Talk:Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

SYSTEMATICAL ATTACK ON CIVILIANS

This britsh area bombing directive nr. 42 lead to a systimatical attacking of the geman civil populatiuon. the british attacks were concentrated on workingclass quarters and midivael citycenters. The goal was pure terror against civilians. The amount of civilian loses were enormous. In Hamburg (55.000 dead, in Dresden betwenn 25.000 and 35.000 dead, in Pforzheim 20.277 dead ,31,4 % of all inhabitants, in Darmstadt 12.500 dead, 66.000 homeless out of former 110.000 inhabitants, Kassel 10.000 dead, Heilbronn 6500 dead, Würzburg 8500 dead etc. Churcill, Harris, Lindmann and many other bristish politicians and military personell was not sentenced for his warcrimes after the war.--Kastorius 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with Trenchard? -- Necrothesp 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the listed bombing raids were made in response to similar German raids, but this really does have very little to do with Trenchard.--86.135.32.176 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Trenchard wasn't directly involved in the bombing policies implemented by Allied air forces during WW.II. However, he had been a forceful advocate of strategic bombing as an instrument of war and it was largely due to his influence that this philosophy was established within the Royal Air Force, during it's formative years. Perhaps that should be noted in the main article. --J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.235 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Flying school and wings

The following comments have been copied from my talk page:

I have read the German article Hugh Trenchard, it is very rudimentary and misses a lot of material. There is nothing about his time in africa, almost nothing about pre-wwi, little about wwi and not enough about WWII. Also it lacks the more important boxes at the end of the article. In the english article under subchapter "Flying School" we should clarify under which circumstances Trenchard earned his wings. Ralph Barker writes in his book that it was only possible for him to do it before he was 40 years because he was helped by a friend who was with him in Africa who then worked at the flying school. Also a friend of mine who is in the RAF has found it very doubious how he could accomplish to earn his before he got 40. He thinks that Trenchard had signed the papers probably by himself. Is there any explicit mention in the Andrew Boyle source about this incident? I dont have this book in my library. Outstanding work on the english article so far. Greetings --Panth (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have responded here:

Boyle goes into some detail on Trenchard's time at the Central Flying School (pp 100 to 114) but does not mention how he earned his wings exactly. Boyle notes that he was appointed school examiner and points out the irony of this (presumably in light of Trenchard's educational difficulties). The http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Trenchard.htm page, does mention how Trenchard earned his wings and I have included it in the article. As regards the age of 40, Boyle implies (p 96) that Trenchard needed to get his civilian aero certificate and enroll at the CFS before 40, not complete his course / get his wings. Greenshed (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There should be no new information (and therefore no refs) in the lead; instead, the lead should be simply a summary of the entire article. Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • There are a lot of short paragraphs in many of the sections. Paragraphs that consist of only one or two sentences (and in many cases three) should be combined with other paragraphs unless there is a very compelling reason to leave them separate. Probably addressed - further suggestions welcome. Greenshed (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
   • The term "Bibliography" is generally reserved for use as a heading for a list that contains works written by the subject of the article. Would it be possible to rename this section "References"? Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Due to these MOS issues and the referencing issues below, I have not completed a thorough evaluation of the prose. This will be done on a second run through of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Book references should be consistent - have all of them in short format, or none of them. In this case, I would suggest going with all, since having the Boyle reference information repeated 100 times or so in the notes would get really old really quick.

   • Because the format of the refs you already have is linked author and publication date, page number(s), this is probably what you should stick with. The big thing is consistency. Other ways to do it include author, title, page number or author, date if more than one book for the author, page range. I would say stick with what you already have, just make sure everything is consistent.

