Talk:Air Power Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

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)


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)

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)

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)
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)
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persil222 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC) 
@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)