Talk:Dick Smith (businessman)

First solo helicopter flight around the world

Someone wanted a citation. --jmb 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement of significance

The Bell Jetranger III helicopter, Dick Smith Australian Explorer, was flown by Australian businessman and adventurer Dick Smith on the first solo circumnavigation of the world in a rotary wing aircraft in 1982/3. The flight was also the first solo helicopter flight across the Atlantic Ocean and the first solo flight from the U.S.A. to Australia by helicopter. [1]

So he waited out the winter months in Australia before resuming the flight? How long would it have taken if he had flown nonstop? Drutt (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, I do not believe this Dick Smith constitutes a primary topic. I believe this content should be moved to Dick Smith (entrepreneur) and this page be made redirect to Dick Smith (disambiguation). Comments? -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to this, and I've created Dick Smith (entrepreneur) as a redirect to Dick Smith. However, of the three other people named Dick Smith, all of their articles are currently stubs. I submit this as evidence that people who search for "Dick Smith" are almost always looking for this person at the moment. As such, I think that a move is premature. I'm happy to go with the majority if other people disagree, though. -- De Guerre (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with De Guerre that this Dick Smith is the most notable and should be directly linked until others are more prominent. Lympathy (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with this for the time being. The Dick Smith (makeup artist) article needs to be seriously improved, and I intend to do so...eventually. Once this has been done I will try to press the issue further. -Verdatum (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear on one point: Per WP:DAB, the correct criterion is not who is "more notable", but rather what people would expect to see if they just typed "Dick Smith" into the search box. Nobody (I hope) is doubting that Dick Smith the make-up artist is a very notable person. -- De Guerre (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would've thought notability to be equivalent of general awareness/interest which would mean that what people would expect to see is the same definition as who is more notable? In this case I would consider the businessman to be more widely known then the make-up artist and therefor more notable. Lympathy ^Talk 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In many, if not most, cases, the two notions coincide. However, I can imagine situations where they don't. No good examples spring to mind at the moment, but one poor example is that of the Whale tail. The cetacean appendage is arguably the most notable use of that term, but people typing in the phrase "Whale tail" may be more likely to be after information about the fashion phenomenon. And yes, I am very sorry for bringing up that example. -- De Guerre (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the page as originally suggested. The rebranding of 'Dick Smith Electronics' to 'Dick Smith' really takes precedence over the Dick Smith himself and as such the article on Dick Smith (the store chain) is going to be moved into 'Dick Smith'. Twistie.man (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordering

I'm not that familiar with the norm in biographies so perhaps this isn't abnormal but I find it a bit odd the first section is about his involvement in aviation. While an encylopaedic part of his life, and I'm not an Australian I would expect his business ventures play a far greater part in his notability. (The disambig is entrepeneur after all and not aviator.) The aviation stuff seems to have come after his business stuff to so it's not like it's following chronological order either. I can understand early life/personal life sections coming first but that isn't really. The only real order I can see is alphabetical for the first 3 sections but that doesn't seem to be a great reason. Looking at Richard Branson and Steve Fossett, while they have different sections and are obviously different people with different involvements in the field, their business section comes before any record attempts and the like Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am Australian and I just read this article for the first time. The aviation stuff should be after the electronics stuff. Chances are his electronics business financed the aviation. HiLo48 (talk)

Good one Nil Einne! I agree. I have moved the Business section higher in the article, above Aviation. What do you think? It might need some fine tuning now. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First New Zealand Trip

He made a trip to NZ in his Beech Baron sometime between 1974 and 1977. I actually saw him and the aircraft at Ardmore Airfield then. Has anyone any documented evidence of this trip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.95.235 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Consulting professor

This edit (24 February 2012) added text:

In December 2011, Smith was appointed as a Consulting Professor in the Department of Biology, School of Humanities and Sciences of Stanford University California by Dean, Richard P.Saller

I reverted that text as unsourced (I couldn't find a mention in a Google search), but the editor has just let me know on my talk page that there is a source: At Dick Smith Population there is a short statement of confirmation, with a link to a pdf image of the letter from Stanford, which reads "Richard Smith is hereby appointed Consulting Professor in the Department of Biology, School of Humanities & Sciences, for the period of 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016."