   • Are you saying that even in the case when a source is not cheifly about Trenchard and is referenced only once or twice, if using the short footnote style (which we both favour for Boyle), it should appear in the "References" section as a full length reference? I am not trying to be contentious - it's just that I have always found the layout options in this vital aspect of the WP hard to understand. Greenshed (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • I know that some of these things can get a little complicated. The basic issue here is consistency. If you want to have one book using the short ref/full ref format, you need to have all of them that way. Same for journal refs, web refs, etc. Wikipedia doesn't really care how you do your references, they just want them to be consistent within each article. Does this help? Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Er... so is that a "yes" or a "no" to my preceeding question? (I don't mind converting all the refs to that style if that's the way to go but would hate to spend lots of time on formatting only to undo it). I have tried to do ref 141 as an example of what I mean - however the cite web template does not seem to support the ref parameter in the way that the cite book template does.Greenshed (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Fixed the last point with cite tags. Essentially, my remaining question is "is it ok to have every ref like 141"? Greenshed (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Whoops, hold up a second, I guess I complicated the subject by bringing up web refs. OK, how's this: Your web/journal refs are fine as is (well, not 141, but everything else). The book refs are what I'm concerned about. They should all be short format, like the Boyle ref. More or less confusing?

   • Slightly less confusing but I'm not there yet. Am I right in saying that all book footnotes must be converted to short refs with a corresponding entry in the References section (even if the book is not really about Trenchard and just mentions him once or twice - eg ref 95 Pelling) and that no web refs should be converted to short refs with corresponding entries in the References section even if they are wholly about Trenchard (eg. 11 ff Barrass)? Greenshed (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Precisely. The "References" section is not there to make a list of all of the works that are purely about the article's subject. It is there to make it easier to read the "Notes" section when you have a bunch of notes from the same book, e.g. Boyle. However, due to WP's insistence on consistency throughout your footnoting, if you have one book that is split between the notes and the references, all of the books must be split between the notes and the references. Dana boomer (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   • As you can see I am working on implementing this. I am not likely to get much time between now and Wednesday evening when I will carry on. I feel bound to say that "WP's insistence on consistency" leads to poor results in this case, although I do appreciate the need to follow the "house style". We have ended up with a situation which neither has the consistency of short refs throughout nor the logic of only using short refs for works which are cited multiple times. The distinction between a book and a web resource is already something of a nice one and is likely to become increasingly blurred in the future. Greenshed (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. • Page ranges should be shown with an endash (–), not a "to" Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • All web references need to have access dates (see #101), and they need to be formatted the same way (see #131). Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • All web references need to have a publisher; several have works info but no publisher (see #135, 136) Generally Addressed. However in the case of what is currently ref no. 135 I don't believe that there is a publisher per se. Also Template:Cite web lists the publisher as an optional parameter. Greenshed (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

   • For #135, both the author and the publisher would be Darryl Lundy, per information on the website's home page. While publisher is an optional parameter in the citeweb template, it is required for GA status, and especially for FA status, if you plan to take the article that far. Addressed Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Refs are needed in the following areas of the article:

   • Early life section: paragraph 3, the last sentence of paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 Addressed Greenshed (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Commander of the RFC section: the last sentence of paragraph 1 (which, to be honest, I'm not even sure is relevant) Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Commander of the IAF section: the last sentence of paragraph 1 'Addressed Greenshed (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Later years as Chief of the Air Staff: the last sentence of the last paragraph Addressed Greenshed (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Metropolitan Police Commissioner: the last sentence of the fourth paragraph Addressed. Greenshed (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Legacy: paragraph 1 Addressed.Greenshed (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Is there a reason that there are some books in the references section that are not used for in-line cites, for example the Allen book? Also, what are the number ranges given for the last two refs. If these are page numbers, they should be given in the in-line short cites, not the full cites.

