Talk:Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force/Archive 1

PROD

 * Yesterday, I made queries with two other Admins and it is their opinion that this article page should be PROD-ed for deletion due to the questionable source and un-necessary duplication of information outside of the main article space on Hawker Hunter. Thoughts, anyone? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An article that is created with material that was reverted and challenged when it was added to the Hawker Hunter article is not the best way forward, you should not by-pass the normal BRD process with content forks. Clearly all the factors that caused the content to be reverted at Hawker Hunter still apply, it is badly written and constructed and most of the material would not be suitable for merging or adding back to Hawker Hunter, either because it is unclear or just not needed. Discussion at Talk:Hawker Hunter clearly shows no consensus for keeping badly written text into what is a good article. The originator had good intentions and other editors have added reliable content based on some of the material, although a lot of it is referenced to a self-published website which we should not really be used when the article starts to climb the quality ratings. Bottom line this should be deleted as it does not add any value to the encyclopedia or add to the content already in the Hawker Hunter article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is effectively a duplicate of information that is now in the main article - where the Swiss Air Force section now covers most of what is relevant and encyclopedic of Swiss Air Force service (omitting things like serial numbers, which is not. Any encyclopedic info on use of the swiss Hunters after retirement could be added to the appropriate part of the civil operators section is sourced to a RS and appropriately shortened to avoid weight issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i already know that the 'tolerance' and 'cooperation' is not the strong point of wikipedia. It was not so some years ago, when i was an active contributor, it is even less true today it seems.
 * 1 Since the article is 'badly written', why do not improve it instead to delete it? Where is such unacceptability for 'wikipedia standards'? How 'bad' it could have been written to not deserve any improvement?


 * 2 it is not true that all the infos are sent to the main article.


 * 3 the 'source questionability' is not greater than a lot of many others currently used in wikipedia, without much drama


 * 4 the attitude to forbit to me to edit a single line in a 'good article' (filled with ERRORS and false informations, BTW, but nobody cares, it is called 'good article') is not wikipedian-friendly. I, in fact have been interdicted to edit anything in 'english-stuff'. Is it justificable by my 'bad english', or it is a strategy to hold the ownership of 'your' articles? I even been unable to write that swiss hunters had Mavericks, like there weren't already infos that it was cleary so


 * 5 attacking, reverting, even insulting (be anal, as example, thank you Dave) a coming-back contributor, is definively the worst thing -wikinette/wikilove- that you could do, but it is apparently a waste of time to help with editing. Admitting my good faith is the minimum, but the 'collaboration' is not surely an excuse to exclude entirely other contributions, as the wikipedia policies states, rightfully.


 * 6 it 'irrilevant' to post in the main article the global amount of Swiss Hunter activity? The flying hours? the losses, the pilots fallen? The fratricide air-to-air killing? The simple fact that, today, an huge part of the Hunter still present are, effectively, Swiss Hunters, despite they were only less than the 10% of the total?


 * 7 if wikipedia-collaboration is concerned, then Dave deleted my contributions in the Hunter page. He should move the paragraph in the talk page, since it was to improve to meet the 'good article standards'. Instead, he DID NOT. But, i did it and asked to discuss and improve that. This was not done, the pruned contribution was simply ignored as paragraph, just few infos were passed in the main article. Is it 'collaboration'? I'd say not. And not happy enough, Dave irrided and insulted me, and seeing that i started atleast an auxiliary article, with is 'tolerance' decided to question even that, as the Hunter's page would be affected by a simple link, and wikipedia standards would drop if this page would be manteined/improved (yes, 'collaboration' not 'destruction'). This is far away from wikipedia original spirits, let me say.

Maybe Wikipedia is became so elityst, that almost nobody is allowed to edit anymore, if he is not 'already trusted'. You are free to delete this page, as i cannot and do not want to protect it (it is a well known trap: you defend YOUR pages, then you think that wikipedia is yours). Let me say, BTW, that if it will happen, as it seems to be, i'll decide to quit wikipedia (and this should not be an excuse to ban me, of course), as it is apparent how the aviation projects are 'owned' by some that don't like and don't tolerate any -non 'english'- contribution, and i obviously waste my time struggling to improve them (just to be kidded and insulted by Dave, isn't?).

And there is not worse payback than be (fully reverted) and even kidded after passing hours in order to improve some (blatalanty partial or buggy) paragraphs. Regards. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me if I include it here but you appear to have a problem with the way that wikipedia works, just a few words:

1. Badly written - you ask why we cant improve it - because it takes a lot of time and effort and really needs the original sources to understand what it being said, we all have a limited amount of time we give the the project and it would be far better if we created our own content instead. Doesnt mean we will not help if asked.

2. Not true all sent to main article - yes but what hasnt been included is not encyclopedic or important or gives undue weight to a particular subject in the article.

3. Source - you are welcome to question any source used in wikipedia but at the moment we are only concerned with this article.

4. Attitude - nobody owns any articles but others have put a lot of hard work in creating and improving articles and raising the quality levels, they will react to the inclusion of badly written, non-encyclopedic or just not relevant additions, just human nature.

5. Attacking, reverting etc - If you remember in the past you did the same thing adding large tranches of badly-worded unbalanced content and then failed to communicate what you were trying to do to other editors. Again a lot of editors spent time and effort cleaning up after you were last here.

Now I believe that you are trying to improve the articles but it is the approach that might be a problem, perhaps I can make a few suggestions:

1. Dont paste large sections of text in the article, badly written or not other editors have to check and verify what you have included.

2. Do the edits in small sections, one step at a time other users can then see what you are doing and it would be easier for them to help you add content that meets the guidelines.

3. The project works on consensus, that is other editors all agree what is best, you need to understand how that works. Sometimes we do things we dont agree but acknowledge the consensus that is built up, if we feel strongly about it then we can raise it at the project or on talk pages to change consensus or check what the current feeling is on a matter.

4. Raising issues on the talk pages before you make large changes is better. You are concerned that we are trying to stop non-english contribution but all it takes is a word on the talk page, something like I have a good source that explains something but I need help to add it to the article, you would be surpised that most editors would help if asked.

