Jump to content

Talk:Guy Gibson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,401,578 edits
Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2020-09-19. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
Line 82: Line 82:


Why is there not a separate section on this page about Guy Gibson`s infamous arrogance and aloofness ? It is mentioned in a few of the sections but is rather buried. Almost every book I read about Bomber Command alludes to it or mentions it directly. Gibson was not a particularly popular officer (a bit like Montgomery in that regard ? ) especially, but not only with, lower ranks. His dismissive attitude to Leonard Cheshire`s VC was perhaps typical. Cheshire was also "a hero" but, of course, very much liked and respected by all ranks.--[[User:JustinSmith|JustinSmith]] ([[User talk:JustinSmith|talk]]) 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is there not a separate section on this page about Guy Gibson`s infamous arrogance and aloofness ? It is mentioned in a few of the sections but is rather buried. Almost every book I read about Bomber Command alludes to it or mentions it directly. Gibson was not a particularly popular officer (a bit like Montgomery in that regard ? ) especially, but not only with, lower ranks. His dismissive attitude to Leonard Cheshire`s VC was perhaps typical. Cheshire was also "a hero" but, of course, very much liked and respected by all ranks.--[[User:JustinSmith|JustinSmith]] ([[User talk:JustinSmith|talk]]) 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

:Officers try not to get too 'chummy' with men they might later have to send to their deaths. it's bad for morale, one's own, and everyone else's.

:Montgomery was very popular with his men, who trusted him not to to waste their lives on worthless and pointless attacks just to make him appear good in the newspapers. Montgomery fought and won battles, while many of his critics hadn't fought, never mind won, a battle since 1918.


== Anti-Semitism ==
== Anti-Semitism ==

Revision as of 09:03, 23 September 2021


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guy Gibson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two unrelated OR issues

See also /Archive 1#Welter's Claim

There are two obvious examples of OR in this article as of 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC).

The first and most obvious is the citation on the Porthleven memorial "Rob Davis (from personal visit)". This is a clear breach of WP:PSTS sentence "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material".

The second is more complicated but I think equally valid. in concerns the paragraph

Speculation persists that Gibson's Mosquito... However....

The problem is that the speculation is put forward by a secondary source. Which if reliable needs to be refuted with a secondary source. Using a primary source to refute it "However..." is I think Original Research, of the sort that fails WP:SYNTHESIS, as it is publishing a refutation of a secondary source not provided by another secondary source.

My suggested solution for these two issue is:

  1. to remove the personal citation and request a more reliable one.
  2. remove the whole paragraph and place it on this talk page, because I see where the editors who drew this conclusion, and if there is a secondary source to back it up it would be a reasonable paragraph to include. But not while it is relying on primary source sources.

-- PBS (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guy Gibson. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson's infamous attitude

Why is there not a separate section on this page about Guy Gibson`s infamous arrogance and aloofness ? It is mentioned in a few of the sections but is rather buried. Almost every book I read about Bomber Command alludes to it or mentions it directly. Gibson was not a particularly popular officer (a bit like Montgomery in that regard ? ) especially, but not only with, lower ranks. His dismissive attitude to Leonard Cheshire`s VC was perhaps typical. Cheshire was also "a hero" but, of course, very much liked and respected by all ranks.--JustinSmith (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Officers try not to get too 'chummy' with men they might later have to send to their deaths. it's bad for morale, one's own, and everyone else's.
Montgomery was very popular with his men, who trusted him not to to waste their lives on worthless and pointless attacks just to make him appear good in the newspapers. Montgomery fought and won battles, while many of his critics hadn't fought, never mind won, a battle since 1918.

Anti-Semitism

Why is there no mention of his extreme anti-Semitism? (2A00:23C7:CF0F:A000:C955:D564:6676:C65 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Gibson&oldid=1045966688"