![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing: "They flew Soviet-built Polikarpov fighters, that were used by the Spanish air force. citation needed" I have found no evidence of it. In his testimony in Washington, Schneider testified that he was flying an old "unarmed sports plane". Acosta also never mentioned Russian planes that he flew, in talks to reporters. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have the external source for that quote? Wikipedia isn't supposed to use itself as a reference. Id love to read the original source to learn more about that time. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The text is lengthy because it is supporting six references, two of them were used to disprove your added text that they were flying the Polikarpov I-15, which turned out to be incorrect. Its silly to argue over the length of a quote when there is so much more information that can be added to the article from books and newspapers. I have never seen aesthetics used as an excuse to remove the quote field from a citation. They are there for a reason. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind not putting your comments in the middle of mine? Experience tells me that before long we can't tell who has written what, let alone an outsider reading this.
The Polikarpov reference was a good faith edit and I still don't believe it was incorrect. Unreferenced does not = incorrect.
I'm not the aesthetics czar for anything. I just follow the norms of aesthetics in Wikipedia articles. We do not need to quote the same facts twice over in any article, regardless of whether the quotations are in the notes or the main text. If this was a 5,000 word journal article, then there might be some justification in including indigestible chunks of source material in appendices. As it is, if readers need/want to read the rather quaint original sources/documents, they will follow the links provided or view the original newspaper/magazines in a visit to their local reference library.
By the way Richard, are you related to Schneider? Grant | Talk 05:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing: "They flew Soviet-built Polikarpov fighters, that were used by the Spanish air force. citation needed" I have found no evidence of it. In his testimony in Washington, Schneider testified that he was flying an old "unarmed sports plane". Acosta also never mentioned Russian planes that he flew, in talks to reporters. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have the external source for that quote? Wikipedia isn't supposed to use itself as a reference. Id love to read the original source to learn more about that time. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The text is lengthy because it is supporting six references, two of them were used to disprove your added text that they were flying the Polikarpov I-15, which turned out to be incorrect. Its silly to argue over the length of a quote when there is so much more information that can be added to the article from books and newspapers. I have never seen aesthetics used as an excuse to remove the quote field from a citation. They are there for a reason. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind not putting your comments in the middle of mine? Experience tells me that before long we can't tell who has written what, let alone an outsider reading this.
The Polikarpov reference was a good faith edit and I still don't believe it was incorrect. Unreferenced does not = incorrect.
I'm not the aesthetics czar for anything. I just follow the norms of aesthetics in Wikipedia articles. We do not need to quote the same facts twice over in any article, regardless of whether the quotations are in the notes or the main text. If this was a 5,000 word journal article, then there might be some justification in including indigestible chunks of source material in appendices. As it is, if readers need/want to read the rather quaint original sources/documents, they will follow the links provided or view the original newspaper/magazines in a visit to their local reference library.
By the way Richard, are you related to Schneider? Grant | Talk 05:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)