   • The Allen book is only partly about Trenchard and is more about the development of the RAF in the early / mid 20th century from a fighter pilot's perspective. In my view, it offers only a few additional points of interest to this article beyond what Boyle provides in his definative biography on Trenchard. I can add a little to the "Legacy" section if that would meet your concern. Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
   • Lyall and Probert's books both contain information on many military leaders. The page ranges in those books refer to the sections relevent to Trenchard. In-line citations generally have narrower scope. Do you want the (useful) page ranges deleted? Greenshed (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   • OK, here's my basic thought process: Books that are in the references section are generally explicitly used as references, in other words, they're connected to in-line cites. Books on the topic that are not used as references for the article are generally listed in a "Further reading" section. They might not be used in the article for a variety of reasons - too much (or too little detail) on the subject, information that is already covered by other references, or trivia that doesn't really belong in the article but is still interesting. In the case of a "Further reading" section, the relevant page ranges can be kept. In a "References" section, the page ranges should be in the in-line cites, and the page(s) should be where that exact tidbit of information can be found. Does this make sense?

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a nice article. There are some issues with referencing and MOS that I would like addressed, and so I am putting this article on hold. When this is complete (or almost complete) I will do a thorough evaluation of the prose to pick up any issues I see there. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question regarding the books in the above section, as well as adding another quibble I found in the references. Thank you for informing me of your upcoming hiatus, I will not take any action towards the article while you are gone. Because you are working on the article, I will probably begin the review of the prose while you are gone, and have some suggestions for you upon your return. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose

I'm currently working on a run-through of the prose, and will list the issues I find below. I'm not listing them above because it's already getting rather crowded and making another list of issues within the existing list would probably lead to things being missed. I've done a copy-edit of the entire article, fixing grammar, punctuation, etc. If you don't like something I've changed, feel free to re-work my edit! So, here goes on the things that I didn't change, but had questions on:

• Again, I'm going to harp on the short paragraphs. The entire article is sprinkled with them, and they make things look...choppy.
  • Probably addressed - further suggestions welcome. Greenshed (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Early life:
  • Third paragraph: what is a "cramming school"? Linked to Cram school (perhaps this shorter form is the Indian English version of cramming school?) for those who wish to know more. I think that most educated British readers would be familiar with the term "cramming school" or "crammer". Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Just remember that you can't always assume that your reader is an educated Brit. Although probably the ideal reader, they are most likely in the minority in reality!
  • Last paragraph: "finally scraped a pass", rather un-encyclopedic, although obviously true! Reworded (not obvious that he only just passed though). Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess I was meaning the "finally" part was obvious *grin*.
  • You refer to him as "Hugh" through most of this section, although later in the section (and for the rest of the article) you refer to him as "Trenchard". The last name is more encyclopedic, and for consistency's sake (I know, again with the consistency!) should be used throughout the article. Noted. Greenshed (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Early military career:
  • India subsection, last paragraph, "after Trenchard had rescued a rifle-shooting contest from disaster." What? Please either expand on this or cut it. Addressed? I'm not sure what you're after here. I have briefly clarified what the source of the difficulty was (will that do?). By itself the event was a mere footnote in Trenchard's life. However, to cut it would eliminate the reason why Elles granted Trenchard his extraordinary request. If his request had not been granted, Trenchard would have been stuck in India, not been shot and his life may well have turned out somewhat differently. Greenshed (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, this works. I was trying to figure out why it was possible for a rifle-shooting contest to be a disaster. The "poorly planned" wording addition helps!
• Medical treatment and convalescence:
  • First paragraph: "half-paralysed in his legs" What does this mean? Was he paralyzed in one leg, or could he move muscles in his upper legs, or something different?
    • Boyle writes "half-paralysed from the waist downwards", Probert writes "partly paralysed", Lyall writes "partly paralysed in the legs by some unidentifed spinal damage". I've gone for "suffering from partial paralysis below the waist". Greenshed (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, this works for me.
  • Third paragraph: "that his spine was jolted back into line," I thought that doctors thought the bullet had grazed his spine? Or was it just out of alignment? It seems weird (although I'm not a doctor) that a thrown-out back could cause paralysis.
    • Orange writes "a heavy fall shook his spine back into place, enabling him to walk freely once more", Boyle writes "something must have clicked back into place; he had cured himself by violence", Lyall writes "crashing on the Cresta Run - somehow readjusted his spine so that he could walk unaided again". As regards what the doctors thought, I think that it is safe so say that medical opinion was uncertain as to the particulars of Trenchard's condition. As "readjusted" is the most general of the terms used and given the uncertainty, it seems better to use this in perference to "jolted". Greenshed (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Plus, I've changed "grazed his spine" to "damaged his spine" - also slightly more general (given the uncertainty).Greenshed (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph: "Freshman and Novices' Cups" of what? St. Moritz Tobogganing Club. Greenshed (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• England and Ireland:
  • "took to involving himself in the details of other officers' duties which created some friction." Could this be expanded? This section is a little short anyway. Addressed. attempted to re-organize his fellow officers' administrative procedures. Greenshed (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• World War I:
  • Officer Commanding the Military Wing subsection: last paragraph - why was command taken away from Trenchard? Because of the re-org. Greenshed (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Commander of the First Wing subsection: last paragraph - you switch between talking about multiple offensives and an offensive (singular). Please clarify. Addressed. There were two. Greenshed (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Commander of the Royal Flying Corps subsection: next to last paragraph, you say "resulted in the destruction of the Flying Corps." Is "destruction" meaning that they were almost wiped out by German fighters, or that they were going to be disbanded by the government, or that they couldn't be replaced fast enough and so were almost destroyed by attrition (which I guess is a rewording of the first possibility)?
    • I have made a minor rewording - hopefully you will feel that this conveys the sense of destruction by attrition. Greenshed (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Between the Wars:
  • Establishing the RAF and the struggle for survival subsection: first paragraph - why "around 28 squadrons"? Were they not sure?
    • It seems highly unlikely that the Air Ministry did not know how many sqns exisited at the end of the demob. However, I recollect reading a number other than 28 somewhere (I suppose I need to find this source). It may be that there ended up being a difference between the planned reductions and the actual reductions achieved. I will see what I can find. Greenshed (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Establishing the RAF and the struggle for survival subsection: second paragraph - "scheme which provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew for over 70 years." Is it not in operation today?
    • No, it's not. How would you suggest that this is clarified? Greenshed (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • maybe something along the lines of "Later, Trenchard inaugurated the Aircraft Apprentice program which provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew between 1920 and 1990, when it was disbanded due to [whatever]". It's your call, though.
        • Well I don't exactly know why it was disbanded (possibly because the idea of apprenticeships was see as old-fashioned in the early 1990s), but the link to Aircraft Apprentice gives further details. At any rate I don't see that the reason why the scheme was discontinued, nearly 40 years after Trenchard's death, has very much to do with Trenchard himself (such details would be better in the Aircraft Apprentice article). The only reason I put the "over 70 years" comment in this article was to show the decision of Trenchard to set up the scheme had a very long-lasting effect. My feeling is that it is ok as it is but I could be persuaded to go for "...provided the RAF with specialist groundcrew from 1920 to 1993.". Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Your reasoning has persuaded me. I can now see why you have it the way it is, and it's fine to leave it that way.

I have finished the copyedit of the article. I've found a couple more prose issues, which I've added to the list above. When these items are completed (as well as the remaining ones in the main review above), this article will easily pass for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you have put into this. Sadly I am a bid short of Wikipedia editing time over the next few days but I might be able to find a few hours at the weekend. I intend to keep editing every day, even if only briefly, in order to work through your points. Is there a deadline for "on hold" articles? Greenshed (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken another look through the article, and everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Thank you for the great work you've done over the past couple of weeks, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of capitals on awards

There has recently been a bit of reverting regarding whether orders of chivalry should be capitalized or not. My view is that:

• "...saw Trenchard made a knight commander of the Order of the Bath and..." is correct and that:
• "...saw Trenchard made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and..." is wrong.

