# Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

There has been a dispute on this article about the inclusion of The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard by James G. Burton as a source.  One editor even called the source "a Sprey propaganda piece".  I vaguely remember a discussion or dispute regarding Sprey in the past.  Is there a consensus on Sprey's involvement in the A-10 program? - ZLEA T\C 12:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

All we seem to have is Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey - no discussion there. Let's sort it out here, then. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Most of the discussion emanates from a series of YouTube videos by a British man going by LazerPig (the most relevant can be found here). Mr. Pig explicitly mentions this article in his videos and the subsequent discussion of Sprey on this talk page made it into another video. He accurately pointed out that the version of the article extant at the time of the first videos presented demonstrably false information via citations to the Boyd book. The outcome of that discussion was to remove the more exceptional claims cited via the Boyd book, almost all of which were traceable to claims made first by Sprey or attributed to him in the book. Burton's book, also critically addressed by the anthropomorphic swine, is mustered twice as a citation in this article. While I agree with LazerPig's assessment of Burton being something of an unreliable source for exceptional claims, both citations to Burton in this article are for very basic details. If we can find better sources for the facts Burton's book supports, this would be preferable. Additionally, it would be best if we actually had the pages from Burton's book for the facts cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, @ZLEA and Ahunt: We have more discussion in the threads above (ignoring the Bean one). I think the consensus was leaning against inclusion of Sprey as a member of the A-10s development in this article, though his claims should be addressed elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that prev conversation brought up a lot of the issues, but we didn't get a conclusive consensus there. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Post is several years old, but my god, no Burton and his book are not reliable sources. He's well known for having an agenda and the Reformers were often quite wrong about military equipment. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
 In the service of achieving a consensus, consider this my support for the exclusion of Sprey as a source in this article and the exclusion of any non-independent sources that suggest he was intimately involved in the A-10's development (so, the current article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There seems to be a dearth of independent evidence presented so far that he was involved to any serious degree. None of my contemporary paper books that deal with the A-10 mention him. If new sources arise I am happy to change that opinion, though. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The whole pro-Sprey/anti-Sprey thing seems very odd. Seems there's people on both sides attempting to use WP to push their POV. We need to be careful to be neutral. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
While I think most of the WikiProject regular editors here are relying on WP:RS, there do seem to have been at least a few others who seem to have a "dog in that race" for one reason or another. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Those were the ones I was referring too. I agree with removing the questioned source if it's unreliable, but I'm not quite sure how that was determined. Did it go through RSN? BilCat (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Putting the Boyd book through the RSN circuit might actually be a great move. Would allow us to more definitively deal with this more than year old issue. Had to remove a lot of anti-Sprey POVing from his article just now. A broader community view might really stabilize things. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

in specifications it states the max takeoff weight is 46,000 lb (20,865 kg), but in the CAS mission the weight is stated as 47,094 lb (21,361 kg). is this intended or a mistake? Lighningknight134 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The aircraft's maximum in flight weight (51,000 lb) is higher than it's maximum taxi, takeoff, and landing weight (46,000 lbs) according to the flight manual. The obvious answer to how this is possible would be in-flight refueling I reckon. – Recoil16 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

