Talk:Evergreen International Aviation

Should this article contain a link to the SourceWatch article?

User:R.Cooley - wiki has been repeatedly deleting a link in this article to SourceWatch's article on Evergreen International Aviation. Rather than getting into a pointless revert war with him, I thought the best thing would be to discuss it here, and request comments from prior contributors to the article (and anyone else who is interested). I'll summarize my arguments in favour of retaining the link below, and will invite him to add a summary of his arguments against. I should declare an interest here - I am the principal author of that article.--Neoconned 11:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For

• The SourceWatch article is very carefully sourced from archived newspaper articles dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. I accessed these through the LexisNexis service. Readers who wish to read the articles for themselves will need to pay $3.00 per article. However, they are also available through the NewsBank service. Thanks to NewsBank, I have been able to provide links in the article which return the first paragraph of most of the referenced newspaper articles. So readers can at least verify the existence of the referenced articles for free.
• A lot of the information in the SourceWatch article simply isn't available anywhere else on the web. The article makes a lot of historical information about the company easily accessible for the first time in years (I suspect this is R. Cooley's real objection to it).
• SourceWatch does not claim to adhere to an NPOV policy like Wikipedia. Its stated editorial policy is "fairness and accuracy" [1]. I'll leave it to others to judge whether the article achieves this aim or not!--Neoconned 11:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• No strong opinion one way or the other, so I guess it's support by default. Provide the link and let readers make up their own minds. Dragomiloff 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Against

• Opposed. I don't see how other wikis offer anything the Wikipedia article would not provide it the Wikipedia article was a Featured Article. As such, it looks (to me) like it would naturally be a link to be avoided. Having said that, SourceWatch is one of the most commonly linked-to websites on the entire Wikipedia. I'm not sure why, except that perhaps Wikipedians like wikis in general. Regards, MoodyGroove 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • Removed the paragraph and link because the site maybe acceptable but not when the sole reference that is supposed to support the assertion is behind a paywall.24.20.251.75 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Having skimmed the sourcewatch article, it seems to agree with the citations. Anyway, it's not being used as a source in this article, only as an external link, and as such seems to be an acceptable article to include for further reading. ericg ✈ 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Off-site pages aren't required to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies. See Wikipedia:External links for the relevant guidelines. Gazpacho 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can a new link to Aerial-Firefighting be made?

On the Aerial_Firefighting Wiki it says

"The Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations operates convertible-to-cargo IL-76 airtanker that can carry up to 15,000 gallons but have been operating with 11,000 gallon tanking systems, currently being the largest firefighting aircraft, and Evergreen International Aviation is developing a Boeing 747 aerial firefighter that can carry 24,000 gallons."

IMHO this deserves a link from EIA's wiki.

Also, it would be nice to see a new topic about the Boeing 747 conversion that EIA is working on...

129.54.8.46 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sale of Evergreen Helicopters

The sale of the parent company is a significant event. It warrants a comment of explanation by the founder. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evergreen International 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/20111005002938/http://web.newsregister.com/ss/goose/StaffCoverage/CompanyProfile.html to http://web.newsregister.com/ss/goose/StaffCoverage/CompanyProfile.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511142006/http://www.evergreenaviation.com/p_releases/031913.html to http://www.evergreenaviation.com/p_releases/031913.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)