Wikipedia

Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/Archive 2

< Talk:CAC | PAC JF-17 Thunder
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Aircorn in topic Community Reassessment
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Introduction shortened and made crisp

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have amended the introductory para to make it shorter and more crisp. The introduction should state the maximum in the shortest space possible. Poloplayers (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

JF-17 did not originate from Sabre II

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know why the Sabre II project is mentioned in the JF-17 article. The JF-17 did not originate from the Sabre II project, which was based on the F-7. The Sabre II was an earlier and independent project which was abandoned by both Pakistan and China after Grumman pulled out. The defunct Sabre II project should have its own article and be taken out of this JF-17 article has it is making it too bulky. People search "JF-17" to find out more about the JF-17 rather than the Sabre II Project. Poloplayers (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate. When Pakistan rejected the Sabre II (circa 1988) the project was continued by China alone as Super-7. Super-7 was re-branded FC-1 in the early 90s and offered to Pakistan circa 1992. When Pakistan joined the project circa 1995, the FC-1 name was kept by China and Super-7 by Pakistan. Super-7 later changed to JF-17 during time of first test flights circa 2003. Have you read the sources? The FlightGlobal.com archive sources are good for detail, the Air Forces Monthly magazine article provides a good summary. The beginning of the Air Forces Monthly article on JF-17 has 2-3 paragraphs on Sabre II at the beginning. Not much detail though, so I guess what you have done (moving details on Sabre II to a new article) is the best approach to improve the article.--Hj108 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Info already added

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The report concerning Russian manufacturers suggesting blocking of sale of RD-93 exists in theProduction, delivery and further development section as well as the Propultion and fuel system section. Please remove dual info deciding which section is best to place for it to remain in.<:ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JF-17_Thunder&action=historysubmit&diff=372079591&oldid=371938814</ref><:ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JF-17_Thunder&action=historysubmit&diff=371938814&oldid=370438884</ref> --Nuclearram (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of JF 17s produced by Pakistan is unknown

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pakistan has not released an exact number since the aircraft went into mass production. We just know the least number of aircraft.Lm 997 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sheikh111, 17 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{editsemiprotected}}


Sheikh111 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 119.155.10.167, 27 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello,

Wiki is great source for JF-17, but it doesnt have new images of JF-17, it currently has only few old images, so i want u to create a Gallery section/tab for JF-17 on JF-17 page, THanks


Hasnain2009 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Not done: Image galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia. If you would like the old images to be replaced, please feel free to suggest new images to use, provided that they meet Wikipedia's copyright policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

For why reason??

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For why reason are suppressed operators in the list, there are maybe an error, here says that the Azeri Air Force operates an brigade with this airfighter...  Colombia--{{SUBST:Plinio-chan}} (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about that, and I couldnt find anything concrete on the page. If I (or anyone else) can find a better source I'll update both of the pages. Both of the aircraft images on that page look like artist renderings and not actual photographs though, so I'm a bit hesitant to use the sources given from that page. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Found a source saying they were interested in the fighter, still I havent found anything saying actual orders were placed or aircraft have been delivered. http://news.az/articles/20583 I'll keep this on my radar however. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-Official Websites

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

Why aren't there any more websites listed? We could have two sections: Official Links and General Information similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adammatt1985 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


-- Any feedback on this from mods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.160.12 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:External links about what is acceptable and what is not in external links - the HAL Tejas article arguably has too many.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:JF-17 background Mirage 5 ROSE foreground.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:JF-17 background Mirage 5 ROSE foreground.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Crash

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of them crashed today. Someone should update in the article;

http://tribune.com.pk/story/291604/paf-aircraft-crashes-in-attock/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.73.145 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Not done No request. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New Info/Source

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

NY times reports today that china will be giving pakistan 50 of these aircraft:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=2

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to add this type of dubious information until it is clarified. Are the 50 new planes going to be provided free or on loans? Which version, old or new? Will all be delivered in a few months or will they start being delivered in a few months? Need clarification.--Hj108 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You consider NYT to be a dubious source? How come? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


It appears that the 50 new planes will be provided to Pakistan for free (alternate source: http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-06-06/report-china-provide-jf-17s-pakistan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.115.37 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is too darned long

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
  • Hj108, I would like to propose a cleanup of the article as it is now stands at well over 100kb, many parts and wikilinks needs to be trimmed off or streamlined. Especially the developement section, maybe it can be spinned off into a new article page and be linked here instead. Thoughts, anyone else? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the early history of the project (the "development" bit) could be moved to a sub-article with just a summary left behind would certainly lower the size and make it flow a bit better. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you guys 100%, the problem is I just don't have the time at the moment. I'll see what I can do. The problem is I've been stuffing it with new info and references here and there so it has lost any "flow" it had when originally re-written by myself a couple of years back.--Hj108 (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete or seriously shorten the section about Pakistan's dealings trying to get European avionic's since non of these deals went through and the European systems are currently not being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.172.101 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hassan, the issue we have raised here is not new but the aircraft is indeed new as it is just entering operational service after a protracted developement period (therefore you can't really compare it with those articles you've mentioned above) and a lot of things in the various sections are overbloated with unwanted details and irrelevant informations. As it stands right now, the article page is over 94kb and ideally this should be trimmed down to between 32 to 64 kb in size. Discuss with the other editors above to get more ideas and opinions on how best to proceed with this. Another thing, you may want to use your own sandbox to try out your own version before you spin off but whatever it is, that tag has to stay until you've done so. Try to understand this. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If we do remove the overbloated/unwanted content from the article, that would make the article shorter which would be its anticipated form... do you aim to preempt the article's future position into sub articles? If that's not the case the article length (if assumed to be complete for now) would be ok since we have articles with bigger size. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not 4.5th gen

