User talk:Bzuk/Archive Mar 2007

Bobbi Ethier - categories needed
Hey, just letting you know I re-inserted the tag into this article. Biographies generally fall into several categories, most of which I am not familiar with. Those that are good at category stuff will see that the article needs categories from that tag, and add them. Please don't remove it without investigating biography categories and adding the relevant ones. BigNate37T·C 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:18-01.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:18-01.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Janusz Zurakowski & Hornet
Hi Bzuk.

Well I won't argue with Zurakowski himself! - thanks for putting me right - LOL! Actually I think it may have been Bill Gunston I heard (read) that from but perhaps he misunderstood originally - or perhaps my memory's going!

Incidently, Gunston saw Zurakowski at a Farnborough Air Show in about 1945/6 flying the Martin-Baker M.B.5 and said it was one of the most impressive display of a piston-engined fighter that he's ever seen. Regards, Ian Dunster 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

RfM Rachel Marsden
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Rachel Marsden, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Avrocar
Thank you for engaging in dialog. As you describe in great detail on my talk page, and in your editing comments on the Avrocar page, your information comes from personal research. Wikipedia policies are quite clear that such things are not allowed.

Besides which, the fact that Avrocar played some role in inspiring Moller may be relevant to the history of Moller, and perhaps could appear on that page, but it's of dubious relevance to Avrocar itself, and probably shouldn't be on the Avrocar page even if we could find a non-original-research source for the claim. Uucp 12:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Although you have equated the Moller reference to a dubious relevance, I believe that Dr. Moller was pursuing a similar design in his orginal experimental craft. I merely wished to provide readers with an appraisal that the buried ducted fan concept was not entirely abandoned. The fact that Moller did utilize a similar fan arrangement and saucer shape to later discard this premise is significant.

Even though I referred to original interviews, the published works refrenced in the article do collaborate on the Avrocar-Moller connection. I have further revised the Avrocar article so that readers will better understand the far-reaching R&D that John Frost was undertaking in the 1950s and 1960s.

Bzuk 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avro Arrow
In the second of your 3 edits to the article this morning the text somehow split in 2??? Not sure where the error occured(simple formatting issue) I had to quickly rv back to your first edit to restore it. You may want to trace back and re-do your other changes. Sorry for the inconvenience. Had I more time I would do a more thorough peek and correct it myself. Cheers! Anger22 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey BZUK,

Sorry to be a pain, please research the history of the Hughes missile fire control system on the Convair F106, ten years after the Cf- 105 Arrow.

I have tried to do 'Arrow accounting". How these planes were to cost eleven million each, with an 5 milllion dollar fire control & missle system alone, is beyond me.

Anyway, my view... cheers Opuscalgary 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane
The format I used is a standard across wikipedia. Bring it up with WP:CITE, not me. ericg ✈ 01:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, it's not hard. I used the template that happens to be in use everywhere. Don't like it? Change it, either by putting the article back to some other format, or by petitioning for a change to the template itself. I couldn't care less either way - I'm using the template, which is a tool, not creating it. ericg ✈ 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Carver Meadows Frost
Hi Bzuk. Just to let you know I have put the article up as a request for peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review.

I think the problem that User:Uucp has is that some of what you have contributed appears to come under the Wikipedia realm of 'original research' - this is not allowed on Wikipedia - see: Wikipedia:No original research and he/she appears to be merely re-writng to remove the material that seems to contravene this. I assume that the material you have added is included in the references that you have included (that you wrote yourself) and perhaps Uucp hasn't noticed the names of the authors. As far as I know if the information has been published (as your books appear to have been) then I would think that it's perfectly OK to include information given in them. It may just be a misunderstanding (see: Wikipedia:Assume good faith) so it might be worth explaining this to Uucp on their talk page: User talk:Uucp.

BTW, you may find the Wikipedia help pages useful - you can find them here: Help:Contents - I've been on Wikipedia about eighteen months and I'm still finding my way around! - LOL! Regards, Ian Dunster 09:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add that regarding those things that are a direct lift from your already published work (eg the Avrocar site Frost biography) that you should state the source specifically so that some well meaning individual doesn't come along and slaps a copyvio tag on it. GraemeLeggett 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points- I will revise any verbatim "cut-and-paste" jobs.

