Talk:2017 in aviation

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 in aviation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170407030002/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/us-missiles-syria-170407013424492.html to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/us-missiles-syria-170407013424492.html

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) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight

I follow this page since 30 March (I added the E195-E2 first flight). Seven months on, I must say it seems too military oriented, mostly american, and some air trafic delays. I would expect this page to read like a specialised journals yearly compendium, and it's more like a day-to-day report of Libyan war events and Pentagon orientations: there are 284 occurrences of "Syria", 118 of "united states", 30 of "Trump", 63 of "board", 38 of "fighter", 24 of "Liby". The main contributor is Mdnavman with 357, I'm second with 24 and then MilborneOne with 9. @Mdnavman: I understand you add everything in WP:good faith, and with references each time, but perhaps you could slow down the flow to the most relevant news, to leave some place for civil aviation and airline news? Sorry if it feels harsh because you put work in this, but our common goal is to have the best possible wikipedia. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the civil aviation have been covered pretty thoroughly, and if there's any too strong "military orientation" it kinda depends on what's been happening in the 2017 aviation. (And general pro-anglosphere bias of the enwiki - still much better than e.g. fr:2017 en aéronautique which is focused on European civil aviation, and at times almost reads like a sort of an Airbus advert). I'm not sure if the wp:Undue really applies for the articles documenting real-time events in the sense you've invoked it.

Nevertheless, your attempt at statistics seems to be a bit flawed to me:

Occurences of "Syria" are hardly related to the US military only - Syrian, Russian and (to the lesser degree) Israeli Air Forces were involved in many events reported here, so it's hardly a relevant evidence for any undue weight given to the American military.

Ditto for many instances of "Liby", as the current civil war involves both Libyan and Egyptian forces too.

More so for "Trump" - many instances are related to the events in civil aviation (electronics ban, Boeing-Bombardier controversy etc.).

And I can continue - e.g. searches for "fighter" would include "[Royal Air Force Euro]fighter [Typhoons]" (escorting Pakistan International Airlines Flight 757) and "[Dassault Mirage 2000 jet] fighter[s]" (French, in the Operation Barkhane) etc.; i.e. instances certainly not related to the Libyan War events.

That all said, it should certainly help if only non-trivial and reliably-sourced events (both from civil and military aviation) would be included here.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:1851:F980:6294:8A6A (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it revolves only around US military, but military at all. eg: missiles strikes are remotely aviation related, artillery shells travels through the atmosphere too, or a special ops team travels by helicopter, but it's just a transport means, not a definitive aviation event. fr:2017 en aéronautique is almost inexistant : 5 events so far in 2017, 8 in 2016. Certainly not an example. Not overly airbus biased though: for these 2 years, 3 airbus events, 2 boeing events, much less than i feared. English is the aeronautics lingua franca, that's why I'm an editor here and not there.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well - I believe that I understand what you've meant to say, although I'm not convinced by your arguments - e.g. "spec. ops. team travelling by helicopter" is (according to my understanding) an instance of air assault tactics; the 2017 Shayrat missile strike targeted an airbase (and cruise missiles in general are considered being kind of aircraft, too) - i. e. those are aviation-related events - as far as I know. And artillery strikes mentioned in the article are mentioned (as far as I've been able to check) only when accompanied by air raids on the same area. What should be (in my opinion) more important criterion is referencing in non-trivial sources (i.e. when the event was important enough to be mentioned outside of blogs and self-published sources) - although I concur that reports of the artillery strikes (even when combined with airstrikes) seem tome to be in general those which are most close to trivia/miscellanea - that is to say from the "encyclopedical significance" point of view.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:DC28:9537:98BC:151E (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying those events shouldn't be in wikipedia, but they are more about military ops than about aviation: they should be relocated in their relevant 2017 in military operations.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In January I've added template:relevance-inline for military ops which should be moved to their relevant article and template:importance-inline for trivia to give an example.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

a) They're in military aviation.

b) Your mentioned 2017 in military operations does not exist.