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

No full FBW, no AESA. Clearly not 4.5th gen. Is it even 4th? Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt perform on the level of early F-16's and Mirage's but I would say that it is still 4th gen (even though talking about this is becoming ever more taboo on wikipedia). Saying that it is 4.5th gen would mean comparing it to the Jas-39 and Rafale, and it would be completely outclassed in that group -Nem1yan (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation removed - This has been discussed before, we dont need to add generation to the article it is not agreed and it adds no value to the article, refer earlier talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think without being bias,that any aircraft that confirms United States Government standards should be regarded as a 4.5 generation fighter "The United States Government defines 4.5 generation fighter aircraft as fourth generation jet fighters that have been upgraded with AESA radar, high capacity data-link, enhanced avionics, and "the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments".Therefore with Infra-red search and track (IRST) by Sichuan Changhong Electric Appliance Corporation and AESA radar by NRIET (Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology/14 institute) and a LINK-16 compatable data link ,a MIL-STD-1760 Aircraft/Store Electrical Interconnection System , a full duplex MIL-STD-1553B Serial Data bus, a robust defensive aids system (DAS),Electro-Optics,helmet-mounted sights/display (HMS/D) ,Forward-looking Infra-red Laser Attack Targeting (FILAT),advanced electronic counter-measures (ECM) suite,digitally controlled FADEC . Also believed to incorporate greater use of composite materials for reducing airframe weight and possibly a thrust vector control (TVC) engine, makes JF-17 a 4.5 generation fighter regardless of the bias against it of being Chinese origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.0.49 (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires direct sourcing (in this case, a reliable source which says which generation this specific aircraft is), not synthesis of what editors think it is based on definitions. (Hohum @) 15:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As Milborne One said a year ago, these so-called "Generations" are unhelpful and do not add to the articles - they are merely marketing speak and adding them just results in stupid edit wars. Keep them out.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Stealth

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think that http://www.defence-update.net/wordpress/20100720_pakistani-thunders-at-farnborough.html and http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/04/jf-17-stealth-fighter-new-pak-china.html got their info from http://tribune.com.pk/story/173009/jf-17-thunders-pakistan-to-get-50-chinese-stealth-jets-in-six-months/ which now says:

The earlier headline of this article incorrectly called the JF-17 a stealth jet. The correction has been made.

So I'm left with no RS at all for a stealth, much less a 5th gen claim. So it looks like overeager fandumb at work. Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally:

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/82375/china-pak-mou-develop-stealth.html

leads to

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/

Which talks about a theoretical block II with 4.5th generation features, not 5th. Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Speed

Latest comment: 12 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

JF-17's Speed is wrongly stated. Mach 1.6 is not 1,191 knots, 2,205 km/h! The correct conversion is what I have stated. If you can't do it manually then do it here - http://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm

Fighterplanes (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a source for you? http://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm

Fighterplanes (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I don't even get what you are doing here... I don't think you only did some maths there. You changed the figures (without explanation) and then did a (said) conversion. [1]. If only it was a conversion issue, why have both figures changed in your edit? You need to explain your edits atleast. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • @Topgun- You don't get it? That is what Mach 1.6 is at altitude when converted to km/hr and knots. The previous one was obviously wrong.
"The previous one was obviously wrong."? How? Why? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why how? See the Mach converter! And also the burden is on you as well who RESTORES the data.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Where is your source? Fighterplanes (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Where is YOUR source? Where is the restorer's source?

Fighterplanes (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • @Fighterplanes:Let me put it simply for layman like you... 1.) WP:BURDEN applies to you and not us because you are restoring something that is against common consensus of other editors here and that someone else removes them doesn't mean that you are right, its just our way to saving it for later; 2.) The Mach converter needs the precise altitude for which the Mach number corresponds to in order to calculate correctly, or else the indicated airpseed becomes the dead giveaway; 3.) All aircraft manufacturers in the world like to take (aka cherry-picking!) the best performance figure/statistic to show to the whole world and this is no exception. Example, in clean configuration the JF-17 is capable of more than Mach 1.6 but it doesn't say at what height it was flying when the Mach number was call out, hence the importance of the airspeed indicator for the indicated airspeed. Also, much as we hate it, no other official sources have provided us with the much needed information except for those indicated in the article's reference source section. Hope this clears up your head-swelling due to the lack of knowledge. :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree and in any event, trying to convert a Mach value a speed in km/h without the altitude is meaningless. You're missing a variable and there is no way around it except in our case getting a source for that value.--McSly (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The reference actually claimed [2] says Max Mach No = 1.6 and maximum speed 700 kn IAS, which (if you assume CAS=IAS) gives about 25,000 ft using this calculator - speed was changed here by User:Fighterplanes from Mach 1.8 to Mach 1.6 without adjusting any of the other figures.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that all makes sense now. Thanks for checking.--McSly (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • @Nigel Ish- Ah.. I didn't notice the adjacent values then. When I came back and noticed the figures, it didn't tally M1.6 at any altitude.
  • @Dave- Airspeed & Mach-no changes with altitude with the same engine output and payload.. oh thanks for pointing out the obvious. And we all saw the common consensus here. Fact of the matter is, your speed wasn't sourced. You went on harping about the "obvious", but neither did you pen out the calculation nor did you take the assistance of an online calculator. In the final analysis, you first said that the speed was sourced, which it clearly wasn't. When I pointed it out that it wasn't sourced, your ego wouldn't let go. Thanks for crapping up wikipedia.