5. If you dont like something or see something wrong then use the talk page but dont edit war. Again I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, just take your time understand how things work and I cant see any reason why you cant be a valuable contributor to aviation articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Stefano: I have forgiven you so why do you continue to be so hostile towards me? Really, I cannot comprehend the level of animosity as shown by you towards me when this PROD is clearly a community based consensus. In real life, people like Bill Gunston would always check and recheck their information prior to the publication of his article and/or book, he has help from other editor giving peer review. So why can't you accept this logically like a man instead of trying to bulldoze your way through the plain view of so many of us here? FWIW, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we don't need your input if you carry on with your pointy behaviour. One, you are not Bill Gunston; two, your level of proficiency in English language leaves a lot to be desired; three, your reference source is very questionable (per WP:Verifiability); four, you dislike getting help from other editors when they are obviously trying to help, preferring to bulldoze instead; and lastly, MB1 made it very clear that you have trouble understanding Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies even though you meant well, you have somehow managed to offend everyone here for god-knows-what reason. Try to see things first from our point of view when you want others to understand yours. Capisce? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Answers:

To MilBorne1

1- i mean about 4-5 kb. How much time it takes? Why, as i am soo bad in english, someone don't show me how, let's say, to take 3 lines and correct the errors? I see a lot of worse contributors in wikipedia, and i don't think to be so bad to be even not understood. Strangely enough, in english forums nobody has problems with me, and i do not have problems to understand what you write as well. Instead to pick up an edit war, it would be better atleast to work on the talk page with the disputed paraghap. I reported there, but who cared to discuss it? I was Bold as Wikipedia suggests posting some stuff; later i asked atleast to discuss the paragraph omitted, as Wikipedia suggests as well (yes, who reverts on the spot should atleast try to save the useful stuff, is in wikipedia interest, isn't?). And then? I cannot even write that Swiss Hunters have Mavericks.

2- Reporting the total flyinghours or the accidents happened in Swiss Hunter fleet is not important? Why? Is not noticeable that a '50s fighter manages to get only 1 loss/10,000 f.hrs, as example? Italian F-104s did around 16/100,000 as example, G-91s even worse; not even the MB.339s did so well as the Swiss Hunters! Hey, in Wikipedia there is the 46kb Paul the Octopus article that basically is an encyclopedia about a 'prophet animal'. Swiss Hunters doesn't deserve 5 kb datas?

3- You can blame me as much you want. But.. In the past (2007), italian aircafts in WWII were almost non-existent in wikipedia.en. My efforts were called bad written, unreferenced and whetever else, BUT, at last the italian aircafts of WWII were enlarged atleast by 4x, basically better than the wiki.it equivalents. It was my hard head that make this possible. Even the idea to create the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators was mine and i worked on it very hard (70kb). Maybe many more worked hard with that article later, and so? It is today a very brilliant article (one of the best wikipiedia aviation IMO), maybe it would be non-existent without my will to create it and create it as 'complete' in any sense (not like the Hunter's costumers). So bash me, but i did right, even if criticized by all. Now Wikipedia has a very good article, is what matters.

4- when that paragraph was pruned i putted it in the talk, as it should be in wikipedia, but nobody seems to be interesed to discuss this. Instead, few datas were implanted in the main article, but still, while i asked to improve the thing, nobody apparently cared. It would have taken less time to improve that paragraph, that all the modifics, discussions and rollbacks happened since then.

TO Dave:

Came on, you revert what i do, you kidd me, you call me incompetent and ignorant, and i should be not hostile towards you? What else you should expect anyway? You even cleaned the link that outraged the 'good article' about Hunter, and asked to delete the article itself. What mountain of wikilove, i'd say.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I FORGIVE YOU~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Stephano, Please read this Wikipedia Essay No angry mastodons because I fear you are going up a one-way ladder in this debate. I beg you to read the essay and contemplate it seriously.  Wikipedia needs your knowledge.  Yes you many not "win" on this article but there will be many after this article.  Jack E. Hammond --Jackehammond (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the prod tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do so with consensus but not before attaining it. Please don't do it again. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"BUT, at last the italian aircafts of WWII were enlarged atleast by 4x, basically better than the wiki.it equivalents... the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators was mine and i worked on it very hard (70kb)... It is today a very brilliant article (one of the best wikipiedia aviation IMO)" I think you may be making a logical fallacy, simply because something is 'big' doesn't mean it is of a good quality. For instance, the current WP:GA conventions dictate that each paragraphy in an article should have a minimum of one citation; if an article doesn't even have that, it doesn't even qualify as a 'good article', let alone brilliant. I appreciate hardwork, I've ground away on many, many articles to build them up and produce something of more substance. But more than filesize, it is extremely important to use and provide high-quality sources - filling up articles with low-quality crud from unreliable fan-boy sites is actually the opposite of constructive, it means people have to waste their time mopping up a huge mess, it gets in the way of writing good material. It is far, far better to produce a well-referenced 20 kb article than it is to produce a useless, uncited 90 kb one. You could point out that I should just knuckle down and clean up your contributions for you, and I have done so on numberous occasions; but it's be better to work together rather than lumping all the clean-up on others to do. Quantity isn't quality, when its not based on good material to begin with, the added gumph actually detracts from an article. Kyteto (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some answers to that pointless argumentation above:
 * 1-The big dimensions doesn't prove that the article is 'poor'. If not, then find me a 'feature article' that is smaller than 20-30kb, while the Wikipedia average is around 5-10 at the best. So about 'fallacy', don't try such tricks with me, they simply cannot work.


 * 2-the Hunter 'good article' claimed tha F.Mk.6 having 4 AIM-9 and 4 AGM-65 Mavericks. You can add every citation you want, but if the instrument will be used/abused, then you get still a crxppy result and an unreliable article. Try to quote the Syrian revolt only with the Syrian ufficial government statements and see the results.


 * 3- Swisshunters.info is giving its sources (among them, atleast 3 books), as AKWNOLEDGED in the deletion page, so you are blatalanty IGNORING that result. This is 'PLAY WITH RULES' and ignoring them.


