The result was keep and merge to Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Carrying out redirect presently, the merger can be handled editorially. lifebaka ++ 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A lengthy article that is mostly speculation, is WP:ESSAY-ish, and contains WP:OR-smelling commentary about possible cancellation of the F-35 and about a proposed variant of Eurofighter that has been discussed, rejected, and is just an "idea" now. Now, aircraft that are just "on the drawing board" are notable, but a minor variant of an existing type should be covered in the type's article ( Eurofighter Typhoon) or existing subarticle ( Eurofighter Typhoon variants) instead of writing an entirely new article - which was sourced in part to discussion-board debates, and is heavy in WP:CRYSTAL and weasel words ("A Navalised Eurofighter, F-18 E/F Super Hornet or the French Rafale remain the most likely fallback canidiates..."). There's very little here, honestly, that belongs on Wikipedia, and what little there is can be covered in the existing articles mentioned above. The editor gets an E for Effort (and if I may indulge my own personal WP:POV, kudos for supporting an alternative to the horror that is Dave-B!), but alas I don't think this is an article Wikipedia needs at this time. The Bushranger One ping only 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Lengthy comments by Independent2011 & responses (— Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Before any decision is made on deleting this article, the above individuals should declare any interest or involvement in the UK or US Defence community. At the end of the day F-35 is the Worlds largest (some say $380bn) weapons programme, and it would suit the UK & US defence industry & governments just fine if all mention of Navalised EUROFIGHTER (as a credible alternative to the UK's buy of F-35 aircraft) is brushed under the carpet, out of sight of the UK taxpayer, as it has been in recent years. Navalised EUROFIGHTER was and remains a credible alternative to F-35. This is fact (not opinion). It was studied in detail by the UK MOD in detail. Again, fact not opinion. The costs & timescales of the F-35 programme have ballooned since the UK signed up to it in Jan 2001. Fact, not fiction. In fact, if you go through this article sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line, you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact. The rest is balanced and fair comment. If anyone has doubts on this, they should contact the UK Secretary of State for Defence for confirmation, before dismissing it as 'speculation' or requesting its deletion. PS == As regards "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, if there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs)
|
Further lengthy comments by Independent2011 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gentlemen (and Ladies ?). Please try and welcome 'outsiders'/newcomer daring to place a new article on WIKIPEDIA. After all, WIKIPEDIA is meant to be reasonably free & open, not an exclusive club. And it is the easiest thing in the World to use Wikipedias "rules" and associated formal terminology to justify deletion of a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Better though that we all work together to resolve the differences, to take out anything that you think is causing you particular concern/upset. With this in mind I would propose the following amendments:
- 2nd para: Delete from 2nd sentence 'In the United Kingdom...' onwards.
If you do this, what is left is (in my opinion) statement of fact and non-controversial. If you can then help by adding references to support what is left (which you can no doubt do, being aviation experts/enthusiasts) we will probably end up with a half-decent article. I strongly feel though that this should stay as a standalone article, as:
I offer up the above in a spirit of good faith - I trust you will receive it likewise. Thank you. |
If you go to the 'Global Defence' web site ( http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2011/02/navalised-version-of-typhoon-to-be.html) you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER seems to be very much alive as an option, at least for the Indian Navy, and is being actively plugged at 'Aero India 2011'. I therefore suggest it might be worth adding this web page as a reference.
This web page also includes a very nice artist's impression of Navalised EUROFIGHTER flying past a carrier (tail hook down !). I'm not sure how to get the necessary permission, but it might be worth trying to get this picture included in the WIKPEDIA entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
What I would say in response is that 'India Defence Review' is saying the same thing ( http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/BAE-Systems-supports-the-Typhoon-bid-for-MMRCA.html), and I would argue that that is a reliable source. The art work from 'Global Defence' web site in any event should be of interest. INDEPENDENT 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Regarding the [Citation Needed] for the last sentence of the article's 'History' section. The correct citation is the letter published in the 'Glasgow Herald' newspaper on 26th Jan 2011 ( http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/letters-wednesday-26-january-2011-1.1081904), which lays down the key arguments referred to. Before anyone rolls out the argument that the letter is not a reliable source, I would point out that it was written by a competent marine industry professional, and was subject to full scrutiny editorial control by the HERALD (phone them and ask them!), and as such meets WIKIPEDIA requirements for a reliable source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources).
I would also make the following observations:
1) Look at the recent Wikipedia United Kingdom Deletion Nominations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom) and you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER is lumped in for deletion alongside 'Giblets F.C', 'List of bus routes in Downham Market', and 'Leeds Labour Students'. Absolutely nonsensical that what is arguably the UK's main fallback to F-35 (and a key contender for Indian requirements) is being "buried" in this way.