Fighterplanes (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol, come on. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess every body forgives him (including me) :p ..lets not bite ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
A newbie that is not a newbie... eh. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, so everyone is on the same page. Can we all move on now? --McSly (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable accidents

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Pakistani military - JF-17 Thunder jet had crashed, when "jet aircraft, while on a routine training mission, crashed due to technical malfunction near Attock" in Punjab and pilot was "fatally injured". The pilot, Squadron Leader Muhammad Hussain, was killed as his parachute failed to open after he bailed out of the aircraft, Asok83 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/joint-pakchina-developed-jf17-thunder-.../875631/--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no reason an editor should wait before posting information on the TALKS page. There also isnt an issue with the reliability of his source. If you wish to add the information please feel free to do so. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the list of citations

  1. http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/15/pilot-dies-as-paf-fighter-jet-crashes.html
  2. http://tribune.com.pk/story/291604/paf-aircraft-crashes-in-attock/
  3. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/joint-pakchina-developed-jf17-thunder-.../875631/--
  4. http://www.lhrtimes.com/2011/11/14/pilot-squadron-leader-muhammad-hussain-dies-in-paf-aircraft-jf-17-thunder-crash/
  5. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/14-Nov-2011/Pilot-dies-in-PAF-aircraft-crash
  6. http://news.in.msn.com/pakistan/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5592318#page=1
  7. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C11%5C15%5Cstory_15-11-2011_pg7_2
  8. http://www.thenewstribe.com/2011/11/14/jf-17-crashes-in-attock-pilot-killed/#.Tzre8079PIs --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)updated --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed a section "Notable accident" that was just added with the edit summary "Not particularly notable for a military jet". The user who added the section indicated that my edit summary was not really clear on why I challenged the insertion of the section. But just to expand military aircraft crash all the time it would have to be something significant like it killed somebody important or hit something important to get a mention hence my removal, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most F-16 crashes aren't on the Noteable Accidents and Incidents list, as not all crashes are noteworthy - The ones that are there are the most significant of the incidents, more or less. As this is the first instance of a JF-17 crash, this might be notable; I'd recommend seeing how this develops, as further information and releases could make this incident more significant (E.G. Design flaw found that led to fleet-wide changes ect.). If the crash generates a long term change in proceedure, which it is currently too early to call, it is almost definantly notable. Editors get touchy about WP:RECENTISM edits, people reading an incident and flocking to Wikipedia to slam it into an article at once, as this leads to articles with WP:UNDUE weight towards 'recent' events - Compare the horrid mess that is the F-35 article with the humble EE Lighning or other such swings towards 'whats in the papers right now' over balance. Naturally, we're keen to work against that unnatural and unfair weighting problem, thus edits straight out of the current day's press come under scrutiny for long-term merits. Kyteto (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Kyteto It seems that somehow you missed the Month in the timestamps above (15 Nov vs 15 Feb). a Three month delay can't be called as the current day's press,Besides some of the f16 crashes reported in the article seem far less important than this one still they were reported, and by the way, f16 was just a random example that i took. regrads--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was speaking in relative terms, crash investigations typically take years to conduct. In comparison with the published book sources many articles heavily use, three months is incredibly recent. There's also been a fair few disputes on the F-16 of what consistutes a notable accident on the F-16 article as well, and tags placed to that effect. Which ones do you see as having had a 'far less important impact' than this incident? Kyteto (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Although not really relevant I have just removed a whole load of non-notable accidents from the F-16 article. But back to this addition being the first reported still doesnt make it notable, may be worth a mention on List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) which has a list of mainly non-notable accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan placed orders ? When ??

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ref link added says azerbaijan is currently negotiating an order. There is no order placed. I suggest the mistake to be rectified. This holds true for zimbabwe too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusaderjaixon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi please update the General characteristics and Performance of the JF-17 thunder,some of the info is not correct like speed and weight. Speed is MACH 1.8 , thrust to weight ratio is greater than 0.99.

Thank you.

