Trivia
Can't we just get rid of the Trivia section, which seems to be a magnet for -- well, trivia, most recently the false assertion that AVG veterans created the Hell's Angels motorcycle group. Why mention a Chinese police squad and not, say, the current Flying Tigers helicopter and Warthog squadrons, or the radio-controlled model club? If Panda Bears etc are worth mentioning, why not "English" the entry and put it in the body of the article? --Cubdriver 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Later: right! Another addition that made me cringe, so I deleted the section. It is obviously a magnet for bits of nonsense. If any of these items seriously belong in the article, then they should be placed at a logical place in the text, and there justified by their importance. --Cubdriver 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
American Volunteer Group
"Flying Tigers" of course was never more than a nickname for the unit known at the time as the First American Volunteer Group. That being the case, shouldn't the article be titled Flying Tigers (American Volunteer Group)? Are there other cases where Wiki articles show alternate titles in this manner? --Cubdriver 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone has now found it necessary to add that "Flying Tigers" also referred to successor units. All the more reason that this ought to be have American Volunteer Group in its title! --Cubdriver 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Volunteer Army
ĒHere I create a section about 'Volunteer Army'. I hope the section to be to be complemented. Poo-T 18:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your English is shoddy and you don't know the first thing about protocol in regards to proving your claims. I removed it until you can give Wiki a valid link to the controversy.
- I know I'm not so good at writing English. So I have asked to refine the text I wrote. Then I want ask you about a few points. #1 There was no discussion page before I wrote here. If you see 'Write something and Write discussion simultaneously' as a problem, you should remove all the text in this WikiPage. :P) #2 If you think the source of the text is poor, I can add some additional links about it. As I 've tried to keep the balance of the page, I didn't add so long text/many links. Do you really want many links limited to the text? #3 I'm not sure I can catch your meaning. If you think, free online link/source is needed as a reference, It's worth listening to. #4 Do you understand your doing 'Remove text without discussing, Remove text without signature, Remove text without logging in' is valid? IMHO, Your doing seems not so "WikiPedian style". Don't you think so? Poo-T 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
government support
The AVG was certainly a U.S.-supported unit. Early on, it was largely run by Lauchlin Currie, a staffer in the White House, and its financing was handled by China Defense Supplies which was largely the creation of Roosevelt friend Tommy Corcoran. The money was provided by the U.S.; the planes were American; the pilots and ground crews were recruited mostly from the U.S. military.
Yet all those men were volunteers, and (though some of them now claim otherwise) they were released from U.S. service with no formal understanding that they would ever return--and many never did go back into the U.S. military. So I don't see what is wrong with the title, American Volunteer Group.
As for violating neutrality laws, the financing and organization of the AVG was very carefully done in a manner that would *not* violate the letter of the law. Tommy Corcoran in an unpublished memoir has told us that, at Roosevelt's request, he went to Capitol Hill and floated the plan to to see if they had any objection to it. They didn't, and the plan proceeded. I don't see any violation.
Note also that by the time the AVG was in Burma in the summer of 1941, the law had changed from "Cash and Carry" to "Lend Lease." Indeed, the planes released to China by the British were replaced by more formidable models of P-40 that were provided (effectively free) under Lend Lease. So events caught up with the AVG before it ever went into combat.
- 'in an unpublished memoir', 'Tommy Corcoran went to Capitol Hill ' 'Congressional leaders ' no objection' . Can it be a kind of source for Encyclopedia? And, I think, this process doesn't mean 'Official approval'. IMHO, about the violation is gray area, not "white" or "black". If such process can be easily permitted, Iran-Contra Affair would be "white", too. But I don't want to do endless debating about Flying tigers. So I propose to add sentences as follows. >The AVG was certainly a U.S.-supported unit. Early on, it was largely run by Lauchlin Currie, a staffer in the White House, and its financing was handled by China Defense Supplies which was largely the creation of Roosevelt friend Tommy Corcoran. The money was provided by the U.S. The planes were American. The pilots and ground crews were recruited mostly from the U.S. military. But direct military aid was prohibited under neutrality laws. So the financing and organization of the AVG was very carefully done by the president, in a manner that would not violate the letter of the law. -How do you think about the text, Cubdriver? Poo-T 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
About that "blood chit"
While the blood chit illustrating this section appears to be reasonably accurate, it contains a copy of the Walt Disney "Flying Tiger" emblem that is 1) ananchronistic (no such emblem on the blood chit) and 2) flipped to show the Bengal tiger leaping to the right instead of the left. Could the image be replaced? For an actual AVG blood chit, see http://www.warbirdforum.com/bloodchi.htm showing the blood chit that belonged to AVG ground crew Jasper Harrington.
- This is a photograph showing both the back piece and a chest or leaf piece, in a frame. The piece with the tigre is not part of the back piece. I am not very competant to judge of the authenticity of these, though. Rama 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Zhang Difei, a native Chinese speaker, translates the "blood chit" text as follows: "This foreign person has come to China to help in the war effort. Soldiers and civilians, one and all, should rescue, protect, and provide him medical care"
Later: okay, I asked a friend to question some of the AVG vets on this matter, and they all agree the blood chit is bogus. Here's a statement by a gent whose avocation it is to appraise AVG memorabilia: "The chit on that site is a fake, as is of course, the patch. There is basically one type of chit used by the AVG. It may have had one tiny character variation by the series number. They are raw silk with a linen backing and silk screened with some variations in the colors probably caused by printing on different occasions and ink level.The earliest chits issued are in the three and four hundreds. The next batch issued with the one minor character variation started with #0001 which Chennault kept."
I will upload a jpeg of the Jasper Harrington blood chit when I can figure out the system for so doing! (Cubdriver)
Later: Okay, with the permission of R.E. Baldwin, I have uploaded a different blood chit, to which he holds copyright. (Cubdriver)
Inflated Kills
Kill tallies from the time period were often inflated as a method of propaganda. While the official number of planes shot down by the Flying Tigers was relatively accurate, pilots at the time frequently inflated their kill totals. This was also a method for the pilots to earn more money. As stated in the article, unofficial kills ranged from 500-1000 while the "official" number was significantly lower.
- You are conflating newspaper reports with pilot claims/credits. The AVG had 297 confirmed kills (the number varies by one or two depending on when and who filed the reports). The pilots weren't over-claiming for propaganda, nor were they over-claiming for money, since for a good part of the time they were in combat, they didn't know that the bonus money would be paid to them. They over-claimed for a variety of very good reasons, which have pertained to most aerial combats in most wars. To bring up propaganda and money misleads the reader. You might consider starting a new article on the subject of fighter pilot over-claiming, a very fertile field for speculation. Cubdriver
- Cubdriver is quite correct in asserting that pilots due tend to exaggerate. The figure of "1,000 kills" comes from an infamous booklet issued at an AVG reunion. One wonders what the writers were smoking at the time. The actual figure is indeed around 300, though that depends whether or not you only count air-to-air victories or you include parked aircraft destroyed by strafing.Archangel
Roosevelt's secret exec order
On April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising personnel on active duty to resign from the military services in order to sign up for the AVG.
I found information stating that this happened in US Army: A Complete History published by the Army Historical Foundation. What's your source for saying that it didn't happen? Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
FDR allowed the resignation of military personnel, but the disputed part, was the claim by recruiters that they could return to active duty with the time served in AVG counting toward their time on Active Duty. Similar to the sheep dipping on U-2 pilots going to work for the CIA. PPGMD 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- The statement says nothing about returning to active duty. All it says is that Roosevelt signed a secret executive order. Drogo Underburrow 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
No one has ever found such a document, and most Roosevelt scholars I've spoken to point out that issuing one would have been against FDR's style. I spent two days combing through the FDR Library at Hyde Park looking for that supposed order. Except for one instance (not in April, and not referring to the 1st AVG} did Roosevelt sign his name to a memo (not a "secret executive order") to the military dealing with the Special Air Unit for China. Otherwise everything was handled by Lauchlin Currie. If the AHF book gives a file locator for the order, I'll look again, but I'll bet it doesn't. There's a new book coming out in June that might shed some light on this. --Cubdriver 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Still the fact remains that the Army Historical Foundation says that Roosevelt did this. You still have given no other source that says he didn't do this. Here at Wikipedia, its our job to report what sources say, not what our original research tells us. Wikipedia is not about reporting "the truth", but simply about reporting what sources say, so even if you find a source that contradicts this source, you shouldn't delete this statement, but should modify it to add the newer source not as the truth, but impartially as an alternate view. In fact, even if you called and spoke with the Army Historical Foundation, and they told you that they had made a mistake in their book, and you were right, you still could not put that information into Wikipedia, see the policy page. So discussing what "really" happened, and the scholars you have spoken with on this talk page is a waste of time, and not what talk pages are for. Drogo Underburrow 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it's not unheard of that e-mails to scholars on the subject being used as a source on Wikipedia, so if he does contact the AHF and they report that they were wrong it's not unheard of, that the e-mail being used as proof to verify other sources. That is counter productive, and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. PPGMD 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- The policy page specifically states that information be published. It does not say that private e-mails are acceptable sources. So if you have heard of people using e-mails, please refer them to the policy page. I don't know what you are refering to when you say "that is counterproductive". Drogo Underburrow 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's counter productive because it isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Using policy to silence others isn't in the spirit of wikipedia and sharing information. There are alot of cases where published sources are wrong, and certain sources aren't mentioned because they are wrong, or based on incorrect information particular when they come from broad reference sources. Your source is an example of such a broad source, and it's more likely that more focused sources are more correct. PPGMD 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- The policy page on original research SPECIFICALLY gives an example of how even if the source itself admits it is in error, that Wikipedia must not use that information. The policy pages define the "spirit of Wikipedia". The "spirit of Wikipedia" says that Wikipedia is for reporting published sources that are verifiable. It is not for presenting the "ultimate truth". Your idea of what Wikipedia is about is wrong. Your argument is with the policy pages, not with me. Finally, Wikipedia, as the policy pages explain, is not about picking and choosing which sources are right and wrong. Its not about using "more focused sources are more correct". I am pretty much not going to say anything more on this issue. I ask you to carefully read the policy pages and attempt to adhere to them, rather than using your own ideas about what Wikipedia is and isn't. Abiding by the policy pages helps to prevent edit wars, and prevent wasting a lot of time, by making sure editors are all trying to do the same thing, and not some editors trying to write one sort of reference work, while others try to make it another sort. Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well I had time to look up your source at a local bookstore, that book is the historical equivalent of a Farmer's Almanac, no citations, doesn't go into very much depth on any of it's subjects, but it makes a good coffee table book (I own two of the series's myself, I wouldn't rely on them as sources). I agree with Cubdriver I believe it should be stated "It's widely believed that FDR issued an executive order allowing pilots to resign for AVG service, however there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, the State department in fact blocked the issuing of passports of a number of pilots that had a history of volunteering for such service." Flying Tigers by Daniel Ford is the citation for that last part. PPGMD 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, gosh, I didn't mean to start a policy war! I don't mind at all if the text says something like "It's widely believed that FDR signed a secret executive order on Apr 15" etc, because that appears in most of the Flying Tigers histories, though never with a citation. And FDR did know all about the project. It's just that his style was to govern by a wink and a nod, and the Secret Executive Order is not only unavailable to us, if it ever existed, but was unlike him. --Cubdriver 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, - What is your source for this? Drogo Underburrow 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I put it in for four reasons, first in Black Sheep One (forget the author, it's in the Boyington article), the author mentions that most of the official recognition never came (official probably means the promised Executive order), second the State Department denied the passport of at least one member of the AVG on the grounds that they though he was going to fight for China (this is mentioned in Flying Tigers by Ford), third is the lack of evidence of such order in the FDR library (this is not classified original research, it's called verifying sources), and fourth there is no citation of where your "source" got the information.
I also checked the policy pages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources Because your source does not have citations and it's a very broad book, I do not consider it an academic source, thus any claims it makes it dubious, but I included it none the less because it's in the official AVG history (along with it's claimed 1000 kills). PPGMD 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- So, you agree that multiple sources all say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG. Therefore, I'm going to put that in the article, just as stated here. Furthermore, you have no source which claims these sources are mistaken. The only questioning is coming from you and Cubdriver; that makes it original research, and not suitable for inclusion in the article. Finally, I'll attribute your questioning of the Army Historical Foundation's book to a desire on your part to win an argument, and not a serious statement that you have actually investigated. Please go to their website and check out the institution you are criticizing before making rash accusations: www.armyhistory.org Drogo Underburrow 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Checking sources is not considered Original Research, if you read the OR page, you will note that Jimbo says that the policy is in place to prevent original theories to be published on Wikipedia, checking for such Secret Order in the FDR archives, and not finding any citation of a order number, or any evidence that such an order existed is not OR. Your source, and web sources do not provide a citation, and there is no known publication of the order, thus as far as one can tell it doesn't exist.
- Your "source" comes from a find foundation, that doesn't mean that the particular source you have chosen isn't junk, with no citations, and covering such a broad topic, it is hardly considered an original source. Based on my checking of multiple sources, I find my citable evidence that such an order was published, thus I will revert any addition that outright claims that there was such an order. PPGMD 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I put a statement into the article and gave the source for that statement. That's all that is required. The book said what it said, that is a fact. The book is a reputable source. Therefore, the material belongs in the article. If you find material from a different source, that makes a different argument, by all means include it as well. But don't make the article POV by deleting what the Army book said or putting unsourced words in the article questioning what it said. It seems to me that you are ignoring the NPOV policy, making wild accusations such as questioning the Army Historical Foundation as a valid source, and simply being obstructive at this point. Drogo Underburrow 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your book is not a reputable source, it lacks one of the keys to be considered an academic source, citations. Just like Wikipedia, if you want a source to be consider reputable, it must have citations so other may check on it's work. PPGMD 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is absolutely ridiculous. You could hardly ask for a better source than the Army Historical Society. Furthermore, you already agreed that the fact I attributed to the Army Historical Society is also stated by multiple other sources. Drogo Underburrow 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- In web sources yes, a common myth doesn't mean it's right. The book you quoted is not an academic source, personally I expected better from the AHS, but since neither of my two copies of books from the same series has citations either, it seems to be a common theme, find me a source that has citation on this executive, and I will not revert, until then it's uncited, with more evidence (like Boyington having a hard time re-entering the USMC, State Department denying passports to Army pilots, and lack of publication at FDR library) that points that there was no order. PPGMD 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)