Talk:Roderic Dallas

message: 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)
thread_title:  15 what??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Claims (and counter claims)

message: 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)
thread_title: Most recent take on Dallas's victory list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have flipped it, for what it's worth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo flipped? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caption for main picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No need to translate good Australian into Pommy or Septic!