Technically, the source above may fail WP:RS as it comes from a self-published website, although we can be pretty certain that Dick Smith is not going to put fakery on his website (presumably we could find evidence that the site is controlled by Dick Smith). I cannot find mention at http://humsci.stanford.edu/. Should this text be added? Can anyone find a better source? Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Following copied from where it was posted at my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

there is no question this cited letter from Stanford is genuine. I have seen it with my own eyes and have seen it confirmed by email from Professor Paul Ehrlich at Stanford. The Dean of Science, Richard P. Saller has also confirmed the appointment, which is honorary in nature and based on Smith's long efforts on behalf of conservation causes, and his patronage of the Australian Geographic Society and Australian Skeptics I hardly think it is for editors of Wikipedia to demand explanations for facts they subjectively find 'particularly surprising' when documentary evidence is supplied i.e. the Dean's signed letter. As a primary source, this would surpass value as verification of the vast majority of Wiki entries.Most after all are nothing more than unverified media citations. My suggestion- respectfully - is that we return the original entry, with the link to the document and I'm sure Professor Saller or Professor Ehrlich will readily respond if they believe an error, exaggeration or mistatement has been made. It would seem far more 'particularly surprising' that an individual as prominent as Mr Smith would participate in some kind of fraud when the source is made though his personal web site, would you not agree? Snasht (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit when there was no source, but I have not said that I would revert it with the source you mention. I have just pointed out the standard Wikipedia approach to an issue like this: a better source should be available for a surprising fact. It's not anything like a Wikipedia editor demanding something, it's just common sense. I have not seen any explanation of how Smith came to Stanford's attention, and receiving a two-line letter providing an honor with no explanation can accurately be described as "surprising". If the letter were at stanford.edu, I would not mention the issue of surprise since it would be irrelevant. It is because a self-published source is involved that it is reasonable to consider the reliability of the source. As I mentioned at my talk, it would be easy for someone to forge a letter like that and mail it to Smith (I'm not suggesting that Smith is unreliable). If I were watching Kim Dotcom and someone added a sentence saying that Stanford University had appointed him a consulting professor, and the source was a pdf on a website controlled by the subject, I would think that a better source would be desirable.

Often other editors won't have time to get involved in a discussion like this, and the way to test the water is to make an edit. If you think the source is suitable (see WP:RS), just add the text with the source (as I mentioned at my talk, someone will format it as a reference in due course, although you could copy the method used in one of the other references if you want). Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there another source that can help verify this or expand on the details? I will not further revert but more confirming evidence would be preferable to a letter that just says "Richard Smith" with no details to tie it to the notable individual. This seems more like an honorary award than an actual position with duties so your edit should really reflect this. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2014 Williamtown Air base interview.

Why was information about his comments regarding the crash of VH-MDX and assigning blame to the RAAF removed? To pass it off as a minor issue, is ridiculous. It was a serious enough accusation that is got a response from the Chief of the Air Force and has wide ranging and damaging implication in the Australian aviation sector. Considering Dick Smith's involvement with Australian Aviation and CASA, it is a point that should be on his page. Just because its not a high point in his career, doesn't mean it's not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbcooper241171 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 June 2014

See WP:NOTNEWS. Please provide sources that indicate this incident will have a long-lasting impact on Smith's life or how he is viewed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which proposed text claiming "widespread condemnation" resulting from an interview in June 2014 (that is, within the last few days, I assume). Articles are not written like that. See WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The primary reason this text was removed was because it was not sourced. On Wikipedia it isn't sufficient that someone believes it is true - there must be at least one in-line citation to indicate the information is from a reliable published source. This is to allow readers to independently verify that the information is factual and reliable. Dolphin (t) 06:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A lot of source

Or so, I have no idea about how wikipedia handles this, so if anyone wants to add things from here, here is dick talking about lots of his stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eivQNtulE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dick Smith (entrepreneur). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121024005418/http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/dick-smiths-bio to http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/dick-smiths-bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

COI tag (November 2021)

One editor has hundreds of edits on this article, and it is clearly excessive. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)