If'd exaggearet and go by your logic: - "a lot of civil aviation events should be in the (non-existent) "2017 in business" because they are more about business and corporate events than about aviation".:-)-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:91D1:B415:D694:78FC (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

a) they are military operations mostly, and aviation-related after.

b) in wikipedia, redlinks are to be created

c) thanks for concording! if there is a consensus on the irrelevance of an event, it shouldn't be there but in another place.

as a sidenote, if you are a regular contributor, perhaps you could create an account.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

a) This seems to be very subjective - after all, military aviation is a part of aviation.

b) Yes, such as "2017 in business", you've meant?

c) That's not exactly what I've meant - my point was more like that relevant aviation-related events (both civil and military aviation) should be included, if they're of sufficient importance.

As for the registration, I prefer, for various reasons, ti remain anonymous, at least for the time being.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:91D1:B415:D694:78FC (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

a) a subset of both if you will

b) indeed 2017 in business is a redlink too

c) indeed "if they're of sufficient importance"

you're more anonymous when registering with an alias than logging IPs, even if it is through a proxy, and more useful in a community.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This asks the question of what is an aviation event? In Wikipedia the usual way to solve this kind of interrogation is to rely on WP:reliable sources : I would say a specialised, reputable aviation news outlet publishes relevant aviation news while a generalist newspaper article can be about aviation but when it is challenged a specialised source has to be found.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I can not see how the above way of reasoning can resolve conflict between "military" and "aviation" topics - which seems to be wholly artificial to me, anyway. --2A00:1028:83BE:4392:91D1:B415:D694:78FC (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS is a basic wikipedia guideline. And language is an artifact after all.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

a) Indeed - a subset of both in both military aviation and civil aviation related cases.

[d)] wp:RS can hardly be a sufficient criterion to distinguish between arbitrarily set differences defined as "more military"/"more business" vs. "more aviation" events.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:91D1:B415:D694:78FC (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

When the debate slips towards personal beliefs, WP:RS can provide guidance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight - do you really believe that can you can give a source which is able to distinguish between an 'aviation event' and a [merely] 'aviation-related event'? Can you give me some examples how exactly it works, please? -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:F0E5:D792:AA1A:B15E (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Easily: was it reported in Aviation Media or not? If it was, it's an aviation event, if not it can be related but it's not its main subject. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well there are many aviation media outlets focused on military aviation (sometimes in very minute details), so I still can't get how this is supposed to work.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:3D41:66D4:A744:ECF1 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This would be well suited: the only thing lacking is that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Example : November

For November, I tried to balance the list :
1. airstrike in Yemen[relevant?]
2. airstrike in Syria[rel.?]
4. intercepted missile from Yemen[rel.?] + airstrike in Yemen[rel.?]
5. air support in Yemen[rel.?]
7. ex baseball player Icon A5 crash [importance?] + UA last 747 flight
8. FedEx orders up to 50 ATR 72-600F
9. CASC orders 300 Boeings for $37B. + Afghan Airstrike [relevant?] + Somalia airstrike [rel.?] 10. Easyject replaces CEO
11. Somalia airstrike [rel.?] + UA suspends 3 flights to new Dehli + Island air stops
12. Dubai airshow debuts + Emirates 40 787-10 + Somalia airstrike [rel.?]
13. Syria airstrike [rel.?] 14.Yemen airstrike [rel.?]
15. indigo partners orders 430 A320/321neos + FlyDubai orders 175 737 MAXs

I think airstrikes should be moved to a single List of airstrikes in 2017. The Icon A5 crash is an anecdote when it revolves around a celebrity, but is interesting when detailing Icon's evolution.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

List of airstrikes in 2017 do not exist, so this proposal make as much sense as proposal to move 2017 news about news in the aviation business to move into (equally non-existent) 2017 in aviation industry or some such.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:40FC:651C:123:16FB (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Years in aviation

I am responsible for most inputs in all the "Years in aviation" pages. For years I have been trying to get coverage of what went on during the year in aviation to improve. This means, among other things, noting what happened in aviation news each year so that the dominant aviation activities of the time emerge. In 2017, military airstrikes against al-Qaeda and whatnot are dominant news; back in the 1920s and 1930s, aviation records dominated; in the World War I and World War II years, the military and naval aviation actions of the various combatants were what mattered; in the 1960s and early 1970s, hijackings were common; some countries used to dominate aviation news in the past but no longer do now; and each page for a given year should end up having exactly the "flavor" of that year. In fact, that is a desirable outcome for anyone browsing through the years in aviation; it should be clear what was going on a great deal in any given year in aviation. In addition, if more contributors would add in aviation events for other countries, it would undoubtedly make each more page more balanced. So, I view the "undue weight" argument as misguided for the following reasons:

• The "weight" of a page depends on the events of the year, not on some subjective, individualized standard of what should and should not be included as an event.

