Talk:The Few

message: Would it not be good to find those names in "List of World War II aces from the United Kingdom" who were among "The Few" and display that list here, or have a list of "The Few"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SamBlob (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think so, seeing as though a fair number of "The Few" were not British but were rather from countries like New Zealand, Australia, Poland and South Africa. So adding only those from the list of British aces would present a skewed and inaccurate picture. It would also be needless duplication of the lists that already exist, while also being difficult to verify and a considerable research task. Are we absolutely certain of the names of each and every pilot in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain? It also arguably does not add much of encyclopaedic value to the article, so resources are probably better spent pursuing other, more useful, information? — Impi 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If lists of The Few already exist, then perhaps links should be added to some of them? Respectfully, SamBlob 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

message: The article mentions the Battle occuring between 10 July and 31 October 1940; this was in actual fact the dates decided by the RAF between which any aircrew flying a fighter operation could qualify for the Battle of Britain clasp. Other historians - including German- have differing opinions on when the battle started and (particularly) when it finished. A small point perhaps, but it would make the article that more accurate if this was mentioned.Harryurz (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue of when to "date" the Battle was previously discussed. Any add-on to the "leade" could be made with proper citations, of course. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since by definition here we're talking about those on the British side, it makes sense to use the British dates.  Anyone who fought solely outside those dates isn't counted as one of The Few, by definition.  Maybe this could be clarified though.  David Underdown (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Battle of Britain 'Dates' 

message: Looking at the aces 'scores' table and the verification reference given, am I alone in feeling some concern that the reference link is to a website that contains no verification to actual documentation, publications or records? Comparison with the tome 'Aces High' by Shores & Williams ( the accepted Bible in the case of RAF aces) throws up immediate anomalies in totals pilots claimed between the accepted dates of the Battle, and as they are derived from verified primary sources (ie RAF records) should form a more accurate picture of the claims and totals of the B of B aces than the table given. What are other people's opinions? If all are agreed I can transpose the more accurate data, but I don't want to kick off a war of words! Thanks Harryurz (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ace's score table and its reference 

message: A recent edit involved major changes. Please describe the reasons for the edit here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to the article should be addressed here first

message: I think the section about a Hollywood film really needs to be updated or removed from the article. The story was back in 2003, it's now 2012. Since then no such film has ever been made. Wolcott (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Hi. Just noticed that A G Lewis isn't in your list of the ace in a day names - he shot down 6 on 27 Sept - surely that qualifies? Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ace in a day 

message: Today the concept of the "Few" who won the Battle of Britain is largely seen as a historical inaccuracy seeing as RAF had more aeroplanes than the Luftwaffe and an almost equal number of pilots. Should this page be shown to reflect this? (165.120.240.205 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where you get this idea from, please read the article, the "Few" has nothing to do with the number of pilots or aircraft, please read the original quote, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Few" is a myth 

message: The 14 September 1942 picture of Dowding with some of the Few, if you click on it, has a caption containing a rather grave sexist mistake. Section Officer (not 'Flight Officer') E C Henderson MM, standing next to Dowding, is blandly referred to as 'an aide'. Dowding had retired from the RAF by then -- hence the bowler hat -- and did not have military ADCs. In fact Elspeth Henderson is present as one of the Few herself. During the heavy raids on Biggin Hill, 30 August to 1 September 1940, as Corporal Henderson, she continued to man and operate the station switchboard, maintaining contact with 11 Group, despite at one point a direct hit on the ops room where she was working. She also dug a number of WAAF colleagues out of a collapsed air-raid shelter in which they had been buried alive. She later said it was the engineers who did all the work to keep the station in touch with the outside world, but the station commander disagreed. Along with Sergeants Helen Turner and Joan Mortimer, she was awarded the Military Medal for 'courage and example of a high order.' Only six MMs were awarded to WAAF personnel during the war, half of them to those Biggin Hill girls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1527548/Elspeth-Green.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/raf-heroine-mans-medal-courageous-1066376
Although Henderson (later Mrs Elspeth Green) may not now be as famous as some of the pilots in the picture (Max Aitken, Sailor Malan, Al Deere, Richard Hillary), she was distinctly famous in 1942 when the picture was taken. Later in life she was always an honoured guest at the annual memorial service for Dowding at Moffat. Henderson Grove, in the modern housing development on the site of Biggin Hill, is still named after her. For a better idea of how she looked when young, see Dame Laura Knight's striking double portrait of her with Sgt Turner, painted in 1941.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/443041682076772069/
Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: "The remainder were not British, many coming from parts of the British Empire (particularly New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and South Africa), as well as exiles from many conquered European nations, particularly from Poland and Czechoslovakia. Other countries supplying smaller numbers included Belgium, France, Ireland, and the United States."
Perhaps my understanding of World War II is a little rusty, but weren't Belgium and France among the conquered nations? --The Vital One (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The main distinction is between larger and smaller numbers, not whether they were conquered. (Hohum @) 15:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquered Nations 

message: The RAF was almost as large as the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. In any case we now know Hitler never intended to attempt an invasion of the UK. The German High Command began preparing for Barbarossa in July 1940. (86.132.175.178 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Few" (airmen) is contrasted to the "many" (entire population of the UK), in the speech. It is not a comparison of the size of the RAF to the Luftwaffe. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM. (Hohum @) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Few" is just propaganda 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :The Few's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
From 2019 in England: 
From Australia: 
From Czech Republic: 
From Poland: 
From Winston Churchill: James 1970, pp. 265–66
From 2019 in the United Kingdom: 
From British Empire: Porter, p. 8.
From Maurice Mounsdon: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:The Few]]