182.177.90.228 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference with better numbers? Hcobb (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, i.e. please change x to y--Jac16888 Talk 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard Aboulafia

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Richard Aboulafia said, "The JF-17 is an obsolete and cheap aircraft, ideal for the Pakistan market, which values numbers over actual combat effectiveness." http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-china-awaits-fighter-export-breakthrough-373313/

What's wrong with directly quoting Aboulafia? His quote neatly explains the limited market for the aircraft. And using a direct quote makes it clear that the comment is entirely his opinion. And if he isn't a reliable and notable source then why not remove him from those other twenty articles on aviation topics? Hcobb (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The quote is entirely inappropriate for the lead section. It may be more suited to the body of the text, but even there, as ti appears to be solely a personal opinion it may be problematic - after all there will be plenty of quotes out there praising the JF-17 - and remember "Quantity has a quality all its own".Nigel Ish (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment what we have done is taken one person's statement of opinion and magically broadened it into a general conception that the aircraft has no market, and we give no reason for this. How is this NPOV? Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lede. It can go elsewhere in the article but needs not to be up top. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It was removed from the lead section, and moved to the potential customers section. Anir1uph (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Aboulafia due or not? This is exactly the sort of "professional opinion" he gets quoted for in other av articles. If we won't quote him here, then why quote him elsewhere? Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Aboulafia undue in the other articles then? Hcobb (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) ...First, WP:OTHERSTUFF, secondly, it is undue in.the.lede.. It can be mentioned as an opinion lower in the article, but not in the lede. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved the reference down to related material in the article and I don't think anybody has a problem with that. It's the follow-up edit that turned the quote of one person into a general unexplained feeling by field experts in general that I find odd. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=501170626

This is the edit where I moved it down to the Pakistan purchases, because the quote is about the suitability of the aircraft for the Pakistani market. Hcobb (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not move it to the lead, or in the potential customers section. Hcobb did (and i believe rightly so). I reverted its explained removal. Both the versions of that text i.e with the author mentioned, and a general statement, seem fine to me. I think this text (in one form or the other) is important as it add to the neutrality of the article. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Aboulafia is best used as a source on aviation marketing rather than for highly technical issues. What he's saying is that the JF-17 is being positioned for sales as a cheap high performance aircraft that is two generations back from the state of the art. So it isn't looking to take sales from either the very low end armed trainers or modern 4th generation jet fighters like the F-15/16/18-E/Fs or Rafael. It's more a Mig-21 replacement fighter for countries that need to show speed, but don't have the money or connections for the good stuff. Does anybody see his comments or expertise differently? Hcobb (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

JF 17 Block III ???? Really...???

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I dont know from where did the fanboys get the info about a block 3... No such thing is on the cards.. The cited article is a self published source (WP:SPS) and unreliable. I request the mods to remove the mistake or provide citation from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.235.126.234 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

National origin

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/catic-targets-300-jf-17-sales-in-five-years-372402/ China hopes to sell up to 300 Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) JF-17 Thunder fighters in Africa and the Middle East over the next five years.

The only sources I have been able to find that list Pakistan first as for national origin have been from Pakistani sources. Everybody else lists China first, as above. Hcobb (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-6138-China-backs-Pak-moves-to-safeguard-its-security The Chinese government did not agree with a proposal from Pakistan for selling JF-17 multi-purpose fighter planes produced by Pakistan and China jointly. Pakistan has received offers for the sale of the planes about four times more than what these planes cost Pakistan. The Chinese have asked Pakistan not to sell the planes before the expiry of 10 years of the production of the same.

That's an example of how it is reported inside Pakistan. Hcobb (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New information to add to article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • A Pakistani civilian aerospace engineer, currently working at the National University for Science and Technology (NUST), won an award from Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute (CADI) for "valuable contribution as JF-17 design team member from 2004 to 2006." The same engineer was also recognised by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) for "distinguished service and valuable contribution during structure testing by JF-17 joint team." This proves that there is some undisclosed work done during the project by one or more Pakistani civilian engineers, at least during the structural testing of the aircraft. Reference: [NUST College of Aeronautical Engineering (CAE) faculty achievements webpage.]
  • According to a November 2012 Aviation Week article by Bill Sweetman: after "the JF-17 Production in Pakistan started in 2005 and the first locally built aircraft rolled out in November 2009... the type's performance “exceeded expectations,” leading to a decision to perform tests and introduce it into service in parallel." This proves that the aircraft's test programme was still ongoing while the serial production aircraft were being manufactured. Reference: [China’s Warplane Industry Expands "China's warplane industry expands."]
    • Aviation Week article also mentions that while the JF-17 acquisition cost is around "one third to one fourth" of any other modern combat aircraft, the operating cost is also similarly low.

Hj108 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can you nominate an article for GA when it isnt even B-class?--Petebutt (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since this aircraft is a development of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, why isn't this mentioned even once?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/715bb9297261

Hcobb (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly mentioned that it's a development of the J-7, which, as the bloviating blog you've linked to states, is the Chinese version of the MiG-21. Is that not enough? - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What this article actually says is "for joint design and development of a new fighter" which makes it seem like it isn't a retread of a 60 year old design. Hcobb (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the accidents and incidents section as the one entry was not of note but this has been challenged. Military aircraft by the nature crash all the time and unless it kills somebody notable or hits something notable then really it is not worth including and suggest it should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, self-reverted. Faizan 17:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusing

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"...The first prototype, PT-01, was rolled out on 31 May 2003; it was transferred to the Chengdu Flight Test Centre by June 2003..." Is that supposed to mean that the day it rolled out it transferred straight to the test centre? If yes, then it should say that. Moriori (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unit Cost

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any reference to the unit cost? Seems too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftab s81 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC) In reference number 4 is mentioned that the costs are half of the F16. However in here on wikipedia unit costs are twice of the F16 if you compare both articles. F16 is more likely to be correct with having references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarsven (talk • contribs) 9:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Number built" from infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Bilcat has removed "Number built" from the infobox stating that it is unreferenced. Also not replying on his talk page. Per WP:LEAD all of the references were shifted to the lower article and the "Number built" is verifiable in the sub-section Production versions. Faizan (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The number quoted isn't really cited in the body of the text - what is stated is that 50 Batch I aircraft have been produced + four prototypes, with production of Batch II aircraft taking place from December 2013 at a rate of possibly 16/year. Simply stating 50 in the infobox without qualification is misleading - it should either be cited (and qualified as to when the figure applies)in the infobox or omitted.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
An IP changed the number in the infobox from 50 to 60, without citing a source, of course. I changed to back to 50, and added the citation needed instead of removing it then. Information in the infobox, especially numbers, dates, and prices, generally needs to be cited, as these are easily changed, and we shouldn't make editors search through fairly long and heavily-referenced articles like this one for a source. Notwithstanding that the infobox is not really the Lead, WP:LEADCITE states: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (Emphasis mine.) - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The number 50 is outdated, and given that 16 units are produced per year, still instating number 50 would be wrong. Regrets. Faizan (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

http://defence-blog.com/?p=6295

Does anybody have refs to these "Pakistani media reports"? Hcobb (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@@Hcobb:I searched for it, but I have not found any webpage containing Jf-17 deal details. The reports were only telecast live, All I found is these screenshots given by the official page of Pakistani media outlet. Faizan (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's best to just stay alert and watch for better sourcing for now. Hcobb (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Argentina Export Deal?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the Paris Show officials unusually declined to name the customer of their first export deal which will include a Chinese-made turbofan replacing the Russian Klimov RD-93, the same officials stated that the new turbofan had a greater thrust ratio than the RD-93. However, later unconfirmed reports suggest that the customer was Sri Lanka. Twobellst@lk 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Issues with main lede photo?

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I thought I would start the section for subsequent discussion. Irondome (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The caption locates the aircraft at the Paris air show 2015, but the image details say it was "uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 10:29 am, 7 January 2011". Moriori (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I suspect with the recent changes of the main image the caption relates to one of the other images that has been used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. Fixed. Moriori (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The current image isn't the best, as the ground clutter is distracting. However, it's better than the ground image, as shows more of the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks very similar to the Ching-kuo. Never noticed that before. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
An airbourne picture for lead is better than the grounded one... but I'm still looking for a better flying picture. There's some really good ones on Flikr etc. but most of them are copyrighted. We should keep an eye out for new pics and replace when a better one is found that's free-use. cӨde1+6TP 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Combat radius

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Anyone dubious about that combat radius stat? It's not backed up by the source of other performance data. 840 miles just sounds very high given that an F-16 of roughly the same size is stated as having a combat radius of "340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs" and a Gripen is stated as "800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)" (no loadout given). Both have greater ferry ranges than the JF-17. Le Deluge (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am. A combat radius of 1352 km is very very highly unlikely, even for a heavy fighter like a Raptor or Sukhoi. On the other hand, HAL Tejas with almost same MTOW and loadout has a radius of 300-400km! Maybe that range included in-flight refueling? I have no clue. ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I too have got no clue, but I have seen that the news sources support this radius. The recent Chinese deal report also says: "a top speed of Mach 1.8 at altitude of 55,000 ft and combat range of 840 miles". Any ideas? Faizan (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Have we got any source contradicting this value of combat radius? Faizan (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
For something as technical as this, I wouldn't rely on general media, as I rather suspect many of them get their numbers from Wikipedia. I'd only trust specialist sources like Flight or Janes. A proper figure would mention loadout and flight profile and we have neither. I suspect km and miles have been confused - 840km with an air-to-air loadout might be plausible. I don't have a recent enough copy of Janes to hand - anyone? Le Deluge (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Ferry range without air to air refuelling can be calculated by firstly calculating total fuel load out ie internal (2300KG) + external drop tanks 2520 kg (2 X 1100 = 2200 litres + 800 litres = 3000 litres X .84kg/litres atf = 2520kg). ie total fuel load out of 4820 kg. From RD 33 specifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33#RD-93 specific fuel consumption dry thrust is 75kg/Knh which is equivalent to 3705kg/hr for JF17. At subsonic speed of mach 0.9 and using 3705kg/hr fuel consumption and 4820kg fuel load, ferry range comes to 1430 kms. For any errors include +-10% as I have omitted taxing and take off consumption which can be compensated by lower thrust in air (at the same time reducing speed). I would recommend finding a reliable source for ferry range and combat radius as it is not supported by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.250.97 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Update on Combat Radius: AVIC Chengdu Official webpage stated that the ferry range of this aircraft (without external fuel tanks I reckon) to be 2037 kms [1], this is by far the most reliable and official claim of ferry range of this aircraft, since AVIC Chengdu is the developer of this aircraft. Based on this ferry range, it is reasonable to conclude that based on mission profiles, the combat radius of this aircraft is at around 650~800 kms, which is in accordance with the data from FC-1 page on zh.wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neytirilover (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The Article is quite long (>75 KB), so please try to split it into reasonable subpages.   Not done
    Repeating the same cite over and over again is unecessary   Done Faizan (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Inconsistency: Block 2 and Block II   Done
    Please use American or British English, not both.   Done
    Has a bunch of jargon that most readers don't understand (for example "fairing").   Doing...
    Lead and Infobox
    Citations are Unecessary in the lead and infobox   Done Faizan (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Development section
    Dup link to Thomson-CSF   Done
    Link to fighter, bomber, Pakistan, and interceptor   Done
    Operational History section
    Should change title to Service History   Done
    Dup links to Rao Qamar Suleman and Nigeria   Done
    Design section
    Dup links to Head up display and multi-function displays   Done
    The JF-17 can be armed with up ...   Done
    Variants
    "Mach 2.0+" would do better as "over two times the speed of sound"   Done Faizan (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Has a "dubious-discuss" and a "citation needed" tag in the "Specifications (Block 1)" section.   Done Faizan (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Has 8 dead links in the article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Thanks for starting the review, there was a huge backlog. I am taking exams but will try to get this completed as soon as possible. Regarding the 8 dead links, these articles of Janes and Aviation Week were either deleted from their websites or were moved to the paid archives. I could not find them in the available archives too, I cannot find the substitute sources. Faizan (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Universal British English is being used in the article. Faizan (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, regarding the jargon, I propose that the text be abridged. Aircraft fairing is a component of the airframe, but I am also sure that most readers have not heard about it before. Faizan (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No reasonable split can be made. Generally article is split when it crosses 100 KB. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is >114 KB. So split is unnecessary. Faizan (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