But currently it's only constituted by the facts you gather, and this is subjective.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well not ONLY by facts I gather, because no one else is blocked from contributing. As I understand a list-class article dealing with temporal sets of events, such as the "Years in aviation" articles, they list events that took place day-by-day in that subject. I attempt to do that in the Years in Aviation articles based on information I encounter in the press and then often can find additional and amplifying information by following links to related information. Actually, I try to include civil aviation, aviation safety, aviation business, aviation policy, aviation law, research/development/experimental aviation, record-setting events, and military aviation that I encounter. I don't preferentially choose airstrikes over airline business or record-setting flights over aviation business decisions, if that is what you mean.I do not assume that I find everything, but I put in what I find. I would like others to contribute more than they do, and I have not gone out an deleted what anyone else contributes. So what you see is the result of uneven effort by contributors, but not by any willful effort to skew the page in any given way or in any way of my choosing. I have never suggested that any one event is off-limits or that anyone should not contribute (even when someone seemed to be preferenrtially entering every comment on what I assume was Air Bulgaria's Twitter feed as an event).Mdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

• The best way to "weight" a page properly is to contribute both more and more varied events. Don't remove things from a page because "too many" of that kind of event happened that year. As many happened as happened, and that's how the year went, regardless of any reader's sensibilities. If you want more non-U.S. coverage, contribute it.

You don't had any counterpoints because 1. the article is in its own vacuum : it is only linked from others year in aviation, it has fewer than 30 watchers, 14,193 page views and 471 edits by 51 editors: 30.1 views per edit: it is mostly viewed by its editors. 2. no one tries to add content, afraid of not being noticed among many anecdotes--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am a very active contributor. Wikipedia urges us all to "get editing"" and contribute, but you make it sound like it's a bad thing that I am doing so, and I find that rather odd. I am thrilled when others contribute, as that makes each page even more comprehensive. I do not mean to intimidate anyone or passively shout anyone down by contributing. I don't understand what a "counterpoint" would be, because the Years in Aviation list articles have not involved any arguments or disputes of which I am aware. (A few years ago, someonen challenged something I found about an aircraft type making its last flight and we both looked into it and found no further information to contradict my source, so the entry stood. But that's been it, to my knowledge.)Mdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

• I don't understand equating the flight of artillery shells to aviation, or the argument that landing troops (delivering something) by helicopter somehow does not involve "aviation." Aviation involves flying a fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft through the atmosphere. When they fly, they could deliver ordnance to a target or troops in an assault or passengers to an airport. They could set records, or be the first to do something, or crash. All are events in aviation that merit inclusion.
• Moving events off these pages creates a balkanized set of lists that are difficult to navigate and categorize. What "event in aviation" will appear as an event in aviation, and what events in aviation will not?

(reply to the 2 above points) Airstrikes are military operations, like Airline operations. I don't think we need to have a new event each time an airliner takes off. Of course they are notable because they often involve casualties but it's more a military subject than an aviation subject, not unimportant but more relevant in their respective operations than here. They could be moved to a single List of airstrikes in 2017 to be created.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Military" and "aviation" clearly are overlapping subjects, and military aviation is a big part of aviation events in many eras of aviation history. I do not understand the distinction between "aviation" and "military." A military avation event is an aviation event that should appear in these lists, and a military event that should appear in a military list, and maybe should also appear in yet another list, like a list of events in the Syrian Civil War. There is nothing wrong with is appearing in all three places and, in fact, it must appear in all three lists if all three lists are to be comprehensive. I hope that editors who focus on the other lists will include them accordingly; as you say elsewhere, Wikipedia is a team effort that relies on their conscientiousness and levels of effort as well. But it is a mistake to assume that "aviation" events somehow do not include military ones; in many cases, military events are among the most noteworthy aviation events in a given day (although I don't know how address with you whether that is merely "subjective" or not, which is an argument that is impossible to counter because in this case the judgment about what is "subjective" probably is itself subjective, if you see what I meab.Mdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

