Talk:Piasecki H-21

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piasecki H-21 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft / Rotorcraft Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved Patstuart^talk|edits 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CH-21 Shawnee → Piasecki H-21 — To comform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines for US aircraft with multiple names - Manufacturer, number BillCJ 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion[edit]

The H-21 Workhorse was used by the USAF before the Army ordered the H-21 Shawnee. I think the article name should reflect the fact that Shawnee is not the only name, but H-21 Workhorse/Shawnee is not really a good choice either.

No contest. Will request as Uncontroversial. - BillCJ 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

development history problems ?[edit]

Perhaps it would be worth noting that development was costly (money, test pilots), for reference:youtube video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.225 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not really a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why in four years no one has pointed this out, but YouTube isn't the Source, and except for a super teeny tiny amount of videos, YouTube will never be a Source. It is neither reliable nor is not reliable, it is a video hosting service. Whether anything on YouTube could be a source would depend entirely on the actual video itself and who produced it. So if it was a link to a National Geographic video on YouTube, then National Geographic and not YouTube would be the source.

In the case of the video the OP linked on the CH-21, the source is the US Federal Government. You basically said the actual testing performed by the US Military, and recorded on film was an unreliable source. You are wrong. The trouble with that video isn't the source, it's what it is saying. And it doesn't say anything the OP says it does. It doesn't actually say anything at all. It's just film of testing to destruction of the CH-21. As in, it just shows the crashes of remote controlled CH-21 helicopters, put to the Top Gun theme song. That's just normal testing, and not any of the results from said testing. Drop helicopter out of the sky, it crashes; turn helicopter upside down close to the ground, it crashes; fly the helicopter into the ground at speed, it crashes; actual data discovered, no idea. That video doesn't have any real information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.138.23 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Piasecki H-21/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Start class == Several errors and omissions in this article. Not ready to be a B-Class, yet. --Born2flie 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Piasecki H-21. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

There are numerous exterior shots but none of the interior, e.g. a cabin or cockpit photo. This would improve the article nicely. -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]