Talk:Light Aircraft Association

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Article[edit]

This article reads like an unsourced blog and seems to be full of WP:OR and opinion. I propose it be stubbed to remove the unsupported text. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no discussion or objections to this in the past week I will carry that out. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst verifiability is an essential element of Wikipedia, I think it a bit harsh to have a major cull of this article after a mere week's silence on a virgin talk page (particularly in the pre-Christmas rush when people may have had their minds on other things). I suggest (i) restoring the deleted text to invite corrections and referencing, and then (ii) giving editors a bit more time for discussion & research. - Arrivisto (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sections I removed were full of exceptional claims that required sourcing to be included in the first place, like the "Proposed merger with BMAA" section. Information like this, if it is factually wrong can hurt people and organizations and jeopardize negotiations, which is why Wikipedia policy says "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources" and as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales notes "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I was actually being very generous giving a week to add sources and bringing it to the talk page to flag it to editors watching the page, as these sort of claims must be sourced when put in and under Wikipedia policy it should have been removed immediately. As Jimmy Wales also said: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." This text can be put back in at any time, if reliable references can be cited. In the meantime the text is safe and sound, preserved in the article history, in case refs are located. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition here again. You can't add "The LAA's remit substantially overlaps with that of the British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA), and a merger of the two associations has occasionally been proposed." and cite http://www.bmaa.org/ as a ref, because that website doesn't say anything like "our association overlaps the LAA" or anything about a merger. The rumours of a merger are completely unsourced WP:OR and cannot be put back in without citing a reliable ref. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog to post rumours like that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reinstated text that has been deleted yet again by ahunt contained uncontested basic factual information about the laa & its role. Clearly those of us who wish to provide useful information and content are going to be wasting our time here as our input will be repeatedly deleted. Ceannglic (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy requires you to provide a reference for text added, especially when it has been specifically challenged and removed previously. It is not "uncontested", it has been contested and removed. You can't just keep adding it without a reference. If this information is accurate and as "useful" as you indicate then it should be easy to find a reference for it, unless it is original research or just made up. If it can't be easily found on the LAA website then obviously that organization considers it unimportant or inaccurate. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in your haste to enforce your views on the rest of us you did not read what you were deleteing. It contained no exceptional claims and did not contain any reference to the BMAA, and was merely a summary of the activities of the LAA. Try making a contribution instead of deleting. Ceannglic (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "my views", it is Wikipedia policy that requires refs to be cited. I have tagged it again so you can supply the required refs. If you can't find the refs the text will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]