• Truncating what these pages list because not enough people have contributed other kinds of events involving a greater variety of countries makes it impossible to catalog the year's events successfully, because it would require us to spend a great deal of time exploring and weighing events rather than constructing the page. After all, the page is never done. You can go in and insert unreported events that happened in earlier months; you can do the same for earlier years. Don't remove anything just because no one has bothered to add in those other events.
• "Years in aviation" are list-class articles, not designed or intended to read as a yearly compendium in the style of a specialized journal. That's the way they were already were designed when I started working them back in about 2008, and that is the way they have stayed. I think that each "year in aviation" article would benefit from some kind of summary paragraph in its beginning. So far, only one (1985 in aviation) has one, and it highlights only one aspect of 1985. Well-researched summary paragraphs up front in each "year in aviation" article are a good idea, but they would need to take into account widely accepted trends for the year in civil, military, and experimental aviation, among other things. If anyone wants to start working on intro paragraphs for the article from 1901 to 2017, I say "power to him or her."

(reply to the 2 above points) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even for lists, editorial judgement is required. I do think editorialised compendiums are a good example to follow. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But a list of aviation events is not an indiscriminate list. It lists things important enough to make the news. Listing every Cessna crash might make no more sense than listing every car crash on a list of car-related events, but issues you have flagged as potentially "irrelevant" in my mind clearly are significant events on the day in question (drone strikes killed combatants in an ongoing war; a country bombed another country's airport; major contracts were signed at the Dubai Air Show (someone else put those in, and I applaud that); an airline went out of business after 37 years of flying, etc.) One thing I would like to seeMdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

In short, if you don't like the content of the yearly lists, add to them so that they give a better, more balanced flavor for what happened during the year. If you have nothing to add, then I'm afraid the flavor of the year is what you see in front of you. But don't subtract anything, because that will make the pages less comprehensive without achiving anything constructive. If we live in an era of drone strikes, then "2017 in aviation" should give the reader that feeling, just like a reader of 1918 in aviation will come away thinking about World War I flying aces, a reader of 1927 in aviation or 1957 in aviation will come away thinking about aviation records, a reader of 1944 in aviation will come away thinking about mass air raids, a reader of 1969 in aviation will come away thinking about hijackings, and so on. I hope this helps clarify what the pages do and a constructive path forward for them. Mdnavman (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I replied point by point. I won't comment on other years, I look for current events rather than history. You seem to be alone editing those pages, Wikipedia is a teamwork effort, we can improve it with everyone input. I think we can resolve this without external opinions, but if we don't find a consensus we should ask for it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not because I want to be alone in editing them. I merely looked at the content of the Years of Aviation article a few years ago, noted the kinds of things they noted (a smattering of military operations, civil aviation events, safety events and disasters, business events, R&D, and record-setting events that struck someone's fancy but didn't capture the overall body of what happened each year in aviation and have been building on that, hoping that others would take my example and join in. A few have, and I credit them for it. But I didn't define what Years in Aviation articles include. That predates me. I also must note that the "Years in Aviation" articles go back to 1901 and even have articles for previous centuries, and all listed events in the way I describe before I ever started contributing to them. By focusing only on current events, you may not realize it, but the "2017 in Aviation" reflects the approach of all the previous articles, established by others but which I (and others) have expanded. And whatever poicy you prpose should not apply only to this year's list.Mdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

I have provided responses above. I believe you are arguing in good faith, and I think the solution is to develop introductory paragraphs for each year describing the year in aviation overall (military, commercial, safety, business, R&D, records, etc.). That would be a major effort; so far only 1985 has one and it discusses only the year's plane crashes. But it would allow readers who want an overall summary to have one to read up front, while those who are interested in the diversity of newsworthy events over the entire course of the year would still have the lists. Other pages pull events from the lists, by the way, to feed their "this day in history" features.Mdnavman (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)mdnavman