in the description of the aircraft under the picture it says introduced october 1977 but in the first paragraph it says introduced 1976 Meat is the best (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Meat is the best:. Thanks for noting that, taken care of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The 1976 date is when the first production A-10 was delivered. The 1977 date is when the first A-10 combat unit became operational (fielding). The fielding date is when an aircraft is introduced into service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of describing the supported forces as "friendly"? Is there someone who might get confused and think an air force is providing close air support to enemy troops?
This does not improve clarity, it is simply childish writing. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Childish writing" is not enough of a reason to remove it.  Do you think the inclusion of "friendly" might cause more confusion for the average reader? - ZLEA T\C 18:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The reason to remove it is that succinct language should be preferred to flowery language that does not add anything to the understanding. See [1]. Do you think the average reader might be confused and think the air force is providing close support for the enemy? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Flowery is perhaps a flowery way of describing clear phrasing. Wikipedia is not written for experts, so some accommodation for the unacquainted reader is worthwhile. As you are a newer editor, I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Did you read the article I linked to? Or this one [2]?
"Flowery" is unclear phrasing, the opposite of clear phrasing, Flowery language is the hallmark of academic writing, which makes technical topics (assuming this is a technical article - a highly doubtful proposition in itself) LESS clear and LESS approachable to the lay reader, not more so. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Everyone else seems to think it's not flowery. It's one word and does nothing but make something technical abundantly clear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
"Everyone else" is one other editor, who isn't explictly opposed to removing it, just asked why. It's just one word, indeed, so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to removing it, when in fact it does not making anything clearer. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I am explicitly opposed to removing it.  I strongly disagree with the notion that "friendly" is flowery language.  In this case, "friendly" is intended to, and absolutely does, make it abundantly clear which ground troops are referred to in the sentence. - ZLEA T\C 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, So you think that without 'friendly' someone might be confused and think the air force is providing close support to the enemy ground troops? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes.  Readers with dyslexia (of which I have a self-diagnosed minor case) can, in fact, be confused by the lack of "friendly" and may have to reread the sentence to understand what it's trying to say.  It is because of this that we should not remove words that serve to clarify the sentence, so long as they do not unreasonably detract from the clarity for the average reader, which this case certainly does not. - ZLEA T\C 02:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It clarified which troops the CAS applies to, i.e. supporting vs. attacking. But moving "enemy" to earlier in sentence may do the same thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
So you think people might be confused and think the air force is providing support to enemy troops? It's ridiculous. Look at other articles about CAS aircraft like Sukhoi Su-25-  there's none of this "supporting friendly troops by attacking enemy forces" nonsense, its obvious and not needed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't try to put words other people's month.  You don't have to reply to every comment. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you see the irony of 'You don't have to reply to every comment' in a reply to my comment?
I am not putting any words in your mouth, I'm asking you what you think the addition of "friendly" and "enemy' adds here, a situation in which it should be obvious that "Support" is for your forces and not enemy forces. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is only my 3rd comment to this section. A little earlier I removed friendly and kept enemy in the Lead. One should be enough. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, your version looks much better. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Night attack prototype included improved HUD, FLIR, LLTV, a "laser ranging device", terrainfollowing radar, an ins, radar altimeter, and moving map display, the lltv replaced the pave penny pod, the tfr was in station four,  and the flir and laser ranging device were on pylon six Flight testing of the A-10 N/AW, serial number 73-1664, began on Oct. 23, 1979, and ended on Dec. 4, 1979, apparently it was made obsolete by other improvements like lantirn.  https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/858863/republic-nightadverse-weather-a-10-ya-10b/  I don't know how best to include this information in the article. Fanccr (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In the section "Notable incidents", it is claimed that
The number of cancer cases in the vicinity of the accident rose disproportionately in the years after [the incident]
It gives two sources for this, one does not mention the claim at all and the other does not make that claim. The source says that public media has been making the claim that the A-10 was carrying DU ballast. Likewise, I can find the following interview where an activist who opposes DU ammunition says Leukemia cases rose afterwards.
Interview mit Prof. Dr. Albrecht Schott (in German)
In a now deleted statement, a local politician also asked the Air Force for the full classified report on the incident, giving such reports as a reason.
While I think it's plausible that the A-10 was carrying DU ballast (probably not ammunition), the claim could easily be checked, even today, by an inexpensive radiation detector with a spectrometric function. Any affected person would have done so in order to sue for damages. Since no such evidence is available, I do not think the claim should be included in Wikipedia. At the very least, the statement should be reduced to "It has been claimed in media reports that...", which is what is supported by the source. --2001:A61:3BD3:3001:B4FD:8547:7ED:EFAF (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Addendum: I found this excellent article by Deutschlandfunk, Germany's NPR:
https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/flugzeugabsturz-ueber-remscheid-1988-was-war-an-bord-des-100.html
Radiation levels where monitored immediately after the crash and found to be inconsistent with DU contamination. An increased level of illness in the area could have a bunch of different sources. It could be other kinds of contamination from the A-10, or it could be remnants from the area's early industrial time.
I suggest that we change the article to reflect that the claims of DU contamination are refuted by evidence. -2001:A61:3BD3:3001:B4FD:8547:7ED:EFAF (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This video has lot's of information without providing sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsRct88QJU War (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)