Essentially, it's all to do with proper nouns. In the above sentence, "knight commander" is not a proper noun and so does not receive capitals. The Order of the Bath is a proper noun and so is capitalized in both cases. When a title is directly attached to a person then it becomes part of that person's name and so is a proper noun, otherwise it is not. Eg. "Commander McDougal is a doctor" (correct), doctor McDougal is a Commander (incorrect on both counts). Greenshed (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, due to the fact that in the Order of the Bath the level of knight commander when used in its entirety is "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" a full title and a full honour; requring capitals. In the case of this article it should be "...saw Trenchard made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. The whole thing is the honour and the title, not just a section of it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But, generally, why should any honour be given initial capitals unless it is a proper noun? So we do not write that "Smith was given a Purple Ribbon". In the case of the Order of the Bath, the order is a proper noun as so always receives initial capitals. Greenshed (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They are given initial capitials as they are proper nouns. You do not say someone was awarded the victoria cross or made a companion of the order of st michael and st george, but Victoria Cross and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George as they are official decorations and require capitals. As I stated above, the full title and honour in this case is "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" in one; it is not split into sections. See Order of the Bath. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Victoria Cross" (treated as a class of award, not as an individual medal) the and the "Order of St Michael and St George" are proper nouns because they describe unique entities. A "recipient" of the Victoria Cross or a "companion" of the Order of St Michael and St George are not unique entities as there are many such recipients and companions.Greenshed (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the Victoria Cross being a class of award, as it is an individual medal, but regardless of what you or I think, if one is to view the page on the Order of the Bath one would find that "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" is one single honour and emplements capitals, as does it in other orders specified on their acticles and the acticle Knight Commander. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that we both agree that "Victoria Cross", "George Cross" etc should receive capitals. This is because by convention in English we write "Jones won the Victoria Cross" (note use of the definite article). I would argue that if the convention were to say "Jones won a victoria cross" (note use of the indefinite article), then "victoria cross" would not be capitalized is it would refer to an individual medal not to the Victoria Cross as a single entity. However, this is not the case and so the question does not arise. As regards this article, if we were to write "Trenchard was appointed the Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" then I would be in favour of capitalizing "Knight Commander". However, by convention we do not treat "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" as a single honour (there are many such knights commander and we write "a knight commander" accordingly). As to content in other articles, this may or may not be correct - I didn't see any citations on this specific question - do you know of any? Greenshed (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Beatty and Trenchard

The recent addition to the article, cited from Lambert, Andrew - Admirals: The Naval Commanders Who Made Britain Great (2008):

"Trenchard promised Beatty that control over naval aviation would gradually return to the Admiralty and Beatty took him at his word as a gentleman. It was only later that he realised that Trenchard had no intention of doing so and had acted in 'bad faith'"

is at odds with the other sources (Boyle et al) which make it clear that Trenchard argued directly with Beatty, making plain his view that, in principle, the air force should control all forms of military aviation. It seems unlikely (verging on the contradictory) that having put this point across, Trenchard would then immediately promise that that control over naval aviation would gradually return to the Admiralty. It also seems unlikely that Beatty would have accepted an argument which ran along the line of "you let me have all the aircraft and later I will let you have some of them back". Are there any other sources which back up Lambert? How much detail does Lambert go into on the Beatty - Trenchard exchanges? Generally, I suspect that Lambert is not correct on this point and that he makes the point to back up his anti-RAF view. Greenshed (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at Lambert, I have noted that he does not write that Trenchard offered Beatty the return of naval aviators or aircraft. I have reworked the article accordingly. Greenshed (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Helping the Japanese

Trenchard received an Order_of_the_Sacred_Treasure from Japan in 1921. Does anyone know why he received this? If he got it for helping the Japanese, and why would they give him a medal if he didn't, it could have been some of his reason for being so dissatisfied with his part in WWII. --68.44.13.238 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Chezzo Osman

Given that I can find no evidence of Trenchard even visiting Japan, I suspect that the award was a matter of protocol (note that Sir Frederick Sykes was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Second Class). Great Britain and Japan were allies in WW1 and, in 1921, Trenchard was the professional head of the Royal Air Force, the junior branch of the British Armed Forces. This award along with several others was probably part of Japan's recognition of their allience with Great Britain. However, Japanese army aviation was organized into a separate chain of command within the Japanese Ministry of War in 1919 and surplace British aircraft were accquired. If you can find any evidence that Trenchard assisted the Japanese then that would be most interesting. Greenshed (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Swiss therapy-by-bobsled

