Talk:United States government role in civil aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

The original version of this article was taken from the public domain source at http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/POL-OV.htm written by Edmund Preston, Agency Historian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.111 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 25 June 2004

Please note that the above IP address was on the SORBS blacklist at that time and remains so now. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this User[edit]

I'm not sure about their other edits or why this user's Talk Page (the same person who placed the above comment regarding plagiarism from their apparently common/shared IP address) was deleted (which seems like such busy-work and so unnecessary in this age of cheap storage space, but whatever...) but their edit - they began and seemingly wrote most of the article on United States government role in civil aviation - is just simple verbatim plagiarism... Just something that should be kept in mind for any of this user's edits or articles. While it is a good valid article topic it also risks the article being deleted altogether, which would defeat the purpose of its creation... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're on a hopless cause. WP seems not to care about plagiarism, provided it's a USG source. Take a look at all the USN pages lifted verbatim from DANFS... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That is an argument for attribution, not for deletion. Easily corrected, in any case.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added {{FAA.Gov}} so the content will be attributed. For similar cases, please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#United_States_government_attribution_templates, including one for DANFS.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Combining rulemaking, safety, & aviation promotion under FAA has been fairly widely criticized as a conflict of interest. Except all I've got for sources are "ephemeral" news reports... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The year that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) ended should be stated.[edit]

I came to Wikipedia to learn when the CAB ended. The present state of the article leaves me guessing that the CAB came to an end in 1958 with the advent of the FAA. It was an important deregulation (the end of a government price control) marking a turning point in the economics of the airlines and civilian air travel.

And I am surprised to see so many topics in a single article! I thought that the CAB, FAA, NTSB (etc.) would each have their own articles. CousinJohn (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There are indeed separate articles for FAA and NTSB. Just click on the links for each. The FAA was established to regulate safety, but not routes and fares. The CAB continued to do that until it was abolished in 1985. See Airline Deregulation Act. No one has yet started a separate article on the CAB, but you are welcome to do so. Caseyjonz (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Some context needed[edit]

In the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics section, there needs to be a better transition after the sentence "Before the end of the conflict, Congress voted funds for an innovative postal program that would serve as a model for commercial air operations" leading to the next section. Or perhaps exclude the sentence. It's as if it's written as a novel and a "teaser" for the next chapter. That doesn't seem like an encyclopedic style of writing in my opinion. --Drololol61 (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)