Talk:Eric Lock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

A fact from Eric Lock appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 January 2008.

[edit] 2.5 in November 1940?

I can't find a reasonable explanation for the half kill. What does it mean?

In the table, we have "November 1940 Royal Air Force Spitfire 2.5 * unknown". According to the table, that would be kill number 20 (a Bf109 shot down in October according to the text?!?) and then 1.5 more. The next line in the table referes to the incident in the section "Shot down".

So what's true here, and what's the 0.5 about?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking a general question about how people receive credit for a half-kill? I don't know the specifics of this instance but basically it means you and somebody else were credited with shooting down the same enemy aircraft. There have been people ending up with quarter scores, like Australia's Bobby Gibbes who finished the war with a score of 10.25, which implies he was one of four people to have shared in the same kill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is that information present in en.wikipedia? If so, can we find a nice way of linking to it?

There is another issue in my question, though: There seems to be an inconsistency between the count of the kills in the article and in the table, as e.g. kill number 20 isn't the same.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top scorer in Battle of Britain

Page 402 of Aces High- C.Shores & C.Williams (Grub Street , 1994) specifically lists all of Lock's claims, derived from the archived RAF combat reports (forms 540 and 541), logbooks and squadron summaries. If my maths doesn't fail me his claims within the accepted period of the Battle of Britain i.e -10th July 1940 to 31st october 1940- is in fact 21.

There is no other pilot within this acknowledged reference work with more claims in this period - I've checked. Irrespective of what has been published in other accounts, this is a suitably referenced source consistent with Wikipedia requirements , and therefore I respectfully request that the claim total revised and submitted into the entry. Thanks Harryurz (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but such a score significantly rewrites the history of an important statistic in the battle and must be researched and referenced very carefully. To suddenly elevate Eric Lock to the highest scoring slot 68 years after the event must not be taken lightly. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With due respect I'm not sure I understand your reasoning; one can't 're-write a statistic'. Lock -according to information logged in the 1940 battles themselves, and published by Shores in 1994- was always the top-claiming pilot of Fighter Command in the specified period, even if it was not widely known. He hasn't been suddenly elevated though any desire on a historian's behalf to compromise accepted history, but to put the actual truth of the matter into the public domain. In my own humble opinion Eric Lock's combat record deserves full recognition in light of his acheivements, which ( like many combat pilots) have been forgotten for too long. Hope that answers your question, thanksHarryurz (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me Harryurz. Nobody will be more delighted than me if we can effectively make this change. I wrote this original article and researched the basic material and references. While living in Eric Lock Road, Bayston Hill back in the 1980s I visited Lock's elderly frail sister for tea and chats many times and looked at the original documents the family holds. I think he was a smashing little chap and will dance with joy if your figures can be confirmed and referenced properly. A large number of RAF histories will have to be amended as a result. No, all I was saying is we have to be absolutely sure that the 1994 figures Shores quote are accurate - that is crucial. My concerns were not for Lock's memory, they were for the accuracy and stature of Wikipedia.21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; as far as Shores is concerned I've also reviewed the Aces High Volume 2 'supplemental', published in 1999; Lock's claim list is validated (and his date of birth given as 19 April 1919.) I'm not sure where we go from here as far as further validation is concerned, as the RAF form 540s and 541s listed remain the primary source, archived at the MOD, and are Shores' reference material anyway. I agree alot of B Of B accounts seems to draw reference from each other and list Frantisek as the top scorer, ( tho one or two go with Lacey). I suspect the first account to list Frantisek calculated the claim tallies from othr sources, and this has been taken as 'gospel' ever since. It would be interesting to see when and who/where the older traditionally accepted listing came from. Incidentally i've also reviewed all the RAF top scorer's totals in the B Of B from the same volumes and am thinking about posting on the B of B article, although it will probably cause an edit war!! Harryurz (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)