Talk:Guy Gibson

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)

It appears that Peter Hinchliffe, the cited source, is simply mistaken, as authors often are, because Kurt Welter (in any case a notorious overclaimer) didn't actually claim a Mosquito shot down that night but the night before. It may be appropriate for the article to include the false claim and the correction, as it currently does, or maybe the whole thing should be passed over in silence. Surely everyone knows by now that the Mosquito's fuel-tank switches, being right behind the pilot's seat, have to be operated by the navigator, and Jim Warwick had no Mosquito experience and was only co-opted on the day, and if you were flying on the outer tanks, as you normally would out to Ruhr range, and the navigator fluffed the switch-over to the inner tanks for the return trip, your engines would cut from fuel starvation and you'd get backfire flames from the exhausts, as seen by witnesses on the ground, and illuminated cockpit lights, as also seen by witnesses on the ground, because the navigator was desperately trying to work the unfamiliar fuel switches in a panic situation. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.164 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised not to find any mention of Gibson's personality. I'm not a historian, and have no sources, but I thought it was well-known that he was unpleasant. The article read to me like a hagiography, and some distance from NPOV.

Monty may have been popular with his men; I don't know. Generals that lead their armies to victory tend to be popular with their men. Monty was not popular with his fellow officers, though, including officers that served and fought with him.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Gibson's 'Boy-Emperor' bumptiousness towards the 'other ranks' is in fact mentioned and stressed at some length. The reasons for his insecurity (which was obviously the root of the problem) are implied, not only in the account of his nearly-but-not-quite-posh-enough background and schooling, but for instance by the mention of his mother's shameful alcoholism (she once threatened Guy and Alick with a knife, after which they wouldn't speak to her, and Guy did not attend her funeral after she woozily let her dress catch alight from the gas fire while dressing for another night out with her seedy, shabby-genteel drinking chums), but the article rather skips over his father's shady and unpleasant behaviour. Susan Ottaway's biography goes into this, but the article is a little over-reliant on the Morris biography instead, as you can see from the footnotes. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Problematic entry

The current entry lists "They were appalled when they were sent on a daylight Mohling raid to the Krupps in Essen" Not sure what Mohling is supposed to be my first thought was it might be morning, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure about an accurate change. Glorantha (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. That strange word was in the article for almost a decade. Clearly it was intended to be "bombing" rather than "Mohling", and so I've made it. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Honorific suffixes

Honorific suffixes are a standard part of the infobox for any person. Template:Infobox military person gives no different or additional guidance. Why are these being removed as "clutter"? Surely these are essential details of Gibson's life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Honorific suffixes are not a standard part of the infobox for any person. In fact, if you look at similar articles to Gibson's—especially those rated Featured, A-Class or Good—you will notice that the parameter is very rarely used. This is because it repeats information already better represented in the infobox, duplicates the post-nominals located just to the left in the lead, and tends to clutter the infobox. The honorific suffixes are also not essential details per se – the honours and achievements of the individual are. Which is why Gibson's awards are well covered already in the infobox, in the lead, and in great detail in the body of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Both Template:Infobox military person and Template:Infobox person list |honorific_suffix as a standard parameter. Just like |name and |birth_date. Why are these listed if they are not to be used? The person's name is also "located just to the left in the lead" - is that also "clutter"? The infobox is meant to be a summary of the person's essential details. I'd argue that honorific suffixes are essential details. Where in Wikipedia policy does it say honorifics are to be omitted for the sake of clutter?? I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced by your argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that honorifics given to military personnel are in some way less important than those given to non-military personnel. That seems a bit odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The existence of a template parameter does not make its use mandatory, nor does it indicate support for or mass adoption of the parameter. It only indicates that someone has added the mark-up to the template documentation. It is extremely rare, for instance, to find |placeofburial_coordinates in use. The name and birth details parameters are also not exactly comparable – the name field omits Gibson's middle name and neither parameter covers or duplicates information recorded elsewhere in the infobox. Honorific suffixes does, however, duplicate data already and better covered. Again, if you look at similar articles, it is rare to find the parameter in use since it unnecessarily duplicates the exact same data, and clutters the infobox for no functional or aesthetic purpose. Functionality and common and consistent practice are the guiding principles here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never come across such a niche restriction as this before. Obviously, not all template parameters are mandatory. That isn't my point at all. My point is that honorary suffixes are generally seen as useful in infoboxes. I have no idea why these should be devalued for military personnel. Again, if you can show me any Wikipedia policy that says this I'd be very grateful. Your direction that "common and consistent practice are the guiding principles here" just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. I'd be happy to see what other editors think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)