 * 4-If you are posing such attention to EVERY wikipedia article with this furor (why?) then really every wiki-article will drop to 20 kb or less. But this is not helping Wikipedia to be more reliable, this is damaging Wikipedia with a strickly and unwise application of rules that, i am sorry for you, are luckily 'interpreted' with 'common sense'. So i cannot be more in disagreement with you, and if you insist, i could evalue to set you in problematic users.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text used Greg Goebels vectorsite
There are several large chunks of text that are direct copies from vectorsite (http://www.vectorsite.net/avhunt_2.html#m2) I think I've identified them and given them quote marks and atttributation but if someone else could check that woyuld be helpful. There's more that is close paraphrasing, or slightly altered from the orginal (possibly because I had unwittingly edited them the a more encyclopaedic tone than Greg's vernacular) and might need a different sort of attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with the article. I know what i wrote from vectorsite. It was, basically, as everything i wrote by myself was bashed being 'bad english', so i had little choice anyway. This is the Goebel's site added text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_Hunter_in_service_with_Swiss_Air_Force&diff=481363617&oldid=481246737 that stands until now with little changes. Not that i love it necessarly, but still, i appreciated the availability of such PD stuff Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you use direct text, even public domain its origin needs to be correctly shown. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * then i apologize for that. I'll offer my collaboration, if needed to do so. Regards.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from the copyright violation issues (which bring Wikipedia into collision with the law), Vectorsite doesn't meet the suitability standards of the WP:RS policy - As such, it shouldn't be used. You may protest that there are some aircraft articles that do use this source, in which case I'd ask to to remember WP:OTHERSTUFF, simply because Article A does it/gets it wrong doesn't mean it is correct/encouraged to do it everwhere else. I'm hoping not to get drawn into a point-de-point on this issue, as it has become fairly accepted that fansites like Vectorsite, while good fun for fans, aren't suitable sources for use in an encyclopedia. Facts and information shouldn't be gathered from Vectorsite, content shouldn't be based upon it, an no new content should be made using it, in an ideal world. Kyteto (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As an addition to Kyeto's comment, vectorsite gives (some of) its sources so we can move from vectorsite to those for our information. I also note the qualifier to the numbers of Hunters in service given on the vectorsite page "The numbers given here have to be regarded as reasonable approximations that are certainly in the ballpark. I think I would laugh at anyone who told me they were absolutely certain of all the exact details" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Some modifics
About the Paveway LGBs, the quote was made by Greg Goebel site, but googling all around i never saw a trace of the Paveway under the Hunter. So i removed the stuff, atleats for a while (maybe Goebel could told us where such claims came from?). OTOH, i found instead a very interesting article about the Singaporian Hunters, that explains quite detailed how the Hunter deal was made, and what kind of upgrading (including the atleast theorical LGB capability, even if with external designators), that, for who can be interestend, is found here: http://citizenhistorian.com/2007/07/31/singapore-hawker-hunters/ I though it interesting, even if with little to do with Swiss Hunters (despite they shared AIM-9 and Mavericks). My 2 cents.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stefano, I'm talking to you in a very neutral tone and manner, I just wish to state that: 1.) the website you've provided is another WP:Verifiability; 2.) myself as a retired RSAF crew-chief, I've never once wired LGBs on them Hunter FGA/FR.74S even though it can carry them (in theory) but I've done it many times later on the Pave Penny equipped ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawks; and 3.) Hawker Hunter was procured following Israeli consultants' recommendation to Singapore after their reviewing of the Hunter's performance in the service of the Indian Air Force (during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 and 1971) and due also in no small part to the Royal Jordanian Air Force who had successfully utilised the type against the IsAF during the Arab–Israeli conflicts, including the Six-Day War. That is all, best and out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not said that this was the 'ultimate truth', just an interesting article about those Hunters. Your statements, strictly took with wikipedia rules, are just OR, even if i welcome any add-on in the discussion.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite your ability to spot my OR, you chose to turn a blind eye to yours, talk about double standard that you've set for yourself. Enough, you're nothing but a troll and have stepped on too many toes here because of your constant double standard, I just wanna see how far you can go before you find out you are all alone in here. FWIW, I won't even comment when you get it because you are simply not worth anybody's attention or time anymore. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * first, i did not stated any OR about Hunters. Second, i did not offended you, but called your experience, even if respectable, how it should be deserved to be called in Wikipedia (OR). Third, calling me troll is, instead, a direct insult and a needless one too. This should not be allowed in Wikipedia, isn't? Just to clarify.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Kyteto
First, that article was just considered as 'valid' in the last of (many) deletion trials. So your attitude to disrupt it challenging the sources is highly questionable. Then:

1-apart the copyright issues. What copyright violation issues? You cannot like Goebel site, but cannot speak such lies as you are doing. Goebel site si PUBLIC DOMAIN, understood?

2-Vectorsite doesn't meet the Wikipedia RS standards. You call Vectorsite as 'fan site'. This is highly offensive vs. Mr. Greg Goebel, that is not holding a Britney Spears Fun Club.

3-About Swiss.hunter, it is not claiming that Jesus was a woman or GWB is gay. It was indeed a fansite, but just like millions others that are currently used by wikipedia. You should blame navalweapons.org, Acig.org or Joe Baugher encyclopedia. They score hundreds of quoting here in wikipedia. They do not pretend to speak the only truth possible, yet this should be valid for every source in internet, even the most 'official'.

4-You are playing with rules and distorting them, just like another editor here. The Wikipedia rules about the sources say: '''The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.'''. This matters, everything can be challenged and weighted properly, not just because is not the US Government ufficial site.

So, unless Swisshunter.com claims that Hunters do have anti-gravity engines, or they were projected by Martians or flown only by femal pilots, to rule-out that site is really to 'play with rules' and a substantial dispracement of a deletion process just ended today (the last of 3 requests, all trashed). Unable to delete the article, someone is never happy enough to manipulate it and cut the grass under the cloth.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. "You cannot like Goebel site, but cannot speak such lies as you are doing. Goebel site si PUBLIC DOMAIN, understood" Copy+pasting content in without attribution is plagurism, a form of copy-right infringement and theft: E.G. If you keep editing in 'free content' without giving attribution and credit back to the author, you open up Wikipedia to being prosecuted in legal action. You CANNOT just take content from there, and paste it here WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS OR CITATION. Simply put, it is illegal to edit in that manner; not even PUBLIC DOMAIN sites can be used without giving credit.


 * 2. It's offensive to you apparently, but calling a fan-site a fan-site isn't offensive to me. Let's agree to disagree on this point, as what is 'offensive' in the fan-site badge is purely subjective. Besides of which, your very next sentence agrees with me that it was in fact, a fan-site, so why you find it so offensive to recognise it as such is beyond me.


