Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 255: Line 255:
:Wiki Commons doesn't currently have such an image. Do you have one? - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 23:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
:Wiki Commons doesn't currently have such an image. Do you have one? - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 23:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
::Commons does have a few here: [[c:Category:Cockpits_of_AH-64_Apache]], but none of them are great. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
::Commons does have a few here: [[c:Category:Cockpits_of_AH-64_Apache]], but none of them are great. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

==General question==
I came to the page and saw the sub section about Apache notable appearances in media and thought oh maybe I'll add in the appearances of it in classic military simulation video games, aka Janes Longbow anthology, but when I clicked edit page, it had a window pop up telling me about some wiki project prohibiting that information, was just curious as to why/what is a wiki project and I suppose that information now goes to the sub article Apaches in fiction? Like I said just curious, any enlightenment would help me better understand the inner working of wikipedia. Thanks [[User:TomaHawk61|TomaHawk61]] ([[User talk:TomaHawk61|talk]]) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:27, 31 January 2020

Good articleBoeing AH-64 Apache has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 17, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Unreliable source

I have reverted an edit that as it's source gave a report that at first sight seemed reliable, but when checked turned out to be largely based on unreliable sources, such as blogs (on Geocities etc; you'll find the links in very small print in each section of the report). We would never accept those blogs etc as reliable sources here on en-WP, so why should we accept a report/compilation that is largely based on such non-RS sources? Thomas.W talk 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Costs

As per http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/india-usa-defence-idINKBN0G71OW20140807 , the price is approximately 35 million per unit... not 20M $ as on the wiki, of course it includes missiles but then can't be worth 15 million

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one checked this massive bot-dump here in the past six months. When I did checked them all I found about half of them are broken refs on Archive.org, I have left them in the article anyway since it is far too much work to selectively revert some refs in this one edit and not others. This bot needs to work better at not adding broken links and 404 pages. If anyone has a better idea how to deal with problems like this I would like to hear from you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, but the page was "404" with no good archive versions found, so I reverted it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope still "404". But no point in reverting it since the bot will just come back and put the broke link back in. Not sure what the solution to that it. Get a bot that works? - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War additions

Why was my edit reverted by Fnlayson? He/she claims there was an uncited addition, but doesn't specify further. If something wasn't properly cited, he/she should spell it out in clear terms. Myopia1 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person adding new information to provide a reliable reference so clearly something you added did not have a citation. If you dont have a reliable reference and want to add something that adds to the article then you can ask on this talk page for help first. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was uncited text and the wording not well written, imo. I don't think the text on hot and high conditions add much since that affects all aircraft to varying degrees. This article quality is important here as this is Good Article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Baghdad airstrike that resulted in the deaths of journalists

There seems to be a few incidents mentioned that reference the AH-64's use in a negative light, for it's operators, including a friendly fire incident on British personnel. This article refers to the roles of I believe 3 AH-64s, that is notable, at least due to the amount of media coverage it received.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much every weapon system that has ever been used will have been severely and notably misused in some way but I don't think it's worth linking to My Lai massacre from the 5.56x45 NATO page. If the Apache was the only such instance it might be work listing but sadly there's nothing spectacularly important about one commonly deployed military weapon system being used in a blue on blue or a civilian mass killing. Soon every page would be filled with links to murders involving a particular weapon. If you think it's that important you create a new page called something like "Notable incidents involving Apache AH-64" which should include use in battle, crashes, air show appearances (including inverted flight), friendly fire, civilian massacres, etc and put a link in the "Notable appearances in media" section which at the moment is very misleading as it contains only a link to fictional media, not news media. Waerloeg (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAF vs Israeli

We have two pictures from Isreal, the first one is of an AH-64A, and calls it an IAF AH-64A, the second is an AH-64D, and it's called an Isreali AH-64D, I think we should change one of them, but I'm not sure which one to change. Cheers, CatGrass 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatGrass (talk • contribs)

Why? It is just word variety to make the article less repetitive. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It just seemed tacky to me. If you guys don't want to change it, that's fine.Cheers, CatGrass 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatGrass (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli targeted killings

Those are the main leaders of Hamas killed by Israeli Apaches during the Second Intifada. They have entries in Wikipedia with plenty of sources. I don't see a reason why they should be excluded.--186.137.204.172 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Hamas, or even Israel. I actually don't think any of the leaders should be listed, but two is enough. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? It says During the al-Aqsa Intifada... AH-64s were used to kill senior Hamas figures.... This is not even a comprehensive list, just the main Hamas leaders, killed by Israeli Apaches, with entries in Wikipedia.--186.137.204.172 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really. The article is about the Boeing AH-64 Apache. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources ([1], [2]) only list 3 of those in the linked diff above. The article test says "such as" to indicate examples and not a full list. There's no need for a full list in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a naming the people is relevant to the helicopter it is just sufficient to name the more notable operations that the AH-64 was involved in. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need a complete list in this article, as it is off-topic. The article is about the helicopter type, so a couple of examples is sufficient, plus a link to any relevant or more complete list, if it exists. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Attack Helicopter meme

Something should probably be added about the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not, as that's not a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that it isn't relevant to this article, but with a reliable source might be relevant to gender identity as a criticism or spoof of that subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing AH-64 Apache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

" On 17 March 2017, an Apache helicopter was reportedly involved in the attack on a Somali refugee boat in which 42 refugees were killed. Saudi Arabia denied involvement even though it is the only military in the Yemeni Civil War using Apache helicopter "

Hello.

I just checked the HRW site about this incident but I couldn't find whre it states the usage of an Apache.

When i looked at the citation and it was an iranian site, and i found something which is false ( SA attacking Yemeni army ) so I don't think it's a reliable source, especially because it's an iranian site and obviously SA and IR aren't the best friends. Technical Peace (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Technical Peace (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response time clearly incorrect

Currently the article states "The AH-64E flies 20 mph (32 km/h) faster than the AH-64D, cutting response time by 57 percent, and has better fuel efficiency, increasing time on station from 2.5–3 hours to 3-3.5 hours." This is from the article from the Military Times [1]. But sorry LTC Davis, your math is wrong. Improving the speed from 140 to 180 miles per hour cannot possibly be the sole factor in a 57% improvement (and it does appear that the speed is the only reason for the improvement of flight times). The Army Times article [2] states that it's about a 15 minute trip to the field. The A.T. article also does not include the incorrect statement. I'm removing the wording about the 57%.Linktex (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/commander-armys-new-ah64e-apache-surprised-enemy-in.html
  2. ^ https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2015/02/01/new-apache-confounded-the-enemy-in-combat-commander-says/
The source is a WP:RS and your conclusions are WP:OR, as we don't have the complete math to arrive at any conclusion. There may be other factors involved, such as quicker start up and launch times, etc. Furthermore the number is a quote from Lt. Col. John Davis, commander of the 1st Battalion, 229th Aviation Regiment, part of the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade at Joint Base Lewis McCord in Washington. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no possible math that comes out to a 57% improvement with only a 29% increase in speed. Too bad people can't understand this concept.Linktex (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above this isn't simple arithmetic. The actual quote says "The faster speeds cut the amount of time it took aviators to reach front-line troops by 57 percent, Davis said." As I noted this may include a variety of other factors besides simple aircraft top speed, including start up time, hot refuelling turn-arounds, weapons loading times and other factors not explicitly mentioned. We have a reliable source with a quote from a unit commander, your assumptions don't trump that. To refute this you need another reliable source, not your own guesses. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ahunt on this. It's fine to question the source's statement, and you can add a {{disputed inline}} tag to the article it needed. But removing a claim because your personal calculations disagree isn't acceptable. It's quite possible that the journalist misunderstood some aspect of the statement, as journalists are often not all that familiar with military and technical jargon. The writer may have attributed the increase solely to speed when Lt Col Davis added other factors such as acceleration and those Ahunt pointed out. However, we would need a higher-quality source that gives a different figure, preferably from a serious aerospace or military periodical such as Jane's, AvWeek, or Flight International. Finally, the author could be contacted by email for a clarification, as his e-mail is posted. However, we could make changes based on his private response, but he might be able to publish a correction/clarification to the source article. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

Primary users- United States Army Israeli Air Force Egyptian Air Force Royal Netherlands Air Force Indian Air Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partha.sen4 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your request. We only list four primary operators in the userbox, not five. India only is operating eight AH-64s, which makes them a very small user of the type. Even when all 22 they have ordered are delivered, they would still be a small user and would not be included in the infobox. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of cockpit image

Could someone add a cockpit photo of Apache to the page? KiL92 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Commons doesn't currently have such an image. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does have a few here: c:Category:Cockpits_of_AH-64_Apache, but none of them are great. (Hohum @) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General question

I came to the page and saw the sub section about Apache notable appearances in media and thought oh maybe I'll add in the appearances of it in classic military simulation video games, aka Janes Longbow anthology, but when I clicked edit page, it had a window pop up telling me about some wiki project prohibiting that information, was just curious as to why/what is a wiki project and I suppose that information now goes to the sub article Apaches in fiction? Like I said just curious, any enlightenment would help me better understand the inner working of wikipedia. Thanks TomaHawk61 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_AH-64_Apache&oldid=938414427"