Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement

Needs structure

At the moment mostly a sequence of "X said Y" culled from media. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At least some sectioning! - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, breaking down the announcements by year just makes the whole edifice look even more rickety. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this a separate article and not just a paragraph in theprocurement article, which is all that is justified. Can someone give me a reason for not prodding or mergeing it?Petebutt (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it's out of the way here and can be carefully groomed until it actually resembles a half-decent piece of text rather than cluttering up the main article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is already pretty large and with a controversial aircraft like this will only get larger over time. We already had consensus to split! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Institute for National Security Studies

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/958/?SID=979cfc441af241d03ffd58dcacb34cfa

This one paper is getting pasted all over the place, but I didn't see anything notable enough to add. Hcobb (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)