 * 3. "It was indeed a fansite, but just like millions others that are currently used by wikipedia. You should blame navalweapons.org, Acig.org or Joe Baugher encyclopedia."

Actually, if you check my editing record, I have been against all of those self-published sources being used. Simply because I can't clean up a bajillion self-published sources at once doesn't mean I don't stop trying to. And simply because you can vaguely wave at 'millions of others' which have got it wrong doesn't make it okay to create on generating low-quality cruddy content, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.


 * 4. "You are playing with rules and distorting them", Sure, respond to my advice with hostility and accusations. Verifiability is quite clear and is open to no 'distortion' of my own. Swisshunter.com is a self-published site, and self-published sites are to be avoided. I doesn't matter that they haven't claimed anything ridiculous, they're not reliable sites for citing. As the policy states: "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * Perhaps if you can stop slashing at me as "someone is never happy enough to manipulate it and cut the grass under the cloth" long enough to consider my points rather than raging an attack against every editor with a contrary opinion, you may have recognised I was trying to be helpful. Kyteto (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Answers to the above Kyteto post:


 * 1-I gave no less but 5 citations linked to Goebel until you removed them, and if it was this a problem, i was and am available to put one for any of his affermations and/or rewriting the paragraph or let someone else to do it. It would be not really needed everytime to put a quotation, but anyway it is POINTLESS to quote a source that cannot be 'considered' as well.


 * 2- Calling a fan-site with the under-line being an unreliable fan-site. Then yes, i think Greg Goebel would be offended, also because you cannot think that every specialized site in the Web is automatically a 'fan-site' just because is not Encyclopedia Britannica or the US State department. And we talk about 'very serious fansite ' as we see, they provided a lot of book and article published.


 * 3-And your attitude is just unable to 'evalue every source' in fact ignoring the 'common sense' that should be used in Wikipedia. It is futile that you put continously that policies that you seems not even understand. As example, the Otherstuff policy states that:

While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.


 * Understood? This means that your quoting doesen't state automatically what you are suggesting to be. Yes, Wikipedia would be more 'reliable' and also a lot smaller, but the common sense helps to not destroy it as the web, as a whole, is pratically a 'non reliable source' to you. There are thousand articles based on Acig.org, Navweapons.com, Joe Baugher encyclopedia and countless other sites, and despite this, widely used, like millions others. Instead to insist on this, why you are going to have fun with the other 3,8 millions articles? If you want to close wikipedia or reduce it to the 2005 standards, come forth.


 * R 4- Perhaps you should start to respect the judice just expressed in the PoD ended yesterday. Your attitude is in direct conflict with the result of that process, and so you are actually against the Wikipedia that you pretend to defend from 'unreliable' sources. And no, the self-published sources should not be used but still, they are acceptable even with prudence and depending on the publisher and the context. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stephano Please take some of Kyteto's advise under serious consideration. Can't you see that you are taking anyone's comments as hostile when they aren't.  Also if you have some information for an article with a unreliable source just post it in the article with a NO footnote.  Yes another editor can remove it that day if they wish.  But most just put a "citation needed" tag with a date on it.  And then other editors try and find a reliable source.  For example the page on the 1950's movie "Around the World In 80 Days" had a section on the production of that movie and special effects with no footnotes.  You could tell the information came from and could not be used at footnotes.  There were four large paragraphs on that page with about a dozen citation need tags.  I came across a detailed article in Popular Mechanics on the special effects of that movie.  And I added reliable footnotes and the "citation tags" from 2010 were taken down.  And better yet no one got mad at anyone and the page was made more reliable. But please remember Stephano not everyone -- and few if any -- editors are trying to harm you.  In fact most are trying to actually help you. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

He (Kyteto) actually ignores the results made by the last attempt (of 3) to delete that poor article. I have really enough of those contributors that, quoting (and ignoring) the Wikipedia policies, in fact abuses of them and damage the wikipedia database. The judgement yesterday stated that those sources are valid, then i will respect this and fight who wants to discredit them, sorry. It's a full month that i struggle in Wikipedia attempting to simply give some contributions to the main database, and what i got instead? Everyting in the parent article deleted, the son article proposed 3 times for deletion, and now de-costructed by the abuse of wikipedia policies, with the final aim to melt it anyway in the main article. It has became madness, not surely a joy to editing in wikipedia. And i can't lost one month just in order to 'improve' the wikipedia database.

Not only that: [Swisshunters.info Swisshunters.info], as pointed out in the Request of deletion, does have no less but 4 books, with even ISBN:


 * OLIVIER BORGEAUD, PETER GUNTI and PETER LEWIS - ein jäger für die schweiz (www.goatworks.com) (Hunter Verein Interlaken, 1997, ISBN 3-85545-840-5)
 * PETER GUNTI & PETER LEWIS for swiss hunter (Sentinel Aerospace Ltd, 1994, ISBN 0-9523572-0-8)
 * PETER LEWIS - of Alpine Air Support GmbH, Zürich (www.alpine.aero)
 * RAY DEACON Hawker Hunter - Fifty Golden Years (Vogelsang Publications, 2001, ISBN 0-9540666-0-X)
 * FRANCIS K MASON Biography of a Thoroughbred (Patrick Stevens Ltd, 1981, ISBN 0-85059-476-6)''

And this would be an 'unrealiable fan site'? How many 'news' articles give their sources when claiming this or that, as example? And neverthless, they are cited in Wikipedia, as they were the Holy Bible!

So before call it an 'unreliable sources', someone should think twice and do not act as a Pasdaran. Also, Greg Goebel cites widely his sources so it not that difficult to know where such infos came from. The ones quoted for Hunter are:


 * THE JET AIRCRAFT OF THE WORLD, by William Green and Roy Cross, Hanover House, 1955.
 * HAWKER HUNTER IN ACTION by Glenn Ashley, Squadron-Signal Publications, 1992.
 * "A Farewell To Arms: Hunter Retirement From Swiss Service" by Jon Lake, WORLD AIR POWER JOURNAL, Volume 20 / Spring 1995, 138:145.
 * "Hawker Hunter" by Jon Lake, WINGS OF FAME, Volume 20 / 2000, 28:98.