Thanks again for your detailed answer. Following on the above discussion with an anonymous IP, I propose to use the Occam razor we stumbled upon : if it is related in an Aviation media, it is presumed to be an aviation event. If not, it is perhaps a general news event, more related to politics for example than an aviation focused event, which could find a better place in another news compilation. Do you think we could try for the future events? Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Subsection 1

As I pointed earlier, this would make no sense from the undue weight/notability point of view - aviation media report aviation events in much greater details than general media coverage - even events which are not notable for the general media. It's their business, after all. (wandering IP)-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:3DC2:9D98:B30:8F58 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It would still be a good test.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In what sense? Aviation media (both military and commercial aviation focused) tend to have more detailed reports on aviation events than general media, so it would not make a particularly good test of notability.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:3DC2:9D98:B30:8F58 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

not a notability test, a relevance test.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Still, how exactly you'd test whether the event is relevant or not, based upon its referencing in the specialized aviation media?-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:5474:E9E4:497:4A20 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You said it in your question : if it's referenced in an aviation media, there should be a legitimate guess it is about aviation. I'm sure counter examples can be found, but it can be a starting point. But perhaps you aren't talking about relevance as relative importance, but as absolute importance : Wikipedia:Notability?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I had certainly not - I had been only asking how the aviation-related "relevance test" based upon referencing in specialized aviation sources is exactly supposed to work. I have a gut feeling that "guessing that events in aviation media are related to aviation" is suspiciously close to going in circles.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:40FC:651C:123:16FB (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit adding a ref for B2 bombings to AirForces Monthly, an aviation magazine, is an excellent example : with it, it is undeniably an aviation event, Thanks! The point is to avoid relying on wikipedia editors judgement, but on external WP:RS. WP:CIRCULAR reminds to avoid relying on wikipedia as a source. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not convinced, because "aviation events", as covered by specialized "aviation media" (if "covering by an aviation medium" would be considered the only criterion) could actually lower the threshold of notability, as the aviation media cover is typically more detailed than general media coverage. I mean the Combat Aircraft Monthly (magazine) is also an "aviation medium", yes? And you're even accepting press releases by the companies involved (i.e. wp:Self-published sources) now? -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:5533:FAFC:2FBA:38A1 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, having an aviation media as a source would lower relevance objections, your edit proves it : I can't object its relevance anymore, as I'm convinced it is not only a war event but an aviation event as AirForces Monthly is an aviation magazine. If you can't offer new argumentation, I'm sorry I can't explain it to you any further. Wikipedia:Notability is another matter, and a ref with more details is preferable. Press releases aren't wp:Self-published sources (i.e. individual blogs) but WP:Primary sources are OK and "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" when reporting an announcement, there is no interpretation (and secondary sources can distort the announcement). I don't see the point of citing me writing wikipedia should rely on WP:RS and avoid WP:CIRCULAR? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I still quite doubt you actually have any idea what details are covered by specialized aviation media, compared to general media, which can give some measure of relative importance. Chief reason for not offering new arguments would be that you've so far failed to meaningfully reflect and/or respond to the old ones. Your limiting primary sources to "blogs" would be another huge mistake of yours, so far as you seem to be O.K. with some primary sources, while attempting to restrict use of others. WP:CIRCULAR refers to not using other Wikipedia articles (or their mirrors) as sources - your point in the attempt to invoke it as an argument supporting your "aviation media criterion" eludes me completely.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:5533:FAFC:2FBA:38A1 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Avoid personal remarks. Details in a source are great. Relative importance in similar source would stay relative. Not understanding why it matters doesn't matter: it doesn't do any harm to have good sources. Blogs aren't WP:Primary but are an example of wp:Self-published sources, as personal websites or self-pub books. Indeed some primary sources are OK in some contexts. I cited WP:CIRCULAR because you wrote "suspiciously close to going in circles", to explain why it isn't circular in wikipedia context.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if my response somehow offended your sensitivities (I was writing quite in haste, so I've perhaps seemed to be quite rude, which I really didn't want to) - I just wanted to point out, that you just does not seem to actually reflect in what detail aviation media cover "aviation events", while on the other hand willing to accept sources self-published by corporations, which does not seem to be very consistent to me. I mentioned "going in circles" in relation to '"guessing that events in aviation media are related to aviation" is suspiciously close to going in circles' - i.e. that aviation media covered does not have to mean notable (it would still be relevant though) - which is really not related to wp:CIRCULAR neither to "circular" in any other way sense than the mentioned. regards.