Bzuk 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:New_logo_neg_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:New_logo_neg_1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Vickers
Hi. I don't think the article has ever been created, just a redirect to Vickers (UK). Regards Mark83 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

References in the J-35 Draken article
Would you knock off deleting the ''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BigNate37T·C 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

New P-51 pic
Bill, thanks for finding that vintage P-51 pic (in colo(u)r!) It's great! I'm posting this here so hopefully I won't "colo(u)r" Sig's opinion before he weighs in on the issue. Thanks again. - BillCJ 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

B-17 photo
Howdy, Bzuk! I have a B-17 photo I'd like to post but I'm not sure where to look for the public release template... Kin yew he'p me?

Mark Sublette 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AE
Truth be told this is the only title that has bugged me. Adventure ok but daring... that's AE. :) Gwen Gale 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit of semantics here, since I had actually used "daring" in the first line, that's why adventure seemed to fit since she did have an adventurous childhood. I will work on it some more. Bzuk 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Too bad you've "claimed ownership" of this article. I will not revert war with you though. Gwen Gale 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gloster Meteor
Thanks for finding that. We never would have heard the end of it! --Evil.Merlin 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Our fine friend just went in and edited again... --Evil.Merlin 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Google is one handy tool my friend --Evil.Merlin 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar article review
(from the post to JerryOrr's talk page)

I have a real problem in providing citations for this article because the most comprehensive and authorative sources are actually from my books-is it appropriate to quote from and use my own material? Bzuk 13:21 15 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I think you probably meant to direct this comment to MLilburne, as he did the original review of the article. My comment was on the lack of pictures. --JerryOrr 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar article
There doesn't seem to be a problem with citing your own works, as long as you do it in an appropriate way (which I'm sure you would). The relevant guideline is here: Conflict_of_interest.

My only real knowledge of Avro comes from the Space Task Group members who used to work there, but it seems like a fascinating topic. Good luck with the article... I'm sorry for having to fail it. MLilburne 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's looking better now, but I think that any GA reviewer is still going to assess it as being short on citations. A general rule of thumb seems to be at least one citation per paragraph, with more if the material is controversial or likely to be questioned. Featured articles—which are generally held up as being a standard to which all articles should aspire—tend to have citations every few sentences.


 * I do agree, though, that it will look a little unbalanced if all these citations are from your own books. It's unfortunate that there aren't more sources. MLilburne 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A writer?
Me? No, just an enthusiastic (or is it addicted) Wikipedia editor. I did receive your message from work, but I've been so busy haven't had the time to return your message (or edit much here!). As for your offer, I'm not sure if I'd have anything interesting to say, at least not enough to write an entire article about, but thank you. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JAS 39: Response to issues with cite template
The template makes it easier for someone to update the access-date and maybe replace the source at a later time in case the current source disappears in the future. This keeps things uniform since many of us do not have knowledge of the MLA protocol that you mention. --Edward Sandstig 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Anyway, getting back to the topic of templates. I understand that you come from a traditional academic and literary background and perhaps you aren't too familiar with how templates are used on the web, but like I've said before, they allow you to easily change things in just one place, thus maintaining uniformity across multiple pages. With a site the size of Wikipedia, making those changes manually simply wouldn't be practical, thus if you have complaints about the widely-used template, then you're free to discuss your improvements and apply them. Doing things that way, would allow you to effect change on ALL articles currently using the said template, rather than going in and making changes for every single article you come across. --Edward Sandstig 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that if an editor sees the template (cite_web) and sees a whole bunch of fields, he might take the time to try to fill them in, rather than just providing a link and nothing more. Seeing the name of the template, he might even be encouraged to take a look at other fields he could add to further specify the source he's using. Using the template, also makes it easier for you to change how the information stored in the template will be displayed in the future. If consensus is reached for example and you really want sources to be shown like this:
 * Swedish Defence Materiel Adiminstration, Gripen - Milestones. Access date: 17 February 2007.
 * Instead of like this:
 * Swedish Defence Materiel Adiminstration, Gripen - Milestones. Retrieved on 2007-02-17.
 * Then you only have to gather support to change it in the template rather than having to manually edit every single instance of the template. Btw, the template uses ISO-formatted dates, otherwise, the links in the references end up red. --Edward Sandstig 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of templates is not mandated and if you check, there are many editors who can catalog on their own. BTW, there is a simple fix for the dates: |accessdaymonth =17 February | accessyear =2007. Dates are often not set in users' preferences so it does matter that there are two different date systems employed. The standard for cataloging is to identify an author, title, place of publication and publisher with variations to accommodate an electronic signature. Using a template that does not allow this is inconsistent with cataloging protocols. Bzuk 21:05 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Agreed on use of the accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters instead, since it allows for the format of the dates to follow the user's own preferences. I was unaware that the ISO-formatted date didn't change automatically, so my apologies for that.

Swedish Air Force aircraft
Thanks a lot for tweaking with my Sweden-related aircraft articles. English is, after all, not my native language and I do not know the aviation jargong that well. Please check out the J 22 entry. KCX 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the J 22 page. Mea culpa. KCX 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orenda Iroquois comma
It was a case of an Oxford comma - legitimate but the non comma version reads just as well. Sometimes the Oxford comma works better in giving extra pause to sentences which is why i checked up on it.GraemeLeggett 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

dH Comet
Hey Bzuk, I was happy to help out with the rewrite, but I don't like how I'm being treated over there (being wikistalked, harassed) so I've lost interest and have taken the article off my watchlist but let me know if you need help with any trolls or whatever, I know the topic well enough to lend a hand if need be. Gwen Gale 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Commet
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I took a look at the comet article, and it seems that MS has calmed down, or at least has enough people countering his view to keep the article from degrading completely. Until another rule is broken, such as 3RR, I think we should just let sleeping dogs lay. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Fort
Bill: Great article - hope the photo I added was of use? You can note I also added some redirects to the Fleet Fort page, from the following: 60K Fleet 60K Fleet Model 60K Fleet Model 60K Fort Fleet Fort Model 60K & Fleet 60K Fort. I figured it would make the article easier to find! Can't wait to see your Fleet Canuck article! I have some photos I can add to that one too. Ahunt 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Noonan
Re: your comment on my talk page - I'm beginning to see what you mean. If you have a sec, can you please have a glance over the issue in question on Talk:Fred Noonan and let me know if you think I've been out of line - hard to tell sometimes when you get into things. Appreciate your feedback (btw, I'm not asking you to intervene!) Ronnotel 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Canuck
Bill: The new article looks good! It is long overdue! I like the 3-view, especially. I have added four Canuck photos (hope that doesn't over-do it, but one was on wheels, one with wheel pants, one on skis and one on floats, including the one in the museum here in Ottawa). Not sure if you will need to adjust the spacing to fix the whitespace. Now we need more text to fill in for the photos! I also created two redirects: Fleet Model 80 Canuck & Fleet 80 Canuck just to help people find it easier. Ahunt 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, that looks a bit better! I have my own personal preferences set for thumbnails=300px, so I tend to forget that others see the pages differently! I added an intro para and info on the Canuck type club as well. I found a photo of a Fleet Finch that I have and will post that. No luck on the Fawn, but I will keep an eye out for one to snap. Ahunt 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interspersing within comments
Interspersing your comments directly into the text of someone else's comments wholly violates standards and practices on WP talk pages. I was astonished to see it was you who had done this. Please don't do it again. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar advice
I was reading over the article again because I found a really cool picture of the Y-2 on a Mechanix Illustrated cover. So I was adding it in at the end of the mention of the Look article, but then I started looking at the whole paragraph there and it really seems out of place. It was originally contextualized in a mention of "policy by press release", but that appears to be removed (which is fine), so now it's just kinda floating in there in the middle of the dialog about the procurement process. Do you this this information is interesting enough to keep? And if so, should be in a "notes" section instead? I'd like to think the original point was interesting enough to add, but in retrospect maybe not? --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

F-86 revert
I see the footnote thank you. Tirronan 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Arrow comments

 * sigh* 50 years later and it's still a pushbutton topic. A notice has been posted. Maury 16:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bzuk, in response to your note on my page, I took an initial look. Wow. Some serious emotions there! I've left a comment at the bottom of the talk page. That thesis that this guy keeps referring to might be a nice college paper, but really has no place being used as a ref in an encyclopedia. I personally have no problem with your own books being used (WP:COI certainly allows it), but I'm curious if you've had any other fall out from that, besides this one guy. The reason I ask really has nothing to do with the Arrow article, but more of the fact that I've been real reluctant to use my own book (Mojave Scrapbook) as a ref for articles relating to the Mojave Spaceport and the flight test programs there, and am curious if using such a reference has resulted in any other problems here. Akradecki 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill: An interesting issue. I have to agree that this has realy gone beyond the history of the Arrow and has become a bit too emotionally involved for some people. Personally I was watching the Arrow page for some time after I added the photo of RL206, but that page has more traffic than all the other 400 pages I am watching put together, so I dropped watching it. Personally I try to work on less stressful pages! Ahunt 13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the Arrow article and talk page. It appears to be one of those articles that will probably never settle down. Like all points of view the political angle needs a mention but most of it appears to be related to NORAD, and Arrow was just in the way. Perhaps the political bits can be moved to another page and just leave the article to describe the Arrow project with a a few words on who/why it was cancelled. Although I would agree with Akradecki that a single source thesis probably needs some independant supporting evidence. Although some of Opuscalgary's links to the thesis dont work anymore ! MilborneOne 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen way too many of these. How long has it been going on?  You could ask for mediation at the mediation cabal.  Look at WP:REF. (It does read like a nice college thesis) If his thesis doesn't meet the requirements then you could get rid of it and you could get rid of the claims.  However it probably is fine. If he reverts I guess under WP:3RR he could get in a lot of trouble.  If that doesn't work you can trace the IP that he uses to connect by asking a Bureaucrat at some request page that doesn't come to mind that quickly.  Also discussion that doesn't really have to do with the article such as saying whether it was a good idea or not.  (I'm not an admin though) The last thing I would say is your talk page, and the page of the F-86 need to be archived.  Red  Skunk talk  17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
There are many ways to archive mostly found at WP:ARCHIVE Werdnabot automatically does it but is indiscriminate. If you want to have an archive on a certain thing you have to do that. WP:ARCHIVE will tell you everything. If you want more advice just leave a message on my talk page. Red Skunk talk  19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow...
On my way now. I'll see what I can do. --Evil.Merlin 05:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair
Sunday: Actually, when I first noticed that the references I had added had been changed, I guessed some automated process had tried to fill in the ISBN, which I had left out. I looked at the book I own, found there was an ISBN, and I put it back in. It finally occured to me to look at the history, and I saw it was a person who had made the change. Since I added the references, I'd prefer they point to the book I was actually referencing. It's no big deal, of course, since Green likely copied it all verbatim from one version to the next, the original 1961 copyright being in his name, not that of the publishers. I will add the page number, per your suggestion. If you feel the "Famous" version is easier to find at libraries, you can change the references.

As for "their," I was trying to clue the reader that other solutions than the bent wing might have existed (the "their" referring to the solution chosen by the Corsair's designers). The Grumman team who developed the Hellcat around the same engine managed to get a rearward retracting main gear in a straight wing.

Monday: I'm not sure changes to the "talk" under my name are brought to your attention, so I'm copying them here. (It's the first time I've used this feature.) I see you've gone and changed the "their" to "the." I'll leave this as you like, but I think "their" adds to the content.

<

Regards, Karl Kleimenhagen 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair
Bzuk, do any of your sources place Sikorsky on the design team? He would have been pretty busy with helicopter development at that time. My copy of Green only lists Beisel. The design staff at Vought probably wasn't all that large, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sikorsky threw in a few ideas. Karl Kleimenhagen 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind comments, and also for your very helpful edits to the Dolphin article. M Van Houten 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet
Bill, I don't know if you'd want to get involved in this, but I thought I'd ask anyway. User:Shimgray has removed a DND pic from the CF-18 Hornet page, stating "rm fair use image used as decoration". He also removed a DND image from the EH101 page for the same reason. THis is the [diff]. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow
Hi Bzuk, per your earlier message, I looked at that CF-105 discussion page. You already have Maury Markowitz and other smart people involved. My only two cents would be to create a separate page on the cancellation of the Arrow. It really warrants it as a historical event, and it would be a more appropriate forum for this debate. M Van Houten 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested that user User:Opuscalgary has left a message for you on my talk page. I have replied on his talk page with a reminder about Civility. MilborneOne 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

“Gord of the Wings”, chapter thirteen: “…It’s the Presssscious! Myyyy Pressssuicous! Screamed the Craffordgordon as the ARROW slipped deeper into the budget of Mt. Diefenwrekker…”

Hey I know its not good, but a cave troll gotta start somewhere…, right?. (Dedicated to the chain letter !)


 * Hi Bzuk, first off there's no need for the formalities, just call me Red! (Lol) Anyway, I've only just returned from a break at Loch Ness and read your message.  I have a few things requiring my immediate attention, then I'll take a look at the Arrow situation in due course and get back to you.--Red Sunset 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here I am again, and now I've read the article and taken a look at the discussion page, my overall thoughts are most closely alligned to those of MilborneOne and his recommendations. The article really does seem to press some buttons, and as with most things political, will anyone ever know what the real truth is? Put all of the contentious political stuff onto a dedicated page where it can be deliberated fully and fairly without bogging the CF-105 page down in disruptive arguements.--Red Sunset 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bzuk, in reference to this--particular issue, the best course of action would have it reported to an admin and have a 3rd party resolve the issue. My regards.  --Signaleer 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Bill. It's good to hear from you, and thanks for the invite to help out with the Avro Arrow article. I haven't taken a look at seriously until today. I've been a bit busy with school and have settled for making less time/mind consuming contributions to Wikipedia this past week. I just recently added my name to the Aviation WikiProject list, so it was nice to get a call to help with an article so soon. Things are going well out here. I haven't been flying yet though... I should be going to one of the flying clubs out here sometime in the next month so that I can take the cadets flying. See you around. Sancho (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your comments regarding the TU-144 design. Sorry I didn't respond directly to your comments before - I'm finally getting used to the wiki system. I hope you realize that talk of the Charger being a copy of the Concorde is speculation itself. Yes, there is some documentation (some of it bunk, frankly, but some legitimate) about industrial espionage, but even a cursory look at what TsaGI and Tupolev were doing in their design and research area make any notion that Tupolev had to copy the Concorde's wing design ludicrous at best. TSAGI had plenty of experience in deltas and double-deltas (and was operating the world's biggest wind tunnel), and needed no one's help figuring out how to design the TU-144, overall. The jump from "materials stolen" to "airplane copied" is a non-sequiter if you look at the situation in any detail. Footnotes about espionage do not even begin to prove the case. That's why I took your comment about my "vandalism" to be rather silly. Of course I agree that references are important. But references that document the details of an otherwise obviously illogical argument are worthless. If I look hard enough, I can document a correlation between cancer deaths and the Yankees making the World Series. But we wouldn't want that in an encyclopedia. -

TSAGI was actually the setting for a raging argument between "purists" who wanted a pure delta, and those who demanded a tailplane. I'm looking around for some reference material for that (Howard Moon documented it, but I also want to look up, if I can, more direct academic papers).

Other than refining the wing, Tupolev's biggest problem was that he lacked electronic engine controls (nobody in Russia knew how to build that). When a British firm, Lucas, refused to sell him any, he couldn't get the Charger's engines to be efficient enough to make the TU-144 practical for commercial service. Additionally, he didn't know how to utilize the fuel for cooling -so the Charger had a monstrous A/C system added that the Concorde didn't need.

Anyway, I extend an olive branch and look forward to working cooperatively with you on articles in the future. Wikipedia's very cool. 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Avro Arrow
Regarding the Arrow I only know the basic facts, and when it comes to the political turns leading to the cancellation of it I basically don't know anything from before, so I am reluctant to go into an discussion about it without third-party (preferably published) sources to base my opinions on.

However I believe that the article is somewhat biased, or at least would need more referencing. Take e.g. this quote: '''Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what they claimed was "rampant Liberal spending". Much of this was posed as an east/west divide, with eastern Canada using money from across the country to fund their "industrial welfare" projects'''. Here we have a few question marks: Did really eastern Canada use more than their share of the budget, or was it a general feeling that the people in the west had? The answer to that question can certainly be used as argument in the debate (if west was feeding the industries in the east this could to some extent justify the cancellation), and therefore it should be referenced. Especially the discussion about the political part of the program has many opinions that I feel might be based on feelings rather than facts.

Another thing is that expensive weapon systems, like fighters, are controversial. The defence needs of a country is hard to judge, and so is the benefit of having an own military industry. I don't think there is any simple answer to whether it was right to cancel the Arrow. We have several factors here:

1. The huge job losses for Avro and its suppliers

2. More money could be spent on other things (health care, social services and so on)

3. The following brain drain to the US

4. Was the Voodoo really a satisfactory substitute? Did it have the capabilities of the Arrow?

5. Did the RCAF need the capabilities of the Arrow, or should they settle for something less competent?

Those are a few things that one have to bear in mind when discussing whether it really was cheaper to buy the Voodoo. Of course it can also be claimed that the cancellation of the Arrow was correct, but that some other aircraft (the F-106 for example) should have been bought instead of the Voodoo, or that it was right to cancel the Arrow, but that the Iroquois-engine should have been developed.

Bottom line is that I think that there are many possible 'right answers', and that we never will know what had happened if the project would have continued. Several promising projects have suffered from serious problems in service (the F-104, F-101) and it is possible that the Arrow could have gone the same way. In my opinion the article should represent this fact, that the decision was, and still is, controversial, but that it was not a sole case in the world at that time (the XF-103, XF-108, the 'White Paper'), being instead part of a trend of investing in SAM's instead of interceptors. It was a serious setback for the Canadian aviation industry, but perhaps it was too expensive for the country to have an own military aircraft manufacturer.

I hope this was the kind of 'analysis' you wanted, good luck with the discussion!

Uhu219 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)