Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

message: Please remove this popular nonsense:SR-71 pilot Brian Shul states in his book The Untouchables that he flew in excess of Mach 3.5 on 15 April 1986 over Libya to evade a missile. On April 15, 1986 over Libya, the SR-71 did not Dodge the s-200 missile, but flew around the area where the S-200 complex was located. And Speed was 3.15 Mach, not 3.5.. boastful stories of retired pilots have no place in the encyclopedia, as well as fantastic stories of fishermen and hunters. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelmen220 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The text clearly says "states in his book" which is a kind of quoting – removal reverted. --Zac67 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

text: "he states in his book" is equivalent to "he claims". That claim is a fact to read in his book, regardless of whether the claim itself is true. --Zac67 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  to remove the nonsense 

message: How about an "in popular culture" section? X-men, etc. Theanthrope (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No! See WP:TRIVIA.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

text: We have a special place for that sort of information: . However, it doesn't currently list the X-men, and probably won't. BilCat (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: In Popular Culture?

message: ref "unsourced OR" revert:
it's ok to change sourced information if it's obviously incorrect. In this case the source uses incorrect terminology. Actually red stripes alone are not even an adequate warning. They will be ignored if there are no red words with the stripes, probably "NO STEP" in this case or words explaining why the stripes are there.
As an example this Hawkeye has 2 separate stripes with applicable words, one to warn of whirling propeller blades and one to warn of location of disintegrating starter turbine.
To illustrate the distinction between warning and prevention see this Crusader
The red stripes only warn not to get sucked in. Prevention requires a wire mesh screen to be in place.
Pieter1963 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Red warning stripes

message: Five years ago,   of the European flights section with , apparently due to unsatisfactory phrasing and link rot. In repairing the dead link, I encountered information which prompted a rewrite of the second paragraph, and the inclusion of a map and a quite relevant image. The clarification prompted two new sections, one on the route and the geography of the Baltic sea, and the other on Soviet intercepts. It was also natural to either mention or include links to the Cold War relations of Sweden/USA/USSR, scrambling, the nature of intercepting foreign military aircraft and simulated shoot-downs, as well as adding a source (ref name=rbth2012) from the MiG-25 article, and also a new one I found (ref name=AGCViggen).
I included the  in order to illustrate the Baltic express route. However, it has some problems. It's a modern map, which means that it doesn't show the Soviet union. It doesn't show airspace borders. It doesn't highlight the key corridors (DDR/Malmö & Gotland/Öland). And it doesn't show the Baltic express route. Despite all this, I would argue that the map still provides clarifying information to the reader about the Baltic operations mentioned in this section. (Some more locations for a custom map: "Codan", Finow-Eberswalde, Stockholm (and possibly other capitals), Ä,R,N,V,P,H,T)
Lastly, I  with dual significance to the final paragraph. Not only is the photographed event mentioned in the text, but the nested operational photo that's displayed at the event is reportedly the only time an SR-71 has been photographed during an intercept. (It's a commons file. And the original copyright for both appears to have belonged to the Swedish government. So the nesting shouldn't be a problem.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting contribution – however, the picture in front on the Air Medal photo is clearly a painting. Might the photo be the one in the back? --Zac67 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't catch that. Just assumed that one of the reinforcing fighters had taken a photo, and that they displayed it for the occasion. Yes, the intercept photo that the sources mention might be the one displayed on the screen in the back. The caption should be changed. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounting for my edit on the Baltic Express