This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some of my additions were reverted as not relevant, which is not true.
One of the outcomes of the trade action was that the Canadian government would consider the impact of a vendor on Canada's economic interests.
As a result of the tariffs imposed against the CSeries, Bombardier had to sell over half of the program to Airbus for 1 CAD. The planes destined to the US market would then be built at Airbus' Mobile plant to bypass tariffs, resulting in the loss of Canadian jobs. Airbus would also provide important help with marketing and services. If the tariffs had not been in place, Airbus could still have become a partner without having to transfer part of the final assembly to Mobile. Bombardier would also have had a stronger bargaining position
Later, Bombardier simply exited the commercial aircraft business. It can be debated whether this would have happened should Canada have retained 100% (or majority) ownership and final assembly in the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigenibinion ( talk • contribs)
Bombardier finalized the sale of 50.01% of the CSeries program for the token sum of 1 Canadian dollar to Airbus which would use its Mobile, Alabama plant to assemble it for the US marketand
Bombardier exited the commercial aviation marketdon't make any sense in the context. - Ahunt ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
As of this writing, this article is the 2,565th-longest of the 6,428,376 articles on English Wikipedia. Put differently, it's longer than 99.96% of the articles on English Wikipedia. Let's be real -- while the selection of Canada's next fighter aircraft is important, it's not *that* important. For that reason, I flagged this article as being overly detailed, but just three hours later the edit was reverted by User:Ahunt.
The stated justification for removing the flag was that "when the current procurement process is concluded then it will be much easier to discern what is relevant and what can be cut out". That's true of this and all other developing situations, but the article currently contains content that's clearly minutiae, like lengthy decade-old quotes from random pundits.
Another stated justification was that "this has been already discussed on the talk page", but said discussion consisted of a single two-sentence reply eight and a half years ago, also by Ahunt.
I acknowledge and commend the extensive copy edits User:Kyteto made recently, but they did not substantially reduce the extraordinary length of this article.
I'm adding this comment to solicit feedback from others, but given that the article is rarely edited, and usually by Ahunt, I'm not sure anyone else will see or comment. Ahunt, your position is already clear, so if there isn't substantive discussion from parties other than you and me, I'll post this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion to see what others think.
Thanks -- Stephen Hui ( talk) 02:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The statement below, within this section of the article, is not a proper sentence, is confusing, and does not clearly state the intention of the statement.
"Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, commented that he had not been a competition as it conflicted with Canada's participation in the F-35 program" SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some of my additions were reverted as not relevant, which is not true.
One of the outcomes of the trade action was that the Canadian government would consider the impact of a vendor on Canada's economic interests.
As a result of the tariffs imposed against the CSeries, Bombardier had to sell over half of the program to Airbus for 1 CAD. The planes destined to the US market would then be built at Airbus' Mobile plant to bypass tariffs, resulting in the loss of Canadian jobs. Airbus would also provide important help with marketing and services. If the tariffs had not been in place, Airbus could still have become a partner without having to transfer part of the final assembly to Mobile. Bombardier would also have had a stronger bargaining position
Later, Bombardier simply exited the commercial aircraft business. It can be debated whether this would have happened should Canada have retained 100% (or majority) ownership and final assembly in the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigenibinion ( talk • contribs)
Bombardier finalized the sale of 50.01% of the CSeries program for the token sum of 1 Canadian dollar to Airbus which would use its Mobile, Alabama plant to assemble it for the US marketand
Bombardier exited the commercial aviation marketdon't make any sense in the context. - Ahunt ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
As of this writing, this article is the 2,565th-longest of the 6,428,376 articles on English Wikipedia. Put differently, it's longer than 99.96% of the articles on English Wikipedia. Let's be real -- while the selection of Canada's next fighter aircraft is important, it's not *that* important. For that reason, I flagged this article as being overly detailed, but just three hours later the edit was reverted by User:Ahunt.
The stated justification for removing the flag was that "when the current procurement process is concluded then it will be much easier to discern what is relevant and what can be cut out". That's true of this and all other developing situations, but the article currently contains content that's clearly minutiae, like lengthy decade-old quotes from random pundits.
Another stated justification was that "this has been already discussed on the talk page", but said discussion consisted of a single two-sentence reply eight and a half years ago, also by Ahunt.
I acknowledge and commend the extensive copy edits User:Kyteto made recently, but they did not substantially reduce the extraordinary length of this article.
I'm adding this comment to solicit feedback from others, but given that the article is rarely edited, and usually by Ahunt, I'm not sure anyone else will see or comment. Ahunt, your position is already clear, so if there isn't substantive discussion from parties other than you and me, I'll post this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion to see what others think.
Thanks -- Stephen Hui ( talk) 02:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The statement below, within this section of the article, is not a proper sentence, is confusing, and does not clearly state the intention of the statement.
"Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, commented that he had not been a competition as it conflicted with Canada's participation in the F-35 program" SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)