Some similarities with Eddy V. Rickenbacker's biography, including age at death, caught my eye. Both having gone to the Alps, both recovering full use of legs after bobsleighing there, apparently point toward myth-making, and-or biography borrowing/elision in the public mind. This doesn't detract from the achievements of either aviation pioneer. Rickenbacker's definition of success(loss of interest/numbness to compliments, money, and publicity)is especially telling about the fellow. -Matthew Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.211.236.131 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New biography

Apprently Dr. William Sheehan is writing a new biography on Trenchard (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Sheehan/e/B001JOYT1C). This could well be of use in improving the article. Greenshed (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080806113118/http://www.rafweb.org/Cmd_O3.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Cmd_O3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201150011/http://www.angloboerwar.com/Other/shipping/190012.htm to http://www.angloboerwar.com/Other/shipping/190012.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508122137/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2016%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Air%20Leadership%20in%20War.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/documents/Journal%2016%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Air%20Leadership%20in%20War.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501074202/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1914_3.cfm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1914_3.cfm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/TrenchardFatherOfTheRaf.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/historyandhonour/trenchardfatheroftheraf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319005630/http://www.dsfc.ac.uk/Welbexian/Welbexian_2005.pdf to http://www.dsfc.ac.uk/Welbexian/Welbexian_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803171742/http://defence-data.com/features/fpage41.htm to http://defence-data.com/features/fpage41.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/TrenchardFatherOfTheRaf.htm to http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/historyandhonour/trenchardfatheroftheraf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Febrile political atmosphere in April 1918

Hello, just flicking through this article apropos of some work I'm doing on the politician Sir John Simon who worked for Trenchard in WW1. It might be worth commenting that Trenchard's falling out with Rothermere came at an absolutely febrile time amidst much mutual recrimination for the near-disaster of March-April 1918, culminating in the Maurice Debate. Northcliffe and Rothermere had been thorns in the government's flesh earlier in the war, but by this stage Lloyd George had "bought" them with political appointments, so the opposition had migrated to the "Morning Post"; there were some moves towards and attempted government press clampdown. Lloyd George's fears that elements in the military were plotting to bring down the government were exaggerated but not entirely without foundation - there is no doubt "Wully" conspired with Frederick Maurice to try to cause the government political difficulties. I don't really want to edit the article as I'm not an RAF specialist and I don't want to clog it up with endless more stuff. It might be interesting to know the degree, if there is any evidence, to which Trenchard was in touch with others.Paulturtle (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the situation in the Air Force at this time with Trenchard (and also the resignation of Sir David Henderson) is directly relevant to The Maurice Debate. It certainly seems to have played into the febrile nature of moment though. Perhaps there might usefully be a separate article on the Foundation of the Royal Air Force which could cover this. I'm at bit busy at the moment but it might be interesting to create such an article in time for the 100th anniversary of the creation of the RAF next year. As to your specific question, Miller's recent biography of Trenchard says that although "Wully" and Trenchard were not close, Trenchard nonetheless sought advice from the recently deposed CIGS when he himself was thinking of resigning. Robertson heard Trenchard's complaints but told him to do what seemed right according to his conscience (Miller, Boom, pp. 197, 198). Greenshed (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. For what it's worth I was just today preparing some material on the Maurice Debate ...Paulturtle (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rhf.org.uk/Books/BUCHAN'S.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224125029/http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2004/0204trench.asp to http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2004/0204trench.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

British English with Oxford spelling

This article was written in British English with Oxford spelling. User:Juanpumpchump wants to change this (see the user's edits in the article's edit history). MOS:RETAIN states that "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." Greenshed (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you obviously feel that strong about the subject then lets leave it there and no need for any edit war etc.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)