Talk:Textron AirLand Scorpion

"ISR/strike aircraft"

In the design section there is a sentence that says that Textron AirLand calls the Scorpion an ISR/strike aircraft. The lead sentence of our article and the lead sentence of its Design section give primacy to identifying the Scorpion as a light attack aircraft as well as an ISR aircraft. I think our article is correct (and well supported by third party sources) to do so, even if Textron prefers to avoid the comparison to other light attack aircraft by instead calling it a ISR/strike aircraft. I also think our article should have at least a brief mention that our article is, at least in this very minor regard, disagreeing with Textron. I, however, have no particular attachment to the current phrasing. There has been a bit of editing to that piece in the Design section, so I wanted to add this note to the talk page in case someone wants to express an alternative option. —RP88 ^(talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything Is Awesome™! apparently with this design...?

MikoyanG21 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Despite development history of aircraft in general being a troubled childhood, this wiki page seems to read like a brochure. Expected, as the private firms apparently declared dev to be secret lest competitors steal their thunder.

So we are to believe nothing ever went wrong and no design issues were worked around, or not completely resolved?? Is this aircraft unique in history where it was a Golden Child from day one? I half expect a gleaming gold toothed smile worked into the presentation.

An entity like Boeing had problems with its 787, but the Textron AirLand Scorpion is Perfect™! No data exists about its problems, therefore none exist !!

This is just not a balanced reliable article where next to nothing is mentioned about its teething troubles, if only that they were kept well hidden.

Not even a reference to the missing info. Poor quality article clearly designed to be a sales pitch. Almost worthless.

MikoyanG21 (talk) line added concerning how no info is available on what may have gone wrong with this design. —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I removed your tag and your text addition saying "No information is currently available as to the problems encountered in development, or the airframe design difficulties overcome or compromised upon." You can't put statements like that in an article, because implying that there are problems without refs cited that say that there are is raw opinion, see WP:OR. There may be problems with the aircraft or there may not be, but without refs we cannot say. Here at Wikipedia we are not allowed to express opinions about things that may or may not be happening about article subjects, that would be pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR, see also WP:NOTFORUM. If there are refs that criticize the design or its marketing I would be the first to add them here. For instance Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement is nothing but controversy and criticism of an aircraft procurement program, but it has tons of reliable sources that have criticized that procurement. Lacking creditable sources we can't just make stuff up. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed your statement again, you can't say that "No information is currently available as to the problems encountered in development, or the airframe design difficulties overcome or compromised upon", without sources that support that, otherwise it is just your opinion. Furthermore your statement implies there are problems and that claim is not supported by refs. As I said we can't make stuff up, we are restricted to relying on the sources and if there are none then we can't fill in the blanks with speculation. We have tens of thousands of aircraft type articles here in Wikipedia. Very few of them have any published criticism of the designs, marketing or sales, so they are silent on that, lacking refs. If you can find criticism of this aircraft in reliable sources, then by all means let's add it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

When a company uses its own money to build something, it's not going to attract as much, if any, criticism as a government-funded program will, for various reasons, especially when it's still unsold. As Ahunt said, we can't report problems if none have been reported. Perhaps we can report that no problems have been reported if a reliable source reports that no problems have been reported. But we can't imply that there problems if none have been reported by stating no problems have been reported. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Operational history?

Why are there 9 paragraphs devoted to a sales pitch in the "Operational history" section of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.109.135 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is excessive compared to teh way we cover other aircraft and could be condensed into a single summary para, while retaining the refs cited. Would you like to take that on? - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)