# Talk:Archie McKellar

I've changed the birth year and place. I presume "1922" was merely a slip, otherwise McKellar would have been commissioned at the age of 14. His family moved from Paisley to Bearsden after his birth. I've also changed the reference to the roll of honour. He is not commemorated on the Royal Air Forces Memorial at Runnymede because this is for RAF personnel whose graves are unknown, nor at Westminster Abbey because the roll of honour there is for those who died during the official period of the battle. There is an interesting, if slightly inaccurate account of McKellar's career at[1].Mabzilla (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, he missed the latter roll of honour by a mere two days (based on the dates in Wikipedia rather than the Milngavie Herald article).  Too bad they weren't willing/able to extend the official period a tad to accommodate him.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Or one day depending on which date in the article one accepts.  The article gives both November 1 and 2 as the date of his death---which date is correct?  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering he was the only British RAF pilot to achieve ace in a day status during the Battle of Britain, plus another 15 or 20 during the BOB, it is surely strange, indeed.Bugatti35racer (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Dapi89 undid my corrections, but I am not in error. The Ju 88 shot down on 17 October 1939 DID crash on land in the island of Hoy, Orkney, so I am right to correct the article to say that McKellar's victory was the first to be brought down by the RAF onto British soil, albeit the first to be brought down onto mainland Britain by any means since WWI. I can cite several sources, but one I have in my hand right now is the personal, unpublished 'scribbling' diary of Major-General Geoffrey Kemp, OC of OSDef (Orkney and Shetland Defences). He visits the crash site the following day. Here is part of his entry for the 17 October 1939:
"one plane down on Hoy... one man had jumped in parachute."
And the following day, 18 October:
"Went with T [Tuck] to Hoy to look at destroyed plane and collect information... Heather and peat still on fire round it. Bits scattered everywhere. Got a few identifications and found scattered remains of two bodies. Not nice."
In 'This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow' the author, W.S.Hewison, another eye witness, describes it thus:
'The Orkney gunners [226 Battery] engaged with all 8 4.5s... There is little doubt [that] the Orkney battery drew first blood although one of the destroyers also put in a claim. One of the bombers appeared to stagger slightly as shells burst around it,then, quite slowly it seemed, a wing dipped steeply, and trailing black smoke it plunged earthwards to crash on the banks of Pegal Burn in Hoy. Those of us at Stanger Head watched it go down..."
Also recorded in several primary sources I have copied from The National Archives(mostly unit diaries, including that of 226 HAA Battery itself).Fine Hid (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ju 88 shot down on the 16 October 1939 was the first on British territory.
It was also the first in British waters.
The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides.
According to my sources. Dapi89 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I still have to differ. Your sources are in error. As I have explained, my sources were eye witnesses, including the commanding officer of Orkney & Shetland Defences, Brig. (later Maj-Gen)G.C.Kemp himself, who visited the crash site the day after. I have numerous others I can send you - entries from War Diaries of units which also bore witness. Can supply images from those documents.
In your Talk above, you are saying the 16 Oct event "was the first on British territory", but that was into the sea - so here you are contradicting your own article, which quite rightly points out that it was the first in British waters - while you claim the one on the 28th was the first on British soil. Quite wrong.
As for this: "The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides." - if this refers to the downed aircraft in Orkney, perhaps you could show me on a map which 'river' flows through Orkney. How exactly would these 'parts' have washed ashore if the tides were 'shallow'? You've perhaps not experienced the tides in and around Orkney - some of the strongest and most turbulent currents in the world. Such powerful tides could have washed parts ashore, yes, but not while they were 'shallow'. Hard to see how these parts could have set fire to the heather by the side of the Pegal Burn as described by Kemp, as I quote above.
Furthermore, you say it is unacceptable to alter entries based on cited sources. Perhaps, unless the sources are deeply flawed, and by the citing of other, more reliable and contemporaneous accounts, can be shown to be so.
I won't revert to the correct version since you will just keep changing it back, but perhaps after consideration - and if I forward images from the unit War Diaries to you via email? - you might be convinced to concede.
This is such a well-known event in Orkney's wartime history. Maybe it is best if I just write a new article showing the evidence. I strongly recommend Hewison's "This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow", widely regarded as the best authority on Orkney's wartime history, written by a local man who served in Orkney during WWII, and witnessed the event. His and Kemp's version of events are backed up by other eye-witnesses.
Fine Hid (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a contradiction. Waters are territorial.
Eye witnesses are not always reliable. I've crossed swords with some veterans of the Normandy campaign who will swear blind that there was a Tiger tank lurking around every corner and they know best because they saw it. Only we know that there were no such units in the vicinity. Are these images dated??
I didn't say a river flowed through Orkney. I said it crashed into the sea. Parts can be washed inshore while tides are shallow; why not?
It could have set fire to land in shore: it depends how the aircraft reacted to being struck. Bits and pieces fly everywhere when at height and speed.
Well, you haven't made an attempt to add citations yet. So that is the basis of the reversal. If you were to, then obviously a compromise is on the cards. Please add them in the style already there.
Understand I'm not fighting a corner. Just the insisting on the supremacy of sources. Dapi89 (talk)
"The Ju 88 lost on 17 October 1939, crashed into the mouth of the river, and its parts were washed inshore thanks to the shallow tides."
Are these images dated? Yes, they are from diaries, as I quoted above. In Maj. Gen. Kemp's diary - he records the Ju 88 as coming down on Hoy on 17th, then visiting the still-burning crash site the following day, retrieves ID from the bodies, with one of his staff officers, Tuck.
Also mentioned in WO 166/1234 Orkney & Shetland Area & OSDef Diary:
"18 Oct : Brig. Kemp and Major Tuck inspected crashed German Plane and took identification of dead pilot and gunner."
I take your point that parts of the plane may have set fire to the heather. But it is clear from these accounts that the plane crashed on land, or at least the majority, with perhaps other fragments making it into the sea.
Another primary source (dare I say it again - another eye-witness) is Douglas Thomson's '226 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery 1939-1945: A personal account of the Caithness and Orkney Battery.' I don't know the original publication date of this book - although it is after 1984 - my copy is an undated reproduction by Herald Printshop, Kirkwall, of the original publication. Here's Thomson's version of events:
"Number one gun claimed a direct hit on the leading plane, a JU88 [sic]. It burst into flames passing over us at about 200 feet. One German airman was seen to get out of the plane. His parachute opened and he landed half a mile above our gunsite. Some spare gunners were ordered to get 303 rifles and capture the airman - they were warned he may be armed. This German was the first to be captured on British soil, so we did not know what to expect... He was a huge man, spoke good English saying, "Hitler shall be in Britain by Christmas!" The bomber crashed on the banks of Pegal Burn - the rest of the crew were all killed and our unit had the job of finding the bodies... The wreckage was searched and some of the documents were still intact. A chart of Scapa Flow was found and our two gunsites clearly marked showing their positions... There is now a lay-by and picnic site at the Pegal Burn. The Army erected a plinth in 1984 with the Royal Artillery badge to commemorate the shooting down of the first German plane to crash on British soil."
So that's the accounts of the Officer Commanding OSDef (Orkney & Shetland Defences) visiting the crash site on 18 Oct and recording it in his personal diary, the entries for the day it happened and the following day in WO 166/1234 Orkney & Shetland Area & OSDef Diary 1939-40,  an eye-witness account by a gunner from the battery that shot it down and the account by Hewison, another eye-witness, in 'This Great Harbour: Scapa Flow'.
I agree that eye-witness accounts can occasionally fly in the face of establishable fact. But I don't think this line-up of witnesses can be regarded as unreliable.
I am intrigued by the sources you cite. What exactly do they say about the event?
Fine Hid (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still keen to hear what your sources tell you. Meanwhile, while researching on another topic, I found another primary source referring to the plane coming down on Hoy. This is from WO 166/2055 OSDef Adjutant & Quartermaster Branch War Diary:
"17/10/39 Fair, wind light. 1020 Air Raid on Scapa Flow. H.M.S. "Iron Duke" bombed and damaged. One plane shot down and landed on Hoy."
Fine Hid (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Still VERY keen. Can you please tell me exactly what your sources say about the 17 October attack on Scapa Flow? Not worried anymore if you can't accept the eye-witness accounts and primary sources, but would like to hear more detail about the attack. Fine Hid (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Having studied this topic extensively, as well as having read Wikipedia's various guidelines for sources, I can say that most all accounts of this early period of the War dismiss the Oct. 17 incident in the outer isles as a plane crash.  No intent here to offend anybody.  Just because a ground unit was firing AA does not mean that they hit it.  In those early days there was no investigative units yet in existence to go inspect the wreckage and look for conclusive evidence the British ground unit's AA munitions brought it down.  A diary and personal accounts of the incident would mean nothing without an official inspection of the wreckage by an official inspection team--which did not yet exist.  Also, consider the confusion at the War Dept. concerning categorizing an enemy plane that crashed on the tides edge! Consider Archie MacKellar's first two kills during this period did not go to anybody involved because rules had not yet been set up about such things.  Had they occurred later, he and others involved would have gotten credit because enough pilot witnesses and watchers on ground, sea, that were not involved were present to backup the claims and convey the kills to those where credit was due; but at the time, once again, no rules.  The October 17 incident, and the various attacks going on around Scapa Flow, Scottish shipyards and towns, etc. are an important part of WW2 History.  They should be discussed.  Probably not here, on Archie's talk page, though. Although both the Oct 17 incident and the treatment of McKellar on (not on original) Roll of Honor do both show that odd complex the English have about themselves in regards to The Scots.Bugatti35racer (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archie McKellar/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've now completed a quick initial read of the article from start to final and it appears to be be well referenced, but I've not checked any of the references, nor carried out copyright checks, etc, for the two illustrations.
In general the article appears to be about GA-level, but I suspect some work will be needed to bring it up to standard, for instance I've corrected few spelling mistakes whilst reading through the article.
I'm now going to work my way through the article starting at the Early life and RAF career section and finishing with the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 

Early life and RAF career -
I have a question about the section title (well part of it): is this section really is about his RAF career (its certainly about his early life), or its it just a summary of (some of) his RAF career? For instance, some of the material is repeated later in the Second World War in more detail (such as 602 Squadron), but some is not; and some of the material that appears later is not summarised here (such as 605 Squadron, death, victories), so is it intended to be a summary/overview?
It wasn't intended as an overview. I can see what you mean. I think its sorted now. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph is unnecessarily vague:
it states "McKellar was born in Paisley, Renfrewshire, Scotland, the son of John and Margaret McKellar, of Bearsden, Dunbartonshire and was then educated at Shawlands Academy in the southside of Glasgow. .....", without stating when he was born. I know that is given in the infobox and in the lead, but both of those are "summaries" and neither should contain material that does not appear in the body of the article.
Better now? Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, he is only called "McKellar", as far as I can see, the body of the article does not give his Christian names at all.
Ok. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed it to Archibald Ashmore ("Archie") McKellar as that is what I was expecting to "see". Note: I was not really asking for "Archie" to be removed, just for it to be clarified - his full name was Archibald Ashmore McKellar. Pyrotec (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Scottish Flying Club is mentioned in so far as "He joined (it) ... and quickly acquired a pilot's licence" but no further details are given of how and why he was able to join it. I'd though that these details aught to be in the article as they are very relevant to the story.
There is limited info. None of the sources say anything about his motivation for joining it. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added some. It was based at Renfrew airfield, so Archie could have walked there and back from Paisley along the Renfrew Road. Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Much of the material in the final two paragraphs appears to be direct quotations. It's not shown in the article as direct quotations, but it is cited. If this is the case, then there are possible copyright violations to be considered and checked for.
Much of it was was. I've changed the wording. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done Much  better now. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Second World War -
602 Squadron -
Note: I fixed a typo and merged two "paragraphs" that were not really separate paragraphs.
I've raised a question about the purpose of the Early life and RAF career that needs to be resolved:
The first section has a paragraph "His flying skills earned him the attention of Lord Hamilton Air Officer Commanding (AOC) No. 602 Squadron AAF. In 1936 he was commissioned as a Pilot Officer and on 8 May 1938 was promoted to Flying Officer. The unit converted onto Spitfires in May 1939 and was deployed to RAF Grangemouth on 6 October 1939 and then to RAF Drem a month later.[5]" that is almost repeated here, but with twice as much detail, i.e.: "McKellar commissioned into the Auxiliary Air Force (AAF) as a Pilot Officer on 8 November 1936, joining No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron RAF.[9] Archie's comrades nicknamed him "Shrimp" owing to his short—Five foot three inch—stature.[10] Based at RAF Abbotsinch near Paisley, the squadron operated the Hawker Hind light bomber. The members of squadron—both pilots and ground staff—were reservists and completed their service on a part-time basis, in the evenings, weekends and an annual two–week summer camp. With the approach of war, the squadron converted to a fighter role and re-equipped with the Supermarine Spitfire. It mobilised on the outbreak of war at RAF Drem and was charged with defending Edinburgh and the shipping area around the Firth of Forth.".
The material that is in (what was original the second paragraph) the second half of the first paragraph (as I merged them) is unreferenced.
Sorted. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Shrimp item should be removed as not one single reference can be found after that one source--of calling him shrimp.  That was only at the very very beginning of his RAF career, and quickly eliminated from description of him.  His short stature was mentioned all along, but shrimp would have landed all but those few early friends on the shat list.Bugatti35racer (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
605 Squadron -
Looks OK.
Death -
Note: ref 33, links to the London Gazette and it described as pages 33-34. McKellar appears to be named on page 34, but the link goes to page 33, so it needs a minor tweak.
Done. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks OK.
List of victories -
The first sentence has a link to Alfred Price and a reference (36) linking to "Price 1996, p. 32". The Alfred Price in the wikilink died in 1907, so its mostly probably the wrong Alfred Price.
In the table, Victories 1 and 2 are unreferenced. Since they claim "First enemy aircraft shot down into British waters." and "First enemy aircraft to fall on British soil since 1918." they aught to be verifiable via a reference, or references.
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Victories 10–12 and 13 both have a DFC*[20], having read the article I assume that the "*" is to indicate a posthumous award, but I would have expected a note or comment in the table to explain their presence.
Done. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:Lead -
This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points given in the body of the article, as per WP:Lead, which in general it manages to achieve, although the lead is rather "thin". However:
The Lead states "In 1936, aged 24, he decided to seek adventure and joined the RAF and began pilot training.", well he might have joined the RAF to seek adventure but the Early life section makes in clear that he joined the Scottish Flying Club ..... (which is not mentioned in the Lead) .... and quickly acquired a pilot's licence. By the time he began his military career began, Archie was a very experienced pilot which .... and this appears to contradict what is in the Lead, but it might just be a problem of "interpretation".
His time in 602 Squadron gets half as much text as that given to 605 Squadron and almost as much as his death does in the body of the article, but 602 Squadron does not get a mention by name.
His time with the RAF in Scotland is somewhat dismissively referred to as "over Northern Britain".
Better? Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". The article should have GA-status by the end of this review, but there are a few minor points that need to be addressed before then. Pyrotec (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Having reviewed the changes made to the article since it was placed "On Hold", I'm now satisfied that the article is compliant, so I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on achieving  GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been an awful lot of poor editing since June. I've taken it all out. No citations for some things, other information and citations changed. Google books linked from inadequate sources and badly written prose & presentation. Dapi89 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Dapi89 has been citing claimed minor errors of references, etc. as an excuse to eliminate vast expanses of this article repeatedly over years.  If Dapi89 wishes to eliminate something with no reference he can do it, one at a time so merits of each can be examined,  but not by his slash and burn editing style to make his Nazi hero's appear great by making each anti-nazi hero appear as a "lucky amateur"
which is his stated intent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugatti35racer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)