really cut it as a reliable source at FA level. It has extensive site bibliography but no direct citations for its info. I grant you the case it presents looks persuasive, but if you stack it against the word of Chris Shores, who's written some major works on air war... My question would be, if Dallas was in A Squadron, No. 1 Wing, why wouldn't Shores just say it? Well, anyway, if RafWeb's info is correct I'd just expect us to be able to find it in a book (history of RFC/RNAS/RAF squadrons for instance) that no-one could argue against. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Som and Ian,

It's too bad about TheAerodrome and RAFWeb. So far, as an offhand estimate of my experience, I have found them to have a slightly lower error rate in them than in hard copy texts. RAFWeb tends to have a more complete set of the facts than do relevant texts.

I am sorry I could not be more helpful with the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Rafweb account is logical (a squadron may well form the nucleus of a new wing - but for a wing to be contracted into a squadron is for all kinds of purely administrative reason far less likely - more likely is for it to be broken up into its component squadrons, and for these to be either disbanded, or asigned to other wings, as seems to have been the case here). The Rafweb account is highly circumstantial, going into close detail and giving specific dates (rather than brief, bald and vague) and it is on the topic concerned (i.e. on the administrative history of RAF units and their RFC/RNAS predecessors, rather than on another topic altogether but mentioning an isolated factoid in passing). The Rafweb account must (given the dates and detail) be in fact based on actual official documents. The only alternative is that it is based on pure bullshit, which I honestly doubt. I own several books by Shores, and he is an entertaining writer with a very good background in "air acehood" and related subjects whom I have cited more than once, but a "popular" writer rather than an academic source even on his own subject: and certainly not a first rate historical source on technical or general questions, especially on peripheral matters like this. His account is perfectly consistent with a less than perfectly remembered (or understood) version of the facts as presented in Rafweb anyway. Frankly, I am totally bemused by your reluctance to accept this - especially as it will be a matter of simply ommitting doubtful information, of very peripheral interest or relevance, and not one of adding information that will need to be cited. I will make the change - by all means revert if you think this adds to the value and accuracy of the article. A bit like the husky lady who extracted Albert Ball's broken body from the inverted wreck of a wood and wire aeroplane - she remains in place in the Ball article, much to its detriment, in spite of being an obvious myth. I can only try, alas. Life's too short to get overly stressed about things like this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done it (had a go at the article). I have been very careful not to directly contradict any fact previously presented, just to add the odd detail and clarification. For example the article already said that No. 1 Wing had two squadrons, one of fighters, another of bombers. I added the squadron designations (I suspect these ARE in fact mentioned in the sources cited - if they are not one could add a cite to Rafweb, an excellent source, albeit a web site!! in my opinion better than MANY books - or even just leave that information out, it isn't essential); and that the aircraft operated by the bomber squadron included Breguets (otherwise the little story about D's nickname that follows may be a little puzzling). For the rest I have been very minimalist in my changes. Please read them in context and thoughfully and give them a chance. I honestly believe they improve this already very good article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SoM, I agree with you on at least two points, "Life's too short to get overly stressed about things like this" and "just leave that information out, it isn't essential"... ;-) First off, my apologies because I find on another search that Franks' Nieuport Aces book in fact mentions No. 1 Wing's "A Squadron" becoming No. 1 (Naval) Squadron -- don't know how I missed that before, obviously I shouldn't have stopped at Garrison and Shores. However neither Franks nor other sources in the article go into further detail about the wing/squadron organisation, possibly because they don't consider it vital to Dallas' story. I realise your additions are careful but they go beyond what's in the existing sources and I don't see the point of introducing a new source whose reliability (for WP) can be challenged by anyone. I'm having a go now at simplifying so that it doesn't disagree with the current sources, nor with what can be inferred from elsewhere. I also find that one of the sources declares that he flew both Nieuports and Caudrons early on, which is more interesting than a bare statement about which types the wing operated. Lastly, the "Breguet" story came from a full-length bio that neither George nor I have access to now, so we can't re-check that it referred to the wing's CO rather than the squadron's CO -- I think it should be left as it was because I trust that George related the tale accurately, however in deference to your edit I'm "generalising" that bit as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rightio - fair compromise - especially as we are on the edges of relevance anyway - although I still wouldn't class Shores (in particular) as necessarily a better source than Rafweb. In fact (having a good hard look at it) Rafweb is probably the very best source we have access to anywhere on its precise subject. I take your point about websites and books (all other things being equal) but there are lots of really dreadful books, and some really great websites. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to translate good Australian into Pommy or Septic!
In any case the word "station" in this context would translate as "ranch" rather than "locality". A quiet chuckle here, but seriously, we are supposed to "respect" different varieties of English. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)