2) Look at the recent Aircraft Articles added to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Aircraft) ) and you will see that a whole raft of non-descript aircraft of yesteryear have been added, many of dubious & arguably un-noteworthy relevance to mainstream aviation history, many with woefully inadequate/incomplete references. Why then does the the one new aircraft article of key relevance to the 21st Century (i.e. Navalised EUROFIGHTER), incidentally an article written by a WIKIPEDIA "outsider", the one new article that the UK and US defence communities might not welcome, become the target for such hostility ? Why do experienced WIKIPEDIANS jump in with negative responses to my constructively-intended contributions, suggestions & amendents within minutes of them being posted. I have gone out of my way to help arrive at an informative, impartial & well-referenced article that is acceptable to you all, but still detect distinct air of "not welcome in our club".
Sorry guys, if the 'Farman F.1020', 'Walraven 2', 'Chotia Weedhopper' and 'Istra Ezhik ("Hedgehog")' deserve their own articles, then so does Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and as far as I'm concerned you undermine your credibility if you claim otherwise. Independent2011 ( talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
But what you "WIKIPEDIANS" have so far choosen to "merge" into 'Eurofighter Variants' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants) is a tiny proportion of what is included in the Navalised EUROFIGHTER article - swathes of perfectly valid text and references deleted. From my point of view it looks like that "merge" effectively involves deleting my perfectly valid contribution, replace it with weasel words, and tuck it away down the bottom of what is already a very long article (with a minor heading no less), beneath a list of minor RAF Eurofighter versions, where it won't get noticed. In the process the fact that Navalised EUROFIGHTER remains an serious fallback option to the UK's F-35 requirements, that it was studied in detail by the UK MOD and is still being touted as a solution to UK & Indian requirements is being utterly disguised.
You argue that "concept" aircraft such as Navalised EUROFIGHTER don't deserve their own page. Why then does 'HOTOL' (the abortive 1980s British space aircraft - arguably "pie-in-the-sky") get its own page ? By your line of argument it should just be dismissed as a one-line "could-have-been" on the 'British space programme' page ! Independent2011 ( talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and merge to Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Carrying out redirect presently, the merger can be handled editorially. lifebaka ++ 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A lengthy article that is mostly speculation, is WP:ESSAY-ish, and contains WP:OR-smelling commentary about possible cancellation of the F-35 and about a proposed variant of Eurofighter that has been discussed, rejected, and is just an "idea" now. Now, aircraft that are just "on the drawing board" are notable, but a minor variant of an existing type should be covered in the type's article ( Eurofighter Typhoon) or existing subarticle ( Eurofighter Typhoon variants) instead of writing an entirely new article - which was sourced in part to discussion-board debates, and is heavy in WP:CRYSTAL and weasel words ("A Navalised Eurofighter, F-18 E/F Super Hornet or the French Rafale remain the most likely fallback canidiates..."). There's very little here, honestly, that belongs on Wikipedia, and what little there is can be covered in the existing articles mentioned above. The editor gets an E for Effort (and if I may indulge my own personal WP:POV, kudos for supporting an alternative to the horror that is Dave-B!), but alas I don't think this is an article Wikipedia needs at this time. The Bushranger One ping only 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Lengthy comments by Independent2011 & responses (— Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Before any decision is made on deleting this article, the above individuals should declare any interest or involvement in the UK or US Defence community. At the end of the day F-35 is the Worlds largest (some say $380bn) weapons programme, and it would suit the UK & US defence industry & governments just fine if all mention of Navalised EUROFIGHTER (as a credible alternative to the UK's buy of F-35 aircraft) is brushed under the carpet, out of sight of the UK taxpayer, as it has been in recent years. Navalised EUROFIGHTER was and remains a credible alternative to F-35. This is fact (not opinion). It was studied in detail by the UK MOD in detail. Again, fact not opinion. The costs & timescales of the F-35 programme have ballooned since the UK signed up to it in Jan 2001. Fact, not fiction. In fact, if you go through this article sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line, you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact. The rest is balanced and fair comment. If anyone has doubts on this, they should contact the UK Secretary of State for Defence for confirmation, before dismissing it as 'speculation' or requesting its deletion. PS == As regards "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, if there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs)
|
Further lengthy comments by Independent2011 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gentlemen (and Ladies ?). Please try and welcome 'outsiders'/newcomer daring to place a new article on WIKIPEDIA. After all, WIKIPEDIA is meant to be reasonably free & open, not an exclusive club. And it is the easiest thing in the World to use Wikipedias "rules" and associated formal terminology to justify deletion of a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Better though that we all work together to resolve the differences, to take out anything that you think is causing you particular concern/upset. With this in mind I would propose the following amendments:
- 2nd para: Delete from 2nd sentence 'In the United Kingdom...' onwards.