Goebel is a very good and competent guy and i do not see how and why he should be dispraced and called 'fan-site holders' or so. Until some years ago, his articles were even more referenced than the now all-mighty wikipedia. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Also, Greg Goebel cites widely his sources so it not that difficult to know where such infos came from." The problem is, we can't tell which bits of information come from which book, or if all information does come from reliable books and articles E.G. We can't fork out editorialisations, opinions, guesses, and other information fed in from less-reliable sources, such as word-of-mouth. We cannot tell what is 'good, solid information' from what could be unsubstanciated. And it is all but certain that swisshunters.info compile information from sources not considered to be verifiable/reliable for scholarly work, so once again while some information is relible, other parts aren't, and as we can't tell which is which, we shouldn't use any of it, and just use the original source material to begin with, as other editors have already suggested to you as a wise course of action. Why bother with the unverified fansites when there are a ton of decent books that the information could be being drawn from. While you've been on here kicking up a stink, calling me a liar, other childish names and accusations, I've been editing the article. Rewording sections into proper English, implimenting policies like WP:Lead, finding new reliable sources and adding them to the article, and even inserting new information to expand the article upon. Instead of slagging off any editor with an opinion not perfectly in line with your own views, you could have been out there adding sources without the dogged controversy of being unreliable and open to question. Each and every paragraph of an article, other than the lead, should be cited. If you look again at the article revision before I began editing it, this was most certainly not the case, and thus the addition of citation needed tags entirely justiable. Kyteto (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Until some years ago, his articles were even more referenced than the now all-mighty wikipedia." That doesn't count for anything in judging the answer to the question: "Is it reliable?". This arguement has been fought a thousand times over, and nearly every time the same result comes out: If we're not sure a source is reliable, it isn't used here/should be removed. As you insist that WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't enough, let's go through some of those previous cases. You seem to have an attachment to the MDD F-4 Phantom II, let's take a look at the [FAC Review]: multiple editors, including administrators, identifying Greg Goebel and Joe Baugher as "questionable, unreliable... in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and should be removed". And they were removed, in line with the reviewing panel's judgement of lacking suitable reliability. How about Concorde: "the use of www.concordesst.com (one of the largest Concorde fansites, highly developed and technical information: Kyteto) as a source, as a self published website I am not sure that it is a reliable source." On the consensus that a useful but questionably-reliable source was not verifiable as correct, a detailed-but-possibly-error-ridden/mistaken source was binned. [F-111]: Use of Baugher at higher quality levels questioned, suggestion taken onboard as legitimate without any dispute, recognition of direct book sources as superior. [B-17 Flying Fortress]: "I see it's still citing Joe Baugher, which is not a reliable source.". Let's check the [WP:Aviation noticeboard]: "incorrect regurgitation of other more reliable sources impacts potentially all of his [Baugher's: Kyeto] work, which is why SPS advises caution in using self-published sources by authors who are not published in the relevant field, particularly when more reliable sources are available. We can avoid the opinions about whether Baugher is correct or not by simply going to the original sources.". And another from the [WP:Aviation archive]: "FWIW, Policy is quite strict about personal websites not being regarded as reliable under anything but exceptional circumstances, and unfortunately, neither Dr Joe Baugher's nor Greg Goebel's sites meet the strict criteria... It could be the most comprehensive, most perfectly referenced resource on the topic in existence: if it's self-published (personal website or vanity-press book) it is unreliable". Do I have to bring up yet more discussions of the same tired point before you'll accept that it isn't a personal agenda I've made up 24 hours ago against you? Baugher is unreliable, and it is recommended to be avoided, it is not to be used for citing encyclopedia material. The same goes to Vectorsite. And the same goes to SwissHunter.info - as a rule, self-published sources are to be avoided (with very, very, very few exceptions in exceptional circumstances) - this is a pretty unanimous opinion. Kyteto (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)-


 * Kyteto Thanks for still trying to give good advise and your still helping to improve this article that Stephano is so concerned about: Even though you have good reason not to, where most would walk away. As they say the true test of a gentleman, is not how they treat those that they like and admire and agree with, but the exact opposite.  You are a true Wiki-Gentleman. Maybe by your help and actions, and refusal to answer fire with fire, Stephano will have an awakening and realize that just because editors disagree they don't have to be adversaries with one winning and the other being beaten into the ground, and try to relax on Wikipedia.  Lord knows I have tried; but with little success.  Again, thanks. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By this post, Jack, it is evident that the notion of 'wiki-gentleman' is quite different from a gentleman of the rest of universe. If calling other works as 'thieft', 'fan-site', 'unreliable', and questioning the good faith of others is 'wiki-gentlemen', then i must admit, your notion of 'gentlemen' is quite odd. But still, in your post is clear that, if he is a gentlemen, then i am not. Maybe, for sure we are not the same league and i am not that afraid of that.


 * About myself, just today i was checking the Selenia Aspide page. Not a single source (the only one, is a link now dead) present, highly incomplete and so on. I could complete that page with a full array of sources as this is the most successful italian missile ever built. BUT, why to bother, when i could instead to work in my wikibook and don't give a dawn about this 'great site'? Just to be ignored/questioned/insulted mercyless about everything i post (writing, sourcing, style ecc ecc)? And of course, working gratis in order to have such satistactions. What kindness here and while i waste my time helping the Wikipedia shortcomings (Hunter Mk.6 fitted with 4 Mavericks, what a laugh), the best i can have is to be kidded or insulted, as already happened.


 * But the only real emergency is to bash 'unreliable sources' as Kyteto wants to be, basically offending the work made by mr. Goebel and Mr. Williams, not to talk about the 'common sense' and the wide possibility to 'evaluate' the sources by contest, not 'on book'. Well, i can't agree with such kind of 'gentlemen qualification', nor wit such battage vs this poor Hunter page. It seems to me, that anglo-saxon wikipedians are very jealous when someone 'stranger' tries to modify 'their' pages. It was already happened to me with Hawk and CF-104, and i do not want to repeat this experience, nor i want to loose a month trying to do reasonable things in a page that seems to be the Holy Bible final discussion. Really atrocious as Wikipedia is fallen down as personal relations.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

R.to Kyteto
As you gave some links, arguing that they shows how you are right:


 * from Wikiaviation projects:

''Clarifying here from the RfA where it came up: a Google Books search for "Joe Baugher" shows that he is, in fact, a published source who is widely recognised as an expert in the field. To wit: "Military aviation expert Joe Baugher" ; "Joe Baugher, aviation historian" ; "Joe Baugher, "American Military Aircraft Encyclopedia," ; "A special acknowledgment has to go to Joe Baugher, whose magnificent web site on military aircraft serial numbers I visited over and over again seeking confirmation of data I had received on individual planes. Anyone doing military aircraft research must visit (a book relative to B-29 with aknoledgements to Joe Baugher and his site ). It will be a visit well spent" ; "According to Joe Baugher's magnificent website" ; he is also cited as a source by and  - [The Bushranger]22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)''

''Actually in reviewing the article in question and understanding these sorts of liquid-cooled engine installations as used in the P-38, I can only conclude that Baugher's text is not-inconsistant and that those who think it is are not correct. I think you will have to try harder to find errors. I have to note that even if you did find one error I am not sure that proves anything. Even the most reliable sources contain the odd error and that article is not even within the scope of what is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joe_Baugher as that specifically deals with "Does Joe Baugher's website pass WP:RS in respect of his lists of American military aircraft serials?" and thus excludes the paqe that is worrying you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)''

''Strange that a well respected aviation website like this is questioned. Perhaps as suggested we should try an replace the refs to keep the system happy. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)''

F-4 FARC review

''Just ventilating here but there is a difference between an extensively referenced and "balanced" account compared to the usual personal "fanboy" website. Baugher and Goebel have been reliable sources of information no different from any other published article in either print or non-print media. I would venture to guess that their work predates Wikipedia and had been used as "starting points" for many aviation articles in Wikywacky world. IMHO Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC).''

''Fortunately, if anyone cares about the FA status of the F-4 article, Baugher's and Goebel's sites are so well-referenced that it should be relatively easy to track down their sources, verify that neither gentleman is distorting the facts, and cite their sources directly. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)''

''No; the blanket categorisation of self-published sources as unreliable is box-ticking, in that there is no attempt to appraise or evaluate the sources. The "allowability" of such a source is therefore a purely mechanical and arbitrary decision; or rather non-decision. Don't get me wrong: verifiability is a good and very imporant thing, but black-and-white policies are plain and patent shrubbery. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)''

''Every contributor to Wikipedia appraises and evaluates sources all the time, in deciding what information to take from where (and, of course, what to disregard). Of course more caution needs to be exercised when dealing with self-published material, but to tar it all with the same brush is, IMHO, ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that Baugher is anything other than a conscientious amateur; but when the level of an amateur's conscientiousness is evident, I believe that the sensible course is to extend the same good faith that we extend to submissions here. You evidently disagree; that's fine - I'm not attempting to convince you otherwise. However, other contributors here are demonstrably confused and incredulous that a high-quality resource is not deemed worthy of inclusion as a source. I think it's important to be transparent about why that is so. I agree 100% with your interpretation of what policy states; it's just that I happen to think that it's a bad policy. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)''

''Rob, Rudi: I agree with both of your observations. This "tag-team" acted as more than editors but as arbitors hautingly and dismissively deriding any commentary that didn't jibe with their preconveived notions of veracity. I don't think you are the only ones with this impression, Nigel has also mentioned his frustrations with the "scalloping" of countless hours of work. Early in the process, I had taken one look at the revisions that were proposed, and had questioned the methods that were being employed. After I had a cursory look at the numerous errors in formatting that were left in place after the first "sweep" that only confirmed for me that these two editors were the wrong editors to undertake a FA, regardless of their lofty opionions of their work. I had even asked for a new FA Review from a different reviewer but the review continued relentlessly. I resigned myself to the conclusion that nothing was going to sway the team from their inevitable conclusions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC).''


 * Adding from F-111 review:

''Joe Baugher is a useful source but certainly at the FA-level (=Feature Article, that it is not the case with this one), his work becomes uncitable as it doesn't meet the requirements for absolute verifiability. I don't have a problem with it staying as it is, but where possible I'd recommend substituting with books such as Knaak. Kyteto (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)''

So the 'unreliable source' is not that unrealiable unless you are writing for a 'featured article', atleast till a most prominent work would be found somewhere. Kyteto, you cannot even quote yourself as you call 'useful' stuff like Joe Baugher (meant roughly on pair with Goebel and others not 'really fansite' holders). And i am not be automatically forced to respect this kind of 'pig is pig' decisions about Baugher or whetever else.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't cut me any slack do you? I can admit that someone's site is of a good quality and impressive, even if it isn't suitable for citing from on Wikipedia. I was trying to do what you seem incapable of, coming to a compromise, as opposed to WP:BULLDOZING. Kyteto (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the F-4 Phantom in non US operator is STILL partially BASED on Baugher work. See   and compare, as example with  and as this was reviewed in 5 years, it appears that this was quite reliable, neverthless" As I've said, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Simply because we're not able to clean up 25 million articles in one day, and we haven't fixed every policy violation in existence yet, doesn't make it 'okay'. Simply because Person A commits murder doesn't make it okay for everyone else to run around murdering one another; we accept that some articles can be in the wrong, and we use policy to guide such judgements. "And books, even if not self-published, are not necessarly more reliable than the other works" That's your own opinion, and you're free to hold it: But policy dictates that self-published sources aren't reliable and shouldn't be used for citation. Wikipedia decisions are driven by policy, not personal opinion.
 * And if you had read closely, it was the main F-4 article, not the sub-article on non-US operators, that was reviewed and purged - We haven't had the time to clean up the subarticle, but it is in dire need of reworking: Entire paragraphs with no evidence of where that info came from, non-policy-compatible citation, ect.
 * "this is not justificable either, as you are applying too rigid parameters that are not in the same ballpark with the other Wikipedia stuff. And this is really annoying" I've linked dozens of discussions over the last seven years, made before I even started editing, that shows a majority of quality-concerned editors have taken the same judgement and opinion - This is not my application alone, but the application of the Wikiproject over the last ten years!
 * "Wikipedia cannot assure an absolute truth, and absolute reliability." That's no excuse for laziness and using poor quality sources in violation of established policy. Self-published sources are a very well-established no-no for sourcing.
 * "Shall call him a 'reliable source' just because he wrote his blabla with a publishing editor?" WP:OTHERSTUFF, simply because one isolated instance goes wrong doesn't turn the world upside-down or change the dictate of long-estalibed policy.
 * "you continue to call 'fansite' and 'unreliable' those sites that are atleast on pair of millions others used in Wikipedia" Yet another WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement, simply because others have been lazy and not followed policy doesn't mean its okay to continue being lazy/not following policy. I've linked a dozen discussions in which the opinion has been unanimous - Self-published sources are slowly but surely being purged for policy-compliant, more reliable, more authoritive, and more-likely-to-be-accurate sources. Why be less credible by using a self-published source, when there are many millions of more credible sources available? Policy says there's no reason to do so, and many thousands have agreed with this position. It doesn't matter if the author of a self-published source assures me "I'm right, and I say so", Wikipedia cannot work like that. We prefer the use of published, peer-reviewed sources. You can whinge and whine than policy doesn't matter... but to many it does, to most of the editors you've raged against and insulted it does. I wish we could all run around willy-nilly, splatting information from gossip to what-my-dog's-best-friend-told-me, but this isn't the site for that - We're aiming for a better quality than that.
 * "as you are applying too rigid parameters that are not in the same ballpark with the other Wikipedia stuff". An arguementative person could insist on the opposite, that "you're not applying enough quality-control to your additions, and are dragging the site down with content in violation of widely-accepted policy". Rhetoric works both ways, it doesn't establish much however. Kyteto (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "look, every magazine or book relies on 'second hand sources', so you cannot do much sophism about the reliability of those works" It's not my place to perform 'sophism' on the behalf of Wikipedia. They're not self-published sources, and thus haven't violated the policy saying "no self-published sources", while Vectorsite has. Policy says that it goes in the bin, there's no need to invent 'common sense' or other magical exclusion rules, dozens and dozens of editors have agreed that self-published sources aren't acceptable here in the aviation community, regardless of what you personally feel, the consensus of editors stands taller than the opinion of one editor with a view that "policy and everyone else's opinions are inferior to my opinion". Kyteto (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

