Talk:Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith

Knighted?

I'm not seeing any description of being knighted, specifically which honor: MBE? OBE? CBE? KBE? etc... The only support for knighthood is that some sources refer to the man as Sir Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. I'm inclined to take out the knighthood if I don't find a source. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no evidence of any knighthood. There is this comment from his sister in law decrying that for all his work the British government never awarded him any honour. I wonder if it's a misunderstanding relating to his Danish honour - the Order of the Dannebrog - the lowest class (3rd) is a Knight. NtheP (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. My mistake. Thanks colleagues. I removed the comment. I'd written that assertion based on a secondary source but looked and never found solid evidence for the claim. -- Econterms (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to resolve this. Thanks for the research! Binksternet (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Must have critics section

This person, Gibbs-Smith, had a dark side when it came to objectivity, and his affiliation with Smithsonian, hired gun to remove contenders to protect their contract with Orville Wright's heirs, must be revealed. Wikipedia is not set up to be one sided. This is the bald truth that must counter the sainted Gibbs-Smith diatribe. AviationHist1 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I get some more time I will describe in more detail my position on the matter. Fundamentally, we can list those who criticized Gibbs-Smith, and state their positions, but we cannot have any sources who contradict the conclusions made by Gibbs-Smith without naming him. That is, if Gibbs-Smith is not discussed then the source is unusable. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Jane's entry on Whitehead does not discuss Gibbs-Smith so it cannot be used as a source. The www.historybycontract.com website is unreliable in Wikipedia's terms: see WP:Reliable sources. Since your text is based on these sources I removed it. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Jane's entry contradicts what Gibbs-Smith said about Whitehead, so it can be used. Would you prefer Fox News as the source of the contract and History by Contract? Do you represent Smithsonian as it would seem? AviationHist1 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You won't get very far trying to pin some kind of conflict of interest on me. The Jane's entry is valid for the article about Whitehead, but it says nothing about Gibbs-Smith, so any attempt to use it here violates the WP:Synthesis guideline. The Fox News article does not mention Gibbs-Smith, either. As well, the www.historybycontract.com website does not meet the WP:Reliable sources guideline. That pretty much takes away the basis for your changes. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. 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/20110729031909/http://www.vam.ac.uk:80/content/articles/v/v-and-a-150th-anniversary/ to http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/v/v-and-a-150th-anniversary/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)