250 airframes produced?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have cited FlightGlobal and the Express to give the realistic figure of 66 produced so far. These sources are strong and are compatable with the narrative of the article. 250 is a distant future figure, it is more numbers planned than actually produced. I am sure anyone would want the article to be credible. this fantasy figure damages it greatly. Irondome (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, 250 is the total strength of PAF, i guess. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that is not far from the truth. The Pakistani Air Force active types list needs a serious overhaul too. I am seeing inflated numbers. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Indeed. I have watchlisted that page now. Will try to improve it in my free time, Cheers! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 45 external links on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable accidents

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I challenged by reversion the addition of a non-notable accident added User:Parmar-ajn, I also removed the other listed accident as this was not notable either. Accidents to military aircraft are particularly common so it they have to pass a threshold of notability to be included (basically they have to kill somebody notable, hit something notable or have an effect on the industry like the loss of a prototype), neither of these accidents have any sign of note. That said they still can be listed in the summary article Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft but have no place here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add , but always with a good reliable source, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Any reason why you are commenting on old talk page discussions on various aircraft types? MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Offer to Bulgaria

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Pakistan's offer to sell its JF-17 to Bulgaria is reportedly been rejected by Bulgarian officials. They are instead considering to purchase Italian Euro-fighter, Swedish Gripen and American F-16. DPU GUY (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Who reported it? - BilCat (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@DPU GUY: I have removed that (content based on WP:SPS) and some other content in that section per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. If you wish to add it back please gain consensus here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

https://defence-blog.com/news/pakistan-has-offered-its-jf-17-fighter-to-meet-bulgarias-need-for-16-fighters.html

Myanmar

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen a recent report that Myanmar has now supposedly inducted the JF-17 into service, but aside from a few blogs with little to no credibility this has not yet been confirmed. Please refrain from adding them as an operator until it is actually confirmed. Jurryaany (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom? Who is a credible source? Flight Fleets Analyzer reports 6 JF-17s in service. Santamoly (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder Dogfight Feb 27, 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I am Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC) On Feb 27, 2019 Pakistani JF-17 Thunder Shoot Down Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI during dogfight in Noshera Sector, Kashmir. Meanwhile, another JF-17 Thunder Shoot Down Indian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 inside AJK near LOC.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Pakistani JF-17 Thunder is Chasing Indian Su-30MKI

Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://cac.avic.com/product/product_display.aspx?id=1
  2. ^ https://timesofislamabad.com/04-Mar-2019/video-paf-jf-17-fighter-jet-shoots-down-iaf-su-30mki
  3. ^ https://www.samaa.tv/news/2019/02/pakistan-air-force-shoots-down-two-indian-fighter-jets-one-pilots-arrested/
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKr8iAeqek
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-FwdtHfRnk
  6. ^ https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/has-pakistans-jf-17-thunder-block-ii-fighter-jet-engaged-in-its-first-dogfight/
  7. ^ https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2019/02/28/first-air-to-air-kill-for-jf-17/

So far, there is no relaible report supporting the claim of JF-17 shooting down a Su-30MKI. All the links above are either questionable YouTube videos and propaganda sites. Provide a better link. DoomDriven (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Protect this page.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page needs to be fully protected from random and unnecessary edits. DoomDriven (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Protection for the article

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Repeated recent attempts have been made to remove internationally sourced of neutral sources consisting of CNN, Business Insider, Guardian etc with biased Indian POV sources of India Today, NDTV etc. The article needs to be protected by the moderators. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The section goes into far too much elaborate detail for an article on the aircraft - in addition, the sources, whether Indian, Pakistani or third party need to be reviewed objectively to confirm whether 1) they are reliable, 2) whether there assertions are usable (i.e. if a reference, however reliable, is repeating rumours or saying that something might have happened, this probably needs to be used, if at all, with care) 3) whether they actually back up what is being attributed to them - quite a lot of the claims made in articles about the recent incidents turn out not to be backed up by the source claimed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with you here, I will try to edit this section in my free time with sources and remove the claims, e.g Pakistani government didn`t claim that it shot down an SU-30 aircraft, the ISPR that is the media wing of the Pakistan armed forces stated that it downed two intruding Indian aircrafts which were shot down. The wreckage of one of the aircraft fell in Pakistan administered Kashmir and the wreckage of the other aircraft it claimed fell in the Indian administered Kashmir. The episode also resulted in the capture of an Indian airforce pilot Abhi Nandan who was released by Pakistan to India within 48 hours as a peace gesture. This section needs to be written using only neutral reliable sources and neither Pakistani nor Indian sources should be used to maintain the neutrality of the article. In the meantime, I request a semi-protection for the article, to finish the edit war. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You are wrongly generalizing sources and your edits so far seems to be nothing more than removing critical information about one side. That is not how you decide what needs to be included, per WP:INDEPENDENT. Kerberous (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
One sentence that keeps being edited in and out is "> According to Pakistani forums, No 27 Squadron "Zarrars" replaced its Mirage 5EF with JF-17 in 2013.[1] Pages on blogspot are generally not reliable sources - this sentence needs a better source to stay.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments about India first denying and then admitting that a pilot had been captured (and probably the pilot's name as well) is WP:UNDUE for this article - which covers the JF-17. That sort of detail belongs in the article about the confrontation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Kerberous (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PAF No. 27 Squadron "Zarrars" to be equipped with JF-17 Block II Thunders".

Text removed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the following text from the lede - " The JF-17 has seen active military service as it is used by the Pakistan Air Force to bomb militant positions in the War in North-West Pakistan,[1] using both unguided munitions and guided missiles for precision strike capability.[2]" The express tribune source does not say that the JF-17 was used in these attacks, it merely has a photo of a JF-17.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Fighter jets bomb militant hideouts in North Waziristan after Taliban attacks". Express Tribune. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Edit request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Don't forget to add Template:Pp to the page. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that the page is protected...

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now that everyone sees one of the things that can happen when multiple editors refuse to follow the rules, let me explain the other things that will happen if the disruptive behavior doesn't stop now.

If the bad behavior continues, I will put together evidence, present it to Arbitration Enforcement, and those of you who have ignored warnings are very likely to either be topic banned from all articles having anything to do with Pakistan or India, or simply blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dialing up the aggression and complaining about me will have zero effect; I have been doing this long enough that I find those sort of antics to be rather boring. I have just started started putting together the evidence.

A word to the good editors who are trying to make the page better and follow Wikipedia's rules; if you have done nothing wrong, I will find no evidence and no administrator will sanction you without evidence. Also, I don't care about the content of this page. Not even slightly. If you think I am taking sides against you, you are sadly mistaken.

OK, here is what you all need to do. Explain, calmly and civilly, what you want to be in this article and what sources you believe support your preferred version. Dial down the aggression and emotion, and treat each other with dignity and respect even when you disagree. Read our page on WP:CONCENSUS and follow the advice on that page.

Those who get with the program will be able to shape the content of this page. Those who edit war, engage in personal attacks, and in general act like jerks, will be removed so that the rest of us can work on the page without interference. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I entirely agree with what you have said. I'll add that I have now watchlisted this article, and if calm discussion does not reach a consensus on the edits that need to be made, I will extend the protection until it does. If the protection ends and anyone continues the edit-war, I will block them without hesitation. Just discuss the different sources and their reliability here on the talk page, and come up with a consensus on the form of words to be inserted into the article. Where reliable sources differ on detail, it is usual on en WP to compare and contrast the content of the differing sources, not to choose one and go with that exclusively. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Reassessment

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept Wrong venue to sort out edit warring. Instability is not a justification in itself to delist articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It should be reverted to the pre-disruption state (which Guy Macon has done several times). I have fully protected it for now. The various warring parties can then discuss it on the talk page. Once a consensus position is determined, the article can be unprotected and the edits made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with PM67; a delisting does seem to be premature for this situation. Applying criteria 5 in this way to justify a GAR seems unreasonable unless it is a particularly protracted situation that has not been able to be resolved through discussions on the talk page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zawed and PM67. This shouldn't be here. Sort it out on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I sent a DS alert to every editor who hasn't gotten one in the last 12 months. Nigel Ish was not singled out in any way. And the alert was crystal clear: "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date."
These DS alerts are a required step before asking an admin to apply discretionary sanctions to the article and those who have edited it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have also received a lot of edit war warnings in my talk page, and there have been complaints about me sent to other admins for my behavior from Guy Macon. Pakieditor (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Pakieditor has been indefinitely blocked for undeclared paid editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indian Claims of shooting down a Pakistani F-16 has nothing to do with JF-17. So why is it mentioned on a wiki page about JF-17? 82.27.172.255 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Dear admins/mods, please remove following text as it has nothing to do with the topic of JF-17 page...

