Talk:Cessna/Archives/2017

Chinese production controversy
I don't think that "some website gets negative comments" is a terribly newsworthy thing anymore, so why is there so much space dedicated to this section? There's no evidence to back up the idea that it's "one of the largest controversies involving the company". The sources referenced confirm that the airplane is made in China but there's no press about the company having a real PR image issue about it. If this was real, the New York Times (or at least AVweb) would be calling it controversial. Lots of stuff comes from China now. It's not that big a deal. --70.168.126.154 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that to a large extent this controversy has "blown over" and doesn't warrant as large a section as it had. When the situation started it was very big news and got lots of press coverage in many aviation publications, including AvWeb. In reading the blogs and other comments over the summer of 2008, I think that those opposed to 162 production in China have largely decided to not buy the product and have moved on, whereas those who support the decision have bought one. There doesn't seem to be an enduring campaign to keep this in the press or to try to convince Cessna to change its mind. I have cut the text down to indicate the basic issues and refs. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ahunt. As of 2017, this no longer belongs anywhere in the article, as it's simply no more relevant today than the hoopla over Obama's birth certificate was back in 2008.  Indeed, it appears its origin was largely designed as a NPOV protest against Cessna, and was never a relevant source of information about Cessna as a whole, particularly given the fact that many companies with global operations are making inroads into China and other countries with low labor rates.  If no one objects with a reasonable argument to the contrary, I will delete the section by the end of March, 2017.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed. There is ample documentation to indicate that this was controversial at the time the events happened. This remains a historical record and is worth retaining, although it can be shortened from what is there now. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it actually need nine references? MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the notability has been questioned, I would say so. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)