If you do this, what is left is (in my opinion) statement of fact and non-controversial. If you can then help by adding references to support what is left (which you can no doubt do, being aviation experts/enthusiasts) we will probably end up with a half-decent article. I strongly feel though that this should stay as a standalone article, as:
I offer up the above in a spirit of good faith - I trust you will receive it likewise. Thank you. |
If you go to the 'Global Defence' web site ( http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2011/02/navalised-version-of-typhoon-to-be.html) you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER seems to be very much alive as an option, at least for the Indian Navy, and is being actively plugged at 'Aero India 2011'. I therefore suggest it might be worth adding this web page as a reference.
This web page also includes a very nice artist's impression of Navalised EUROFIGHTER flying past a carrier (tail hook down !). I'm not sure how to get the necessary permission, but it might be worth trying to get this picture included in the WIKPEDIA entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
What I would say in response is that 'India Defence Review' is saying the same thing ( http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/BAE-Systems-supports-the-Typhoon-bid-for-MMRCA.html), and I would argue that that is a reliable source. The art work from 'Global Defence' web site in any event should be of interest. INDEPENDENT 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Regarding the [Citation Needed] for the last sentence of the article's 'History' section. The correct citation is the letter published in the 'Glasgow Herald' newspaper on 26th Jan 2011 ( http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/letters-wednesday-26-january-2011-1.1081904), which lays down the key arguments referred to. Before anyone rolls out the argument that the letter is not a reliable source, I would point out that it was written by a competent marine industry professional, and was subject to full scrutiny editorial control by the HERALD (phone them and ask them!), and as such meets WIKIPEDIA requirements for a reliable source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources).
I would also make the following observations:
1) Look at the recent Wikipedia United Kingdom Deletion Nominations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom) and you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER is lumped in for deletion alongside 'Giblets F.C', 'List of bus routes in Downham Market', and 'Leeds Labour Students'. Absolutely nonsensical that what is arguably the UK's main fallback to F-35 (and a key contender for Indian requirements) is being "buried" in this way.
2) Look at the recent Aircraft Articles added to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Aircraft) ) and you will see that a whole raft of non-descript aircraft of yesteryear have been added, many of dubious & arguably un-noteworthy relevance to mainstream aviation history, many with woefully inadequate/incomplete references. Why then does the the one new aircraft article of key relevance to the 21st Century (i.e. Navalised EUROFIGHTER), incidentally an article written by a WIKIPEDIA "outsider", the one new article that the UK and US defence communities might not welcome, become the target for such hostility ? Why do experienced WIKIPEDIANS jump in with negative responses to my constructively-intended contributions, suggestions & amendents within minutes of them being posted. I have gone out of my way to help arrive at an informative, impartial & well-referenced article that is acceptable to you all, but still detect distinct air of "not welcome in our club".
Sorry guys, if the 'Farman F.1020', 'Walraven 2', 'Chotia Weedhopper' and 'Istra Ezhik ("Hedgehog")' deserve their own articles, then so does Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and as far as I'm concerned you undermine your credibility if you claim otherwise. Independent2011 ( talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
But what you "WIKIPEDIANS" have so far choosen to "merge" into 'Eurofighter Variants' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants) is a tiny proportion of what is included in the Navalised EUROFIGHTER article - swathes of perfectly valid text and references deleted. From my point of view it looks like that "merge" effectively involves deleting my perfectly valid contribution, replace it with weasel words, and tuck it away down the bottom of what is already a very long article (with a minor heading no less), beneath a list of minor RAF Eurofighter versions, where it won't get noticed. In the process the fact that Navalised EUROFIGHTER remains an serious fallback option to the UK's F-35 requirements, that it was studied in detail by the UK MOD and is still being touted as a solution to UK & Indian requirements is being utterly disguised.
You argue that "concept" aircraft such as Navalised EUROFIGHTER don't deserve their own page. Why then does 'HOTOL' (the abortive 1980s British space aircraft - arguably "pie-in-the-sky") get its own page ? By your line of argument it should just be dismissed as a one-line "could-have-been" on the 'British space programme' page ! Independent2011 ( talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply