Talk:Air Power Australia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Air Power Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Air Power Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What this page should include is Air Power Australia's intent to be awarded a contract under AIR-6000 to upgrade the F-111 aircraft and THIS is what motivates their criticism of Government and RAAF's plans.

If you can provide a reference for it, please add it yourself. --Nick Dowling 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Given that government sources were cited in support of percieved 'negative' commentary, it is insufficiently intellectually robust to merely delete and claim the material and the sources as being misrepresented in a 'one word-er' in the edit history of the page. Particularly for an aspiring encyclopaedia. Battlensigns (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criticisms are warranted - while APA puts massive submissions into just about every defence inquiry, they don't seem to ever have any impact on the final conclusions reached in the inquiries reports. The current text needs citations to 3rd party sources which state that ARA was not successful, however. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued efforts to change this page beyond APA's original intent--a basic information page--will be considered as defamation. -Persil222- 27 August 2017.

If the edits hold true to what has been published about APA in reliable sources, then there is no defamation. @Persil222: What do you mean by "further action"? —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see how The Register might not be the best source to cite in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persil222 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Persil222: That's what I was afraid of. Please do not threaten legal action pertaining to Wikipedia or its editors. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]