Thanks for being civil. Details in aviation media is a good thing, they won't be copied verbatim in Wikipedia anyway. Material published by corporations (press releases) aren't wp:self-published in the Wikipedia ref sense, which is a published by an individual, a reputable organisation know what she does. The danger is to rely only on wp:primary sources when citing a press release but when no wp:secondary sources are investigating but they are just reporting the PR with no new information, citing the PR directly avoids adding a layer which could lead to mistakes. There is even a template dedicated. I'm glad the 'circular' confusion is cleared. Events related in aviation media can be assumed to be aviation events without 'going in circles': it's the way Wikipedia works when something is debatable between editors : to rely on external wp:sources. There are certainly counter-examples of non-aviation events reported in aviation media, but editors judgement is still here to weed out the bad seeds. wp:notability is a different matter. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Subsection 2

Well:

1. a) I'm not quite convinced by what you've written above. The "primary sources" self-published by corporations can be certainly used for referencing what they're worth for - i.e. the subject 'claims', 'alleges', 'informs' (whatever) that such and such event took place - but I can not see why the bussiness corporations should be in this respect taken as somewhat more trustworthy than e.g. (non-fringe) blogs and/or the mainstream news media.
2. b) I'm still concerned if details covered in the category:aviation media (while certainly satisfying the criteria for "wp:relevance") are enough rigorous criterium alone for "wp:notability".-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:75E2:9C34:ACA6:7205 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1a. Indeed I use Press release for announcements mostly. Sometimes even reputable 2dary sources can slip some errors (e.g. original said between 240 and 330, report 240-300).

2b. If there are details in the source, I don't understand what harm it does? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1a) Still not explaining why these should be somehow more trustworthy than the non-fringe blogs and general (non-aviation) media reports.

2b) Detailed reports by specialized aviation media certainly make no harm, but make rather poor criterion from the notability point of view.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:75E2:9C34:ACA6:7205 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1. They aren't. Just more straightforward for announcements.

2. We aren't talking about notability but about relevance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

1) Then please explain why exactly you suggest to accept the former but not ther latter.

2) Well, you've started with notability and allegedly "undue-weight" for the military aviation - does that mean you're backing now?-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:7CA5:2819:9B80:3B63 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1] I accept both.

2] With the discussion I better understood what was bothering me: mostly lacking relevance than notability. Still, there are anecdotes which aren't very notable: see the relevance-inline and importance-inline templates I added in #November.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1] Well then, why you're opposed to referencing military aviation events with them, exactly? I have to admit that I somewhat lost trace of your arguments, during the run of this discussion.

2] Here we go again - it'd be quite difficult o argue that some aviation-related event is not relevant when it's clearly related to the topic, i.e. 2017 events in aviation.

3] I'd like to point-out that the outcome of this discussion - so far - seems to be 'switching of the pendulum' towards more weight for civil aviation and/or corporate events. What this list really needs, in my opinion, is some objectively defined criterion for inclusion of the event, not based on largely subjective and/or changing assesments of their relative weight. regards -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:9031:7502:889B:422E (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

1. This sub-discussion was about admitting press releases as references, but military events aren't very often referenced by press release, do they?

2. "clearly related" is a personal POV, and using aviation media as references could avoid this. And "related" doesn't imply relevance.

3. Indeed more "objectively defined criterion" is needed, and "using aviation media as references" is a an external, objective criterion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

1) This "sub-discussion" is still about admitting self-published sources as test for notability. And yes, outside of Russia, Syria and similar, admittedly rather peculiar, nations, most military events are covered by press-releases by respective military branches. Not that would anyone argue they're reliable neutral secondary sources - but press releases they are all right.

2) When something is clearly' related to aviation, it's hardly a personal POV. See also wp:The duck test, please.

