Talk:Aircraft bluebook

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft bluebook. 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/20090921131334/http://www.jetliste.com/jet_sales_101.php to http://www.jetliste.com/jet_sales_101.php

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) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft bluebook. 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/20090926071231/http://www.jetliste.com/ to http://www.jetliste.com/

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) 20:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes

There are a number of factual mistakes in this article that I propose correcting. I'd also like to add some small updates. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a WP:COI here as a paid consultant for VREF Publishing Inc., which is why I offer these edits as proposals for review, instead of direct edits. I always try to abide by the five pillars but to the extent you think I have fallen short, please let me know and I will address any issue as best I can.

In the section "Aircraft Value Reference":

1. Replace: "Aircraft Value Analysis Company" with "Vref Publishing"

Why?: The name of the company that owns Vref is incorrectly identified as Aircraft Value Analysis Company. The name of the current owner can be found on D&B Hoovers, (a Dun and Bradstreet company information directory. Hoovers and D&B are among the most reliable independent source of company data. I've also sourced to the company website to show the information is current. (See bottom of the Privacy Policy page for the company name.)

2. Replace: "is published twice a year" with "is published quarterly"

Why?: The cited source just has this wrong. It's always been published quarterly, going back 25+ years to the present. I have provided an independent source and the company website to show it's current information.

3. Insert: after "is published quarterly":

"and, since 2007, as an online service for aircraft market value data"

Why?: The product of this company is now also an online service, updated on a regular basis, not just in their quarterly print publication. Readers will be better served with the more current information. I have cited to an independent reliable source and also to the company website, so show it's current.

4. Insert: after "financial institutions":

", manufacturers, aircraft operators and suppliers"

Why?: the incomplete list of users makes it seem like the publication is exclusively for brokers and financial institutions, which is incorrect and misleading for the reader when it's considered in the context of the services of the other bluebook providers described here. Unfortunately, I could only find the company website as a source. While not ideal, for routine information, requiring no analysis, primary sources can be used with caution. WP:Primary

---

BC1278

References

I seem to remember that at the time this article was up for deletion it was full of spam and there was some evidence that there had been tampering by COIs to remove mention of competitors. So I don't want to see any backward steps. I'm fine with points #2 and #3. On point #1, if that means the company has changed name, or the product has changed ownership, the article should continue to state the business name it was founded by and then state the change with dates. I'm not happy with point #4. The company might like those groups as customers. They might actually be customers. But unless independent sources have indicated they are important groups for the product we would just be promulgating company marketing by putting that in. SpinningSpark 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and your time. User:Spinningspark. I have not worked on this article prior to these recent requests so I can't speak to previous possible undisclosed COI edits. When I do paid editing, I do my best to strictly follow Wikipedia policy, most especially public disclosure of COI and independent review of any proposed edit or new article. Re your questions:

• I did research and found out that Aircraft Value Analysis Company never owned VREF. I did a bunch of Google searches such as "VREF Aircraft Value Analysis Company" and "VREF sold" and none show Aircraft Value Analysis Company as ever owning VREF. Here is an article about the establishment of VREF when it was new, and it refers to an individual, not a company, starting and owning "VREF". [1] There are also dozens of Google results for "VREF" or "VREF airplane value" that point to the VREF website or websites that link to VREF.com. VREF Publishing Inc. is listed as the owner of VREF.com, as explained above. I can't prove a negative but I think D&B, Hoovers, the company website, and the search results I mentioned are pretty conclusive. I guess there was a mistake in the book cited as the original source. While not of value as a Wikipedia source, I also emailed the owner of VREF just to be sure, and he says Aircraft Value Analysis Company never owned VREF.
• I understand your point about needing an independent source to establish request #4. It's a judgment call whether to accept a primary source and your judgment definitely trumps mine because of my COI.

Thanks again. BC1278 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278 {reflist}

• This is starting to become clear. Looking at the AVAC website, they say their Aircraft Value Reference was founded in 1991 and is published twice yearly. This agrees with Vasigh et al., the source in our article, so clearly the Vref they are talking about is the AVAC product, not the product you are dealing with. On that basis, I am against any change to that section of the article, as your proposals are misconceived. That leaves the question of the possible addition of your product to the article. I would be against that too from what has been presented so far. You have two obstacles to overcome. Firstly, our new notability guideline for companies does not accept regurgitated press releases (churnalism) for establishing notability. Secondly, Vasigh explicitly says there are four main bluebooks, and yours is not one of them. Much higher quality sources would be needed. That's about all I've got to say on this. If you want other opinions, please use the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process or the {{Request edit}} template if what you want to do is straightforward. SpinningSpark 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)