Talk:American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

The article does not have adequate citations

Journals?[edit]

Could we also get a list of AIAA journals into this article? Preferably with URLs to each. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Mermaldad (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Still to do[edit]

This article lists a small sample of AIAA awards. Definitely needs to be expanded. A list of AIAA-sponsored conferences would also be nice. Maybe move the list of journals out of the header and into its own section. --Mermaldad (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Troll?[edit]

Someone has inserted controversial material denigrating the organization and some of its activities. Not my roll to edit, but felt I should call attention to this.Tham153 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why this is written. It is at best dubious and in my humble opinion absolutely not true. Either troll or a researcher who got a paper refused. I'm no special user but i'm removing it until said person (user Jbrucb) can substantiate their claims. Isyriand (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

AIAA additionally runs student competitions, which may be appropriate in the awards category, their own category, or separate article as in the Design/Build/Fly article. SkycraftAero (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Before making a wild assumption discuss technical issues pointed-out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.232.113 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "controversies" section[edit]

Copied from my talk page:

You have deleted edits based on RS without any discussions. Please disclose your expertise related to the article and discuss. Kindly request you to 'undo' your unjustified 'undo' Jbrucb (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jbrucb: You assert that the content removed is sourced. It is not. You are making positive assertions in Wikipedia without such positive assertions in the sources in question, which is original research. Such is strictly inappropriate. Do you have actual sources saying that a) these things are controversial (which is something which should be considered carefully anyway per WP:CSECTION) and b) that these sources are reliable such that we can both i) verify and ii) provide appropriate weight to the topic?

There is an additional concern that has been expressed (not by myself) that the material removed also violates WP:BLP. Can you respond to that claim?

I do not need to "disclose" my expertise--editors familiar with a topic are not provided any additional weight in discussion.

@Drmies and Randykitty: whom may also have an opinion on the matter. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Jbrucb needs to read WP:OUT attentively. Nobody needs any credentials to edit WP, "the encyclopedia that everybody can edit". On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (or a kitten, as the case may be). If editors disagree about an issue, they discuss the matter in a polite way and it is arguments that do the convincing, not credentials. As soon as Jbrucb comes up with independent reliable sources that says something like "there was a controversy because the first award was given to the chair of the committee who was ineligible", we will include that in the article. Having a source that says "John Doe chaired the committee and John Doe was the very deserving recipient", that does not indicate that there was any controversy, nor does it substantiate the claim that the committee chair was ineligible. Similarly, no source given says that the awardee needs to be somebody cited in Ashley's last classical paper on aeroelasticity. There is no substantiation that awarding somebody who was not cited caused any controversy. the third "controversy" says "The award is given for limited extension ROM which was originally developed by others(8) and later extended at MIT etc(9)". References 8 and 9 were published in 1996 and 2000. I don't even have to look them up to be able to state with confidence that those papers did not even mention this award, let alone said anything about a controversy. This statement is therefore an excellent example of synthesis, which is not admissible. Again, please provide a source that says what you are posting or stop wasting everybody's time. In short, that these "edits (are) based on RS" is completely incorrect. Jbrucb, continuing your edit war and calling on people to out themselves will only result in a block from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This about a intense technical issue from related RS. If you are not the that field first discuss.. Do not delete in 'ad-hoc' Please note wikipedia is not about just copying word by word from RS. Editors interpretation matters as long it is not POV. (wikipedia reader in aerospace area) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.232.113 (talkcontribs)
  • "From related RS". Exactly. That's what we call WP:SYNTH. Do not add controversial stuff without a source that verifies your accusations without running into the prohibitions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Continuing on this way, especially when you start editing when not logged in, only leads to blocks from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)