Talk:Yankee Squadron

Polikarpov

I am removing: "They flew Soviet-built Polikarpov fighters, that were used by the Spanish air force. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " I have found no evidence of it. In his testimony in Washington, Schneider testified that he was flying an old "unarmed sports plane". Acosta also never mentioned Russian planes that he flew, in talks to reporters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So be it, until we have better sources.

In any case, I can tell you that the present sources are wrong about the aircraft. The Spanish air force didn't have "American army planes":

The start of Spanish Civil War in 1936 saw pleas from the Republican forces for fighter aircraft. After receiving payment in gold, Joseph Stalin dispatched around 500 I-16 Type 5s and Type 6s. The aircraft immediately began dominating the Heinkel He 51, Arado Ar 68, and Fiat CR.32 biplanes, and remained unchallenged until the introduction of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The Nationalists nicknamed the stubby fighter "Rata" (Rat), while the Republicans lovingly called it "Mosca" (Fly). Several aviation publications called the new Soviet fighter a "Boeing" due to the incorrect assumption that it was based on the Boeing P-26's design. (From Polikarpov I-16.)

Prior to the I-16, the main fighter was the Polikarpov I-15, which was a competent late-model biplane. I doubt that the star recruits would have been flying anything other than the I-16, the Republic's best fighter. No offence, but "unarmed sports plane" sounds like a rhetorical flourish to me. Grant | Talk 00:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the external source for that quote? Wikipedia isn't supposed to use itself as a reference. Id love to read the original source to learn more about that time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't, but it certainly matches accounts I have seen in books. There is an extensive ref list in the I-16 article. Grant | Talk 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for original research, its for verified facts, not speculation. If the New York Times and the Washington Post quotes them as saying "unarmed sports planes" that what stays, if others contradict them, then that can go in too. But everything must be referenced. When I first read your info, I was excited and couldn't wait to see the original source. But it was a false alarm. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing quote text from citation

The text is lengthy because it is supporting six references, two of them were used to disprove your added text that they were flying the Polikarpov I-15, which turned out to be incorrect. Its silly to argue over the length of a quote when there is so much more information that can be added to the article from books and newspapers. I have never seen aesthetics used as an excuse to remove the quote field from a citation. They are there for a reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Put significant facts in the main text, if they belong there. Encyclopedia footnotes are not a place for lengthy quotes from sources/historical documents. Wikisource is the place for such material.

I don't know what you mean about the I-15. Grant | Talk 09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote it, just go back and read what you wrote. It was incorrect. I used the quotes you removed to show you that you were incorrect and that Acosta and Schneider both said they were flying "modified sports planes" as bombers, and not the Polikarpov airplanes you added to the text without a citation. The quote field is to show the full quote from the original article source document, and an news article supporting seven references should have the text for all seven in their full context as exactly quoted. Your arguing aesthetics over proper citation methods. Wikisource is for free content, or public domain content. But we are just going around in circles, I wrote the same thing just a day or so ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I said the I-16 and that statement has not been shown to be incorrect, just unproven. So, that's why I don't know what you are talking about. I think the Americans were shooting a line about "modified sport planes", unless they are talking about some kind of ad hoc trainer. Either that or it's a misplaced slight on the I-15.

• Thats original research being touted as fact. It is bad because thats how disinformation is propagated, you think its correct, and then others read it and accept is as fact, as I almost did. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"The quote field is to show the full quote from the original article source document..." And you would want to do that because—? Have you seen this is any other Wikipedia articles?

"... and an news article supporting seven references should have the text for all seven in their full context as exactly quoted." Where are you getting these rules from?

Grant | Talk 07:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thats what "quote" means in any language. Thats high school report writing, if you were reading a reference book and a reference source was used seven times, you ... oh, never mind, just circles again. Its nice that you want to be the aesthetics czar for the article. But I have aesthetic tastes different from yours, and Wikipedia gives latitiude, so we will continue to spar over it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind not putting your comments in the middle of mine? Experience tells me that before long we can't tell who has written what, let alone an outsider reading this.

The Polikarpov reference was a good faith edit and I still don't believe it was incorrect. Unreferenced does not = incorrect.

I'm not the aesthetics czar for anything. I just follow the norms of aesthetics in Wikipedia articles. We do not need to quote the same facts twice over in any article, regardless of whether the quotations are in the notes or the main text. If this was a 5,000 word journal article, then there might be some justification in including indigestible chunks of source material in appendices. As it is, if readers need/want to read the rather quaint original sources/documents, they will follow the links provided or view the original newspaper/magazines in a visit to their local reference library.

By the way Richard, are you related to Schneider? Grant | Talk 05:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)