-Simply because we're not able to clean up 25 million articles in one day, and we haven't fixed every policy violation in existence yet, doesn't make it 'okay'.

Simply because 'pig is a pig' and you and some others 'established' who is stricly said, a 'reliable source' and who is not, then we must fullow your attitude and willing. Comparing murderers with Joe Baugher definies you as well.

-''That's your own opinion, and you're free to hold it: But policy dictates that self-published sources aren't reliable and shouldn't be used for citation. Wikipedia decisions are driven by policy, not personal opinion.''

Then start to learn what those policies are really saying, as every source should be evalued in his reliability, if not just take the ufficial syrian government to describe what is going on in Syria.

-We haven't had the time to clean up the subarticle, but it is in dire need of reworking: Entire paragraphs with no evidence of where that info came from, non-policy-compatible citation, ect.

Poor guy. Your prejudices are condemning you to do a very hard work in order to deplete Wikipedia (while you are thinking to improve it).

-that shows a majority of quality-concerned editors have taken the same judgement and opinion - This is not my application alone, but the application of the Wikiproject over the last ten years!

BS. You only displayed what kind of DISPUTED QUESTION is what you are trying to pass as 'definitive truth/law/rule' in wich all you agree. You simply want to apply it with fanatically.

-simply because one isolated instance goes wrong doesn't turn the world upside-down or change the dictate of long-estalibed policy.

Simply because you cannot understand how your inflexible attitude is damaging to the project, then you cannot understand why so many have not agreed with such fanatism.

-run around willy-nilly, splatting information from gossip to what-my-dog's-best-friend-told-me, but this isn't the site for that - We're aiming for a better quality than that.

So J. Baugher and Goebel are 'dogs', uh? What a laugh. You seems to not have a clue about your own words. This is a clear and straight insult to whom (like Goebel, Baugher and Williams) struggled in order to make a REFERENCED AND COHERENT WORK within aviation projects. And you call them on pair of 'dogs'? Shame on you, then.

They're not self-published sources, and thus haven't violated the policy saying "no self-published sources",

So, it does no matter that you quote a total BS, it worths only that this BS is written somewhere 'ufficial'. Pathetic kind of 'wiki-care'.

-dozens and dozens of editors have agreed that self-published sources aren't acceptable

LOL. As the discussions above stated, there is all but consensus about this and many are or were AGAINST that kind of 'consensus' that you are declaring. And YOU, yes i say you, stated that J.Baugher is not that bad, but not much useful for a featured article. And this is NOT a featured article and has no pretention to became one.

No, i do not follow your attitude about RS. You are the one that cannot even understand what that policy says: that every source must be evalued in order to not use it wrongly or use a source that is not that reliable.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "So J. Baugher and Goebel are 'dogs', uh? What a laugh. You seems to not have a clue about your own words. This is a clear and straight insult" I did not say that; that is an extremely heavily-altered and twisted rearrangement of what I said that completely changes its meaning, the manner in which you are distoring my sentences to become offensive is quite worrying and rude. The original meaning of the sentence, before you perverted it, was to say that we aren't and can't be a 'every source is acceptable' website, we have to be selective of our sources. It doesn't matter if 'they've worked hard, it has a bibliography': I went to University, I wrote many highly reliable essays, which are available online. But I wouldn't dream of citing them on Wikipedia, despite me knowing that everything in them is cited and correct to the truest extent - Because they fall under the realm of Self-Published Sources. It doesn't matter the effort, the assurences that it is right, the bibliography ect ect - If it's self-published, policy states it shouldn't be here, with few exceptions - There is no extenuating circumstances worthy of exception and thus no ground for an exception; that's my evaluation of the source. Do you have any grounds for this accusation against me of not having conducted an evaluation of the source? Kyteto (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "And YOU, yes i say you, stated that J.Baugher is not that bad, but not much useful for a featured article" "You simply want to apply it with fanatically." Contradiction in logic - you need to reconsider what my alledged agenda is. First I apparently want to 'fanatically eradicate' these sources, then you recognise that I was not actually that hostile to them - contradiction in your own arguement. How can I be a fantical zealout bend on wiping them out, yet simontanously tolerate them? You've painting an extremist picture of me, but contradicting yourself in the process. Kyteto (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "So, it does no matter that you quote a total BS, it worths only that this BS is written somewhere 'ufficial'. Pathetic kind of 'wiki-care'." Once again, NO. Like you've been promoting, we evaluate the source on its merits and compare its information with that of other sources available; that way published but incorrect information is sifted out and lost. But that isn't the same process as rejecting it under WP:SPS, as it isn't a SPS (Self Published Source), it is a different form of evaulation completely. This level of evaluation finding a source to be 'probably right' because it doesn't have obvious falsehoods such as 'the Hawker Hunter was powered by a pair of anti-gravity drives', while taken into consideration, doesn't outweigh the WP:SPS policy that says in the overwhleming majority of circumstances to remove/avoid the use of SPSs. Kyteto (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Comparing murderers with Joe Baugher definies you as well." I have made no such comparison of Baugher to a murderer: I am coming to believe that you are deliberately missing the point to rage a flame war, although I prefer assuming that you have genuine difficulties with the English language, as per WP:Goodfaith. The level of hostility you are exhibiting is extra-ordinary however, it is extremely unusual to write off other editors comments as 'BS', or openly mock them ("Poor guy", "Your prejudices"), or to rage at anybody who tried to participate on the talkpage. I don't enjoy being the target of such hostility, defemation and misrepresentation - I can't imagine you would be either, if you could put yourself in the position of other editors. There's still time to change. Kyteto (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But you stated that Baugher is not bad as source, then why we should not use Goebel? The contradiction is not mine.
 * If you really want my answer, here goes: Neither Baugher or Goebel are awful sources, but simply because they aren't awful, doesn't mean they're trouble-free and don't have issues with policy. While most Self Published Sources are of a worse, more unreliable nature, and I would put them as some of the better SPS sites ut there, they're still SPS sites and SPS sites, per policy, are discouraged and normally disuaded from usage for issues with reliability.


 * And excuse me for the heating, but after some weeks of discussions and reverting, this became a bit too hard to play with.
 * You confuse two things: a- self published works, and b- published works, but based on available bibliography. IOW, Baugher or Goebel did not stated something that they had discovered byselves, but just re-sum what was and is available today, written by other guys and published. They just summed it, even without notes that help us to understand where the infos came from.
 * I know this is difficult to grasp over such language barriers, but they aren't published sources - they're self-published E.G. Information they're written from their studying on their website. going back to my example of my own work, my essays are self-published works as well E.G. I've made them available via web hosting for other students to use. The use of a bibliography isn't what quantifies a work as being published verses self-published: It is who the publisher is. If I've published it on my own website, and never had equivilent work printed in newspapers/journals/books, I remain as a self-published source. However, if I had my work picked up by an academic journal, it would then confer grounds for recognition as an expert in the field, and that would then justify use of my self-published work in that topic, being that the self-published work of an expert published elsewhere in that regard is then viewed as valid and reliable.


 * Anyway, that Internet source is much more reliable is displayed by another example. Perhaps you know a guy that holds a site, the Hakas Biplane Aviation Page. Well, this was and is another 'amateour site' (but not a fansite!). This has grewth so much, that Hakasson has became a 'real book writer' about biplanes in war (recently published in italian, too). So, we couldn't note what it is written in his site (even if highly referenced), but we should quote the same infos after to have bought his books.. Why i should be forced to buy a book that repeats what is already available (and costantly updated with the time) freely in internet?Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Why i should be forced to buy a book that repeats what is already available (and costantly updated with the time) freely in internet" You could make the exact same complain to a University tutor when your paper gets dismissed for using poor-quality sources. Convention, although silly, dumb, idiotic or any other choice words that could be said, is what it is: Books are seen as being more reliable, and more respectable, and thus more suitable for writing a professional work such as an encyclopedia, and that aura filters across to Wikipedia. It is dumb and backward, but traditionally, if a publisher is willing to stake their reputation on printing it, it is viewed as likely to be notable and/or of a good quality - the same intrinsic network doesn't exist yet for quality-proofing websites, which is a pain in the butt when trying to validate them to defat the original driving principles behind WP:SPS. It's a good arguement that you have, but it's basically arguing again decades of tradition followed the majority of aspiring institutions in the publishing field - David verses Goliath. HOWEVER, in the case of Hakasson, who has become a published author in the field himself, it could then be argued that they could be recognised as an expert in the field - something which neither Baugher or Goebel has accomplished as of current - as a published author, it would stand as the basis for a reason to grant exception under WP:SPS. So actually, as it is a case where the site is written by a recognised expert in aviation, his site of quality-written work in Aviation then becomes acceptable material for use - If he hadn't been published, it would be a far harder case to argue for an exclusion to SPS policy.Kyteto (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ein moment, bitte
I just discovered in internet a published book about the Hawker Hunter (including an huge capter about the Swiss Hunter, of course!). This is why i returned in Wikipedia.

It is huge and costly ($$), but, for the pre-view shown in Google books, it is reporting pratically the same stuff published in the much derided William's site. If it really matters, i'd even buy that book in order to place some quoting.

But the question is: is it really that important, when we have already an internet free source that states the same infos? Should i pay neverthless for that book in orded to show that some 'fansites' are actually seriously manned and reliable just like 'published works'?Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've used GoogleBooks Previews to cite hundreds of books on Wikipedia, it is a 100% accurate scanning of the book in question: We don't actually care if you use a book in a physical manner or view it digitally, as you're citing the book rather than the website (the website is only acting as an intermediary portal to the book's content itself). You can cite from a book you've read online, following the same formatting conventions as for citing a physical book.(Author name, Title, Publisher, Year, ISBN in the Bibliography; the in-line citation containing the author's family name, year of publishing, and the page range). I'd dare say that a considerable percentage of books researched for Wikipedia contributions weren't by people buying books in the stores or sitting at the library, but viewing what was being made available via the web. I'm not actually anti-website, physical books only, as I've used a ton of websites, books, articles and other material made available across the web in hundreds of articles to help them grow and establish themselves stronger - but I always encourage the use of reliable websites, and try to minimise use of self-published websites, as per Wiki policy and academic convention, as self-published sites are often a slippery slope into unreliability and poor-quality sourcing. Kyteto (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Self promotion/ "costumers"
Awful but amusing EN, unless they are really into drag artistry while flying Hunters, but this looks like a shameless advert in the article, and probably should be deleted: "claims its fleet is capable of operating at speed up to mach 0.95, up -3.75/+7.5G for 90 minutes up to 185 km from their base, simulating air to air and air to surface threats for military costumers, at a low operational cost compared to modern fighters. Lortie Aviation is another costumer of the former Swiss Hunters" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeurocrat (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)