3) "[u]sing aviation media as references" is a an external, objective criterion." - that is for the relevance, not for importance, especially if you are - purely subjectively I may add - willing to include press-releases by aviation corporations in the "aviation media" category. regards.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:5045:C9AA:C018:336D (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

1° I don't want Press releases as a test for relevance or importance. It's natural to ask to verify importance if someone do not find the PR as important or relevant enough, and I agree to provide further media coverage.

2° "clearly" is in your POV. wp:The duck test is for sock puppetry, not article content. If I challenge a statement as more military operation than aviation event, it is obviously not a consensus.

3° Indeed it is for relevance not importance. I provide media coverage as needed if the importance of a statement is challenged.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

1: You just keep [1] using them that way.

2. Then look up the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, please. Frankly, how hard it should be to get that even non-specialized media cover aviation-related events? And please refrain from personal insinuations of this kind in the future.

3. Does that mean that you are sidestepping from importance to relevance, again? That's what, in my opinion, makes discussion with you so difficult. I'm sorry, but from our discussion here you seem to me to be just changing your personal criteria in order to include as many corporate/aviation business events as possible, and exclude much of other areas of aviation events, e.g. military aviation and air transporation. -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:9835:6FF8:BDF7:54CC (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

1# For the E-Fan X, I used only the PR because no further reporting was available initially. I added to th article when there was more info (it was a note in my 4 December talk page edit). For the DL order, no PR was used (the flightglobal report immediately brought new info), and I added media coverage when its importance was challenged.

2# after WP:BLUE Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, do not cite already obvious information, you can read next WP:NOTBLUE Just because something appears obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Build articles from reliable, expert sources, and cite those sources. I'm sorry if you felt a personal insinuation, it was not voluntary, what caused it?

3# While I think I'm coherent with myself (but who don't? :) ), it is possible I evolve with the discussion. I think while having aviation media sources is a good relevance test, having general media reports is a good importance test. I certainly don't want civil aircraft news only, It's just the kind of news I'm interested enough to know them well enough to report them in Wikipedia. If relevant and important, military and air transport news are welcome! Please contribute.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

1# This does not seem to be a consistent and unbiased approach to me - you are somewhat prone to allow yourself some degree of leviency, while requiring rather rigid level of evidence from others, especially if related to topics you personally don't like/you're not interested in very much, i.e. military aviation.

2# Yep, challengeable statements need (better/more reliable) sourcing - but this hardly pertains to aviation topics covered by general media, in my opinion.

3# Can I ask you to sum up concisely your current position as a whole? I have to admit that I have some difficulty to track the evolution of the debate here in detail, and I'd prefer your statement to my attempts at guessing what it's as of today. Particularly what kind of source you deem to be sufficient to include an event in the article (i.e. "important and relevant"), regardless of what type of an aviation event it was. Thanks in advance-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:DA8:D3A1:539F:4C5F (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1# I hope this discussion led to unbiased tests.

2# if it's in your opinion but not obvious in others opinions, it needs a ref.

3# Relevance test: cited in Aviation media — Importance test: cited in News media--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC) e.g.

1. So far I haven't noticed any generally acceptable & unbiased test of notability. That's why I've asked you
2. So far you are the only one here who attempted to challenge the relevance of "non-aviation media", and your position is, so far as I can tell, based solely on the "aviation media criterion" you've recently made up, so...
3. Can you explain yourself more clearly, please? Did you mean those two criteria cumulatively? And on what basis/why exactly? I do not mean to denigrate your subjective likes and dislikes, but these certainly can not be sound basis for the article content. I'm sorry if I sound rude, which is certainly not my intention, but my perception is that you are still somewhat "moving the goalposts". It would be certainly easier for me if you'd state precisely what your current position is and what Wikipedia policies and guidelines precisely it's based on. Sorry again, íf I've inadvertently misrepresented your proposals, but I really have some difficulty to track exactly your changing and evolving position, although I'd try to catch up next week. Happy Holidays.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:CC4C:A338:E4E6:63DF (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

1. What kind of bias does citing relevant, important references bring?
2. We seem to be only a few interested in the topic, and apparently we are only two discussing, so there is no obvious consensus.
3. If the relevance of a statement is challenged, it should be cited with a WP:relevant source. If the importance of a statement is challenged, it should be cited with a WP:important source. I think I'm pretty consistent since starting this conversation. Bye.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)