Template:Did you know nominations/TAT Technologies

TAT Technologies

 * ... that TAT Technologies Ltd. was established in 1969 in response to a French arms embargo on Israel?
 * Comment: Article created yesterday, 23 November.
 * Reviewed: Jesmyn Ward (diff).

Created/expanded by Biosketch (talk). Self nom at 11:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Tautly written and generously sourced new article, created on November 23. Neutrally written, over 1,500 characters long. All sources check out. No copyvio. Good to go. DracoE 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good. Made some stylistic changes I think strengthen the article. Think you should consider slightly expanding the hook to something like this: "... that TAT Technologies, an Israeli company listed on the NASDAQ, was established in 1969 in response to France's arms embargo of Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War? Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Plot Spoiler, as you are an involved editor in the IP topic area I am obliged to remind you of rule H2, namely: DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that are subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor.


 * With regard to the nom itself, one thing that concerns me about it is the hook. Though I haven't had time to confirm it, I've read that France placed an arms embargo on all countries in the ME at this time, it didn't just single out Israel, in which case I think the proposed hook would be misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of "involved editors" Gatoclass, what are you doing here then??? Your biases are well documented. And for the record, I'm not a DYK "novice." I've had several DYK's listed. I think you should consider excusing yourself from this DYK based on your own self-serving criteria. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The rules don't discourage an involved editor from commenting on a hook, only approving it. You can make as many criticisms of a submission at this page as you like; indeed, we encourage such involvement, because it's what helps us maintain quality. And I didn't call you a "novice", BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the above hook is controversial (or at least non-neutral), perhaps we can use something like this:
 * ... that TAT Technologies Ltd. supplies environmental control systems to the United States Army, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Cirrus Aircraft, and Embraer?
 * The above hook would capture a very interesting part of the subject, namely its international and high-profile clientele.VR talk  04:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That hook is fine by me, but since it's Biosketch's submission, I'd like to see him approve it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See here. The embargo was officially against Middle East nations, but France promptly sold fighter jets to Libya, which in turn gave them to Egypt. Hence further down the comment that the embargo principally affected Israel because France wasn't keeping to it with respect to other Mid-Eastern nations. User:Gatoclass, why is the hook not ok with you but you have no problem with User:Vice regent's ALT despite the fact that TAT supplies other clients aside from just the ones mentioned in the article? You don't seem to be applying a single standard here.—Biosketch (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I raised a query over the original hook because it struck me as misleading and arguably an example of POV pushing POV. If you have an objection to the alt hook on similar grounds, by all means state it, but it seems perfectly neutral to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POV pushing? Whose POV? If there's no consensus to go with the original hook and there is consensus to go with the ALT, I don't really care as long as the article's promoted. I guess I just don't see what's so hooky about a company like TAT supplying equipment and services for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I do see what's hooky about a company having been established against the backdrop of a French weapons embargo that principally affected Israel. Should I incorporate the Reuters piece in the Toledo Blade into the TAT article and modify the language so it says the embargo principally affected Israel, or is that sort of thing considered SYNTH on account of the piece having nothing to do with TAT?—Biosketch (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well how about we go with Plot Spoiler's hook, but substitute "Middle East" for "Israel"? The point will still be made, and my concerns about accuracy will be addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary since the company was established in response to France's embargo on Israel, but we can wait for Plot Spoiler to share what he thinks.—Biosketch (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the language needs to be altered in the proposed hook I provided. The company was founded in relation to France's arms embargo of Israel, not the Middle East as a whole. This was because Israel was much more reliant on French arms than any of the Arab states. This isn't a matter of POV pushing but of clarity. And to make accusations of POV pushing is arguably a violation of WP:AGF. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't specifically an arms embargo against Israel, so I still think your proposed hook is misleading. However, I'm not going to waste any more time on this - an uninvolved reviewer can decide which hook he wants to promote to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the news sources in Google's archives characterize it as an embargo on Israel. But I've edited the article to relieve any concerns and propose the following as ALT2:


 * ALT2: ... that TAT Technologies Ltd. was established in 1969 in response to a French arms embargo that principally affected Israel?—Biosketch (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the Hebrew sources specifically state that the embargo "principally affected Israel"? Because I can't see such a statement in the English language sources. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * how about: that TAT Technologies Ltd. was established in 1969 in response to a Middle East-wide French arms embargo affecting Israel?
 * Gatoclass, I think you would have to agree that this is neutral - no doubt Israel was impacted by the French embargo. And we mention that the embargo was against the ME, thus maintaining NPOV. Biosketch, it would address your concerns that TAT technologies was formed in response to arms shortage in Israel (not the ME in general). Admittedly "Middle East-wide" kinda sounds awkward, so we could go with another wording.VR talk  06:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @User:Gatoclass, the Hebrew sources only mention Israel in relation to the embargo because in the context of TAT Technologies that's the only embargo that's meaningful. The Toledo Blade source furnished up above in my outdented reply to the objection you initially raised here does explicitly say "which in fact affected principally Israel." As I mentioned, the other sources in Google Archives tend also to stress that the embargo was chiefly to Israel's detriment. Tell me if you want links to establish that this is so. But it's actually somewhat trivial since it's ubiquitously known that the Soviet Union was the superpower supplying weapons and training to the Arab armies while Israel relied on Western military assistance.
 * @User:Vice regent, I'm fine with your ALT but need to insist, for the sake of historical accuracy, that the word "chiefly" or some equivalent thereof be added before "affecting Israel." In light of my comment directly above, would this be a problem for you?—Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, just cite the statement in the article to the Toledo Blade piece, and I think that will probably be adequate citation for ALT2. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅.—Biosketch (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch: not at all.VR talk  19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)