Talk:RAAF Base Williamtown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Air sports (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Air sports project.
WikiProject Australia / New South Wales / Military history (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon RAAF Base Williamtown 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 WikiProject New South Wales (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Should this article be split?[edit]

Should this article be split into an article about the commercial airport and an article about the air base (as with Canberra Airport and RAAF Fairbairn), or should it be left as it is? - Adz 12:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I vote for splitting this into two articles. --Nick Dowling 11:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed Should be 2 different articles--Looper5920 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Split. For the record, I think that it should be split too, but I thought it was worth asking the question. -- Adz|talk 00:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I also vote for splitting it into two articles. Callumm 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no need to split, but do see that the convention is for a split. Interesting that Darwin International Airport and RAAF Base Darwin contain different stuff. One has the infobox with runway lengths, the other info about runways being available for space shuttles without quantifying the length. (no vote either way). If split, can either article ever become featured without having to merge again? --Scott Davis Talk 13:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

environmental problem section reverted[edit]

Aussie Legend reverted my addition of a reliably sourced new section, as well as numerous other edits. I discuss:

  • As far as NOT NEWS: this section is exactly that, not news. It is an "an ongoing topic". It is a persistent problem, as anyone who knows just a bit about it knows.
  • Aussie Legend mentions on his page "editors should have some idea of the subject matter that they're editing". I am going to extend the examples of neurosurgery and mechanic. Being an Aussie doesn't mean that you are the know all editor about all things Aussie, including perfluorinated compound contamination in Australia. This is the beauty of WP: collaboration !
  • in accordance with WP:PRIMARY: Using an external link of a thing as a reference to itself as being in accordance with WP:PRIMARY is an incorrect interpretation. just think about it: if that were true, one could self-reference every little museum, or restaurant that has an website on WP, which you cant, right? so? The "Fighter World" needs a non primary source and the tag is appropriate.
  • This edit adding a chance link of the local newspaper to the sentence "RAAF Base Williamtown has most of the facilities one would expect to find in a small town, including sporting fields, recreation facilities, cinema" is mysterious. How does it support the preceding sentence? Again claims to be in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.

It looks, I am afraid to say, like Aussielegend doesnt like whatever edit I made and responded with POV editing.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The issues with the groundwater are indeed a news item that has only recently surfaced. RAAF Williamtown sits on top of the Tomago sandbeds, and is only 2.4km from Grahamstown Dam (That's closer than Fullerton Cove). These are two of the three main water supplies for the lower Hunter Region but Hunter Water has, as far as I'm aware, never seen fit to raise the matter so there's no evidence that it is going to be an ongoing issue. If it was as serious as the news report makes out, I'm sure that we would have heard something before now. The issue isn't limited to RAAF Williamtown in any case. The foams used were in use around Australia so it's not something specific to Williamtown. No, being an Aussie doesn't make me an expert but I have lived near the base for the past 23+ years, worked with firefighters on the base, and actually worked on the base for 13 years of my 22 year career in the RAAF. I've lived in the Newcastle/Port Stephens area for nearly 50 years of my life. Without going on (although I could), I don't need to know the specifics of PFOS and PFOA to know that this is a news item. (Next time, please, comment on the content, not on the contributor). WP:PRIMARY says a primary source may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". You added {{primary inline}} to the claim that "RAAF Williamtown is the home to Fighter World, a museum dedicated to Australian fighter aircraft." The Fighter World website directly supports that claim as a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialised knowledge, so the primary source is more than adequate.
"This edit adding a chance link of the local newspaper to the sentence 'RAAF Base Williamtown has most of the facilities one would expect to find in a small town, including sporting fields, recreation facilities, cinema'" - The original source didn't reference that content, only the newspaper, which is now called RADAR magazine. Your edit challenged the use of a primary source, not whether or not the source supported the preceding content, and like the Fighter World source, the new source supports the newspaper claim.
"It looks, I am afraid to say, like Aussielegend doesnt like whatever edit I made and responded with POV editing" - Again, comment on the content, not on the contributor. --AussieLegend () 09:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's part of F-35 coverup.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3517007/toxic-truth-what-defence-didnt-disclose-to-get-1billion-upgrade/?cs=305
Hcobb (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with an F-35 coverup. The EIS deals with the effects that the JSF will have on the area. The contamination has nothing to do with it because the fire retardant that caused the contamination is no longer in use and has absolutely nothing to do with JSF OPS. By the time the JSF gets here, the retardant will not have been in use for several years. At this time levels can only decrease. --AussieLegend () 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)