Talk:Roy Brown (RAF officer)

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that, while (as stated in the article) officially credited with shooting down Manfred von Richthofen, it is today generally believed that von Richthofen was hit by an anti-aircraft gunner from the ground.
^
Done. --Utotri 14:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: :Image:ArthurRoyBrown.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ArthurRoyBrown.jpg

message: Hello, all,
I submit the following in hopes of dousing the raging flame war that is taking place in Edit summaries of this article.
Roy Brown did fire upon the Red Baron, and so stated in his combat report. However, his original report did not claim a victory. Nevertheless, Brown was credited by the Royal Air Force with a victory over Manfred von Richthofen. One is reminded of the similarly controversial award by the German high command crediting Lothar von Richthofen with shooting down Albert Ball.
When questioned on the subject, Brown's response was "There is no point in me commenting, as the evidence is already out there". This is the response of an honorable man unwillingly placed in the midst of a controversial situation not of his own making.
Leaving the Red Baron controversy aside, Roy Brown is unquestionably a hero. A man with the moxie to twice win the Distinguished Service Order is obviously courageous.
The physical evidence of the Baron's death supports his death from ground fire. However, this is an after-the-fact determination; the immediate determination of the RAF was to award Brown the victory.
In short, there is no reason for this nationalistic flame warring because both sides are correct. That means there is no need for incivility and non-neutral points of view in the Edit summaries, both of which are offenses against the Wikipedia community at large.
Georgejdorner (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Red Baron controversy 

message: Victor in aerial combat over Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the First World War's leading fighter pilot and German national hero. Arthur Roy Brown was born at Carleton Place. In 1915 he qualified as a civilian pilot and was commissioned in the Royal Naval Air Service. In the thick of vicious air fighting in 1917-18 Brown is credited with at least 12 enemy planes earning the Distinguished Service Cross and Bar. Though the Canadian's downing of Richthofen was contested by Australian ground gunners, the official award was given to Captain Brown. Overcoming severe war injuries, he returned to civilian life and later organized an air transport company which served Northern Ontario and Quebec. 
: This does NOT belong in this article - since the very first sentence is simply not true. It is absolutely impossible that Brown shot Richtofen - as R was hit by by a bullet that must have caused virtually instant death - (both lungs and the heart were pierced by a tumbling .303" bullet - causing massive trauma - it would be difficult to imagine a more comprehensive "instant death" wound). But R. continued to fly with great skill - chasing May at very low altituse, for about two minutes after Brown fired at him. The implication is one about which there can not possibly be any doubt whatever - although controversy remains, there is in retrospect, and in full possession of the facts, no way that Brown could possibly have been "the victor in aerial combat over R.". Which "Australian Ground Gunner" hit him is pure surmise, of course, although this has not stopped various contradictory theories being raised over the last ninety three years.
: The fact that the R.A.F. credited Brown with the kill is not disputed. It is (for what it is worth) one of the first things we say in the lead - and it is also mentioned at least once in the main text. But this is really pretty meaningless.  The crediting of victories in aerial combat is a most inexact science. Mistakes are often made in crediting air victories - in fact it is by no means unknown for victories to be "awarded" when an aircraft has not even been shot down. In this case Brown shot at an aircraft, and it fell, with the pilot mortally wounded. Given that the officers who credited Brown with the victory had other things to do - and that so many Australians had shot at R. that the chances of sorting out which of them might have hit him would have taken someone the rest of the war (I mean we haven't sorted it out in more than ninety years!!!) - crediting Brown with the victory allowed his seniors to get on with winning the war. It also made a more "romantic" story - although shooting down a low flying 1918 vintage aircraft with a maximum speed a little over a hundred miles an hour was actually quite easy if you knew what you were doing, and many pilots were shot down by groundfire at this stage of the war, it was a bit of an anti-climax for someone like R. to be killed this way.
: Finally - the full text of the plaque is simply not a useful part of the article. One can very well imagine someone reading the text of the plaque wondering what on earth we have been talking about, and going away with the impression that we do in fact credit Brown with the victory, or at least that the plaque presents a feasible version of the facts. But the plaque is (as I said in my original edit summary) contra-factual. Even if it presented the facts as they are it would not be awfully notable - as it is it is irrelevant - mentioning its existence is plenty. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisiting this (in spite of promise I wouldn't) - the last sentence of the text of the plaque is also wrong - Brown's postwar career (see article) did not include the organisation of an "air transport company which served Northern Ontario and Quebec". This apparently stems from confusion between Brown and "Wop" May??? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaque 

message: Sorry - but with what is now known about the Red Baron's death (see above!!, also his own article) it is far from POV to hint that it is unlikely that a bullet from Brown's guns is what hit Richthofen - in fact this is if anything too kind. It was far from unreasonable of the RAF to credit him at the time, but only hopeless romanticism can still imagine that they were, in retrospect, correct. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No he didn't! 

message: or Canadian Aviation / Canadian Aviation (magazine)
* I know its : Copyright©2015. All Rights Reserved. I'm only writing that I've found a reference at this external link:
** Canadian Aviation Magazine, September 1938 - Bradbrooke, F.D.; Ritchey, V.J.; Keith, R.A- - www.rarenonfiction.com
--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  at the artícle [[Canadian Aviation]]. Better [[Canadian Aviation Magazine]]? 

message: "although it is in fact unlikely that Brown fired the bullet that caused his death." 
The prominence of this line colours the impression of the article. It should be moved down to the part about the death of the Red Baron. It is also not neutral; there are those who disagree. (Reference: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no1/who-qui-eng.asp) This line, presented in this way, makes it look like Captain Brown was trying to make a false claim. 
In the fog of war and history absolute determinations are not always possible. An encyclopaedia should just lay out the facts and people will believe what they want to believe. I don't know who fired the fatal shot and it doesn't really matter. But all the people involved should be treated with respect. Captain Brown attacked the Baron's plane and it was shot down. He was given the credit. His attack drove the Baron's plane over others who also shot at him. We can note that there is some doubt over who fired the fatal bullet, without making anyone look like a cheat or a pretender. Comments like, "although it is in fact unlikely that Brown fired the bullet that caused his death" are unnecessary. Captain Brown did not boast of the things he had to do. All of the combatants should be treated with respect.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.194.99 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a VERY old thread, with a single post by an editor who seems to have made no other edits. It appears however that some people are still obsessing about this one, so I am moving it to the bottom, and answering it. In fact this article is already as "neutral and tactful" as it could well be without giving credence to a popular idea that is simply not true. It is important it be in the lead, as it is the main fact that anyone consulting the article will be after. "Unlikely" should really be replaced by a stronger word or phrase, it is in fact quite impossible that Brown literally shot down "the baron". And this from someone who would (honestly) much prefer, If only because it would be more "romantic", to suppose he did. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let the article be neutral and tactful.