Talk:Air Force Two

Untitled

• I have set this page as a aviation stub, not a decade as the airplane will change. Change1211 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor change: Paya Lebar Air Base is the correct spelling per Ministry of Defence website though airbase is often used. Archtrain 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blow it up?

Someone has written "Blow it up" in a box surrounded by a dotted line. I tried to delete this but, weirdly, it doesn't appear in the edit pane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.62.255.251 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

Reference 1 is broken. Added template for broken sources 86.149.84.49 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated link as of 07-6-08 to Air Force military site. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=90 --Exprodmikescully (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New Photographs Suggestion

Could someone please update the photos of airforce two, and also include photos with our new Vice President... Enough of the the former administration, I think it behooves us not to live in the past, but look toward our new horizon and future! - Kcgs1989 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Find a new photo, one that is public domain or otherwise free, and add it if you want to. But that's no reason to remove perfeclty good images. Images of Clinton remained on the AF1 page while Bush was in office, so I don't see the problem here. Please don't be petty. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese president

I don't have a written source, but I was told that the plane that the president of China recently flew to the US in was designated "Air Force Two".12.53.10.226 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of a valid image

A user has twice removed the inamge of the VC-25 being used as AF2 as "Removed picture of former Vice President Dick Cheney, arriving in the middle east. Does not contribute nor does it have any value to the article". I have no idea why an image of the VC-25 itself would caouse problems, so I'm assuming it's the fact that Cheney is in the foreground of the image. This is a silly reason to object to an image. Having Cheney in the iamge emphasises that he was using the VC-25, which itself came under some political critisism. - BilCat (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dont see a problem with the image - the vice-president in the image is a clear indication that the VC-25 is being used as Air Force 2 which is the subject of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image due to it not being in or not in full compliance of, Image us policy: Content and Images: Image choice and placement. The picture is a very poor representation of the VC-25 being used as Air Force 2. It just happened to be in the picture because the photographer was taking a picture of VP Dick Cheney at the time.

Also BilCat, you failed to read (or maybe you didn't know yet) the post i left on your talk page. If you did read it, you really should have given my other reasons for removing the picture, helps prevent misguidance in the discussion (If you had not read it at the time you started this discussion, kindly disregard this paragraph).

I believe there should be a picture in the article of a VC-25 in use as Air Force 2. A picture that is entirely based upon Air Force 2. Not one where it is in the background. Dusty777 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The image is copyright-free. I've explained why I believe the image is approriate, and Milb1 agrees. While I don't have a problem if someone can find a better of the VC-25 being used as AF2, but simply removing this one without replacement isn't needed. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a stupid question, but, um... What does the copyright status of the image have to do with this discussion?

In your opening post of this discussion, you did not list all the facts or reasons of my removing the picture from the article. MilborneOne agreed because he was going off of your incomplete facts and assumptions.

To clear up one thing (I was ignoring this, but i decided i had better clean it up), i posted in the edit summary: "Removed picture of former Vice President Dick Cheney, arriving in the middle east. Does not contribute nor does it have any value to the article". The image caption in the article states: "Vice President Dick Cheney using a Boeing VC-25 presidential aircraft for a visit to the Middle East in 2002." I simply stated in a nutshell form (in the edit summary), of what the caption said. I personally thought that it would make it easier for others to understand which image i removed, and why (Or should i have posted the file name? File:08-v2877-14-abudhabi,uaeredcarpetwalk-398h.jpg?).

I did not object to Cheney being in the foreground of the picture. I never said that. I simply said that the picture does not contribute to the article (You cant see the plane that well) and it does not have any value (Its a poor representation of the VC-25 as Air Force 2) to the article. Dusty777 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't generally repeat what someone else has posted elsewhere, as they usually prefer to say things in their own words, and they may modify them to suit the context of the discussions here. One of the links you gave goes to Wikipedia:Image use policy, top of the page, where it says: "This page in a nutshell: Be very careful when uploading copyrighted images, fully describe images' origins and copyright details on their description pages, and try to make images as useful and reusable as possible." Since you hadn't explained what on that page you felt was relevant, I was left to figure it out for myself.

As to the rest, I've already commented on what I feel the value of the photo is to the article, and my comments stand. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have let you know what i was referring to (I expected the like to take you right to a section in each policy, so then you would know which i was referring to. Again, my apologies). Dusty777 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The links should have taken me directly to the section, but for some reason it doesn't. Odd. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing Dusty777 has said changes my original comment, an image of a VC-25 and the vice-president clearly shown that he does not just use a C-32 or C-40. The callsign belong to the vice-president not the aircraft which is why the image is relevant and contributes to the article. Not sure why it is a poor representation it clearly looks like a VC-25. MilborneOne (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article for the VC-25 with more clear images, and clear images of Cheney in his aritcle. However, the photo here is showing Cheney's use of the VC-25 as AF2, and as such it's adequate. It's also the only such free image I've been able to find, but I'll keep an eye out for a better one, even one with Gore or Biden. - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how you guys are apparently not reading the links i provided or my posts, you are both entirely missing my point. Don't get the wrong idea. I am not trying to convince either of you. Your reply's to my posts are all say the same thing about Cheney being in front of the plane. The picture is out of policy for this article. Remember, the article is talking about Air Force 2, not VP Dick Cheney being in front of the plane. I am (once again) going to remove the image as it is out of policy. Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice day! =D Dusty777 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Air Force Two" is any plane that the VP uses without the US President also being onboard. A Cessna 172 would be AF2 while the Veep is using it. That's why we both support the image remaining in the article, and that it does not violate policy. It would be best if you would restore the image until there is a clear consensus to remove it, which there is not at this time. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Air Force Two is "any aircraft owned by the U.S. Air Force" If it is a civilian plan (i.e. a privately owned Cessna 172, it would be called "Executive Two" not "Air Force Two". Why does BilCat keep removing my edits about the C-37A/B C-20B and C-17 also being Air Force Two? This is factual and quite common. I'm a member of the 89th myself, and I've flown on all these aircraft while the VP was onboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfox99 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, although I cant speak for BilCat, is that you did not provide any references to the fact the vp has used these aircraft and the reference at the end of the section you changed only mention the 747. If you have a reliable published references that says that all those aircraft have been used by the vp and used the AF2 callsign I sure it could be added somewhere, but without it it should not be added. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reference to the fact that the C-40 is used by the VP, yet it remains. I do this for a living. Without being a reference myself, I can only point you in the direction of the 89th public affairs office. I'm only trying to give complete information. The 89th Airlift Wing provides airlift to the VP and others. The aircraft that he does this on is dependent on the locations he is travelling to and the size of his entourage for that trip. The U.S Air Force does not designate a particular aircraft to the VPOTUS as it does for the POTUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfox99 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I cant speak for the C-40 it has not been challenged before but I am sorry to say that you are in wikipedia terms not a reliable source. The information has to be published in a reliable form to be used just knowing the facts is original research (have a look at WP:OR). I am sure with your access and knowledge it wouldnt take long to find an official press release or notice that says all those aircraft have used the Air Force 2 callsign. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air Force Two. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=90
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012042224/http://www.faa.gov:80/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0204.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0204.html

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dangling ref

I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a source that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)