"India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets.[123] While Pakistan denied India's statement, stating that Pakistan used no F-16s in the whole engagement, India produced evidence in the form of an AMRAAM missile wreckage fired by the F-16s which it recovered within the Indian territory, while adding that its airborne early warning aircraft had recorded electronic signatures of the F-16 jets.[124][125] The Indian Air Force also rejected the Pakistani claim of shooting down a Su-30MKI aircraft as a cover up for the loss of a Pakistani aircraft, stating that all Sukhoi aircraft dispatched returned safely. [126][127]"

Thank you. ChopperHarley (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but a similar edit request was placed today and turned down because consensus was not established. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The above request is invalid on the face of it. it conveniently cuts out the first part of the paragraph:
"On 27 February 2019, during the tense standoff between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had shot down two Indian aircraft: a Mig-21 and a Su-30MKI, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir.[121][122] India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets..."
Claiming that a paragraph on a Wikipedia page "has nothing to do with the topic of JF-17" with a quote from the Wikipedia page that cuts out the part where it talks about the JF-17 is a disruptive attempt to insert false information into this article. Pakistan claims one thing. India claims another. Wikipedia simply reports the claims and who made them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
My apology if it seems like an "invalid request" but I saw it as a claim being countered with a counter-claim which held no merit as the evidence that India presented for downing the F-16 was laid bare as false by DFRLab's M J Sheldon (https://twitter.com/michael1sheldon/status/1101227325025382405) and Bellingcat (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/02/falcon-vs-bison-verifying-a-mig-21-wreck/). You may say that the kill of Su-30MKI was never proven, to that I would then suggest you remove any mentioning of Su-30MKI. If it's OK with you, perhaps we should mention the analysis by DFLab and Bellingcat as additional material to what India claims and what Pakistan claims. What you think? Once again I apologise for my mistake. ChopperHarley (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should present to the readers what India and Pakistan claim. We certainly are not going to keep one claim and omit the other because of something on Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Putting Twitter aside, what of Bellingcat's unbiased analysis, are we to ignore facts and instead paste in propaganda which has many flaws - be it from either side - and present that as reading material for readers of Wikipedia? ChopperHarley (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The only "evidence" is that the pictures of the wreck are an Indian Mig-21 everything is really speculation and made up. As been said nothing wrong with mentioning what either side had claimed as it relates to the alleged use of JF-17. Everything else is not actually relevant to the JF-17 so everything after "While Pakistan denied.." can be deleted as this is dealt with on other pages related to the tiff. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't evaluate evidence or decide what the "facts" are. When two nations disagree about something, we don't arbitrarily label one side as being "propaganda" and delete it. What usually happens is that both sides lie about some parts and tell the truth about others, which is why we specify things like "Pakistan claimed" and "India, on the other hand, claimed". We only report what is in the sources. Your suggestion would retain what Pakistan says happened while deleting what India says happened. Find a source that meets our standards (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR) and suggest changes to the article based upon that source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I really don't want to be involved in an edit war, but please respect both the sides of the story, especially if authentic sources are provided. Some users have been undoing newer edits in this talk page and in the main article for no appropriate reason, maybe just to show their patriotism, but please keep in your mind that this is just an article about JF-17s, not about F-16s or about tensions between Pakistan and India. Pakieditor (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that so much of the recent incident is media reporting of unconfirmed rumours - for example I haven't seen any official confirmation that the JF-17 was involved at all - Pakistan has officially denied that F-16s have been involved, but not (as far as I know) officially stated that what aircraft did take place. Then there is the whole drift from saying that Pakistan has claimed this and India has claimed something else (which is probably all the article - which is about the aircraft - should be saying) to definitely say that one side or another is correct. How much is this is deliberate by editors, or reflects the conscious or unconscious biases involved in sources, is uncertain, but it something that all editors should guard against.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, however in a recent statement by the DG ISPR of Pakistan, an official statement was given that Pakistan only used its jf-17s in the whole combat. Pakieditor (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to be involved in an edit war, don't edit war. Per WP:STATUSQUO I have restored the last stable version from before the edit war.
Edit warring means repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT for how this is done.
Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially if the editor violates the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not involved in an edit war. I am just modifying disruptive edits, so that it is more related to this article. My latest edits are a prove, however if I have done a mistake, then I personally apologize for that.
Kind Regards; Pakieditor 17:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That meets the definition of WP:EW. Why you are still reinstating your edits without describing them?[4] Shashank5988 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Both sides are edit warring with the excuse of "making things more neutral" (i.e. to fit one side's nationalistic POV) or "reverting to the "stable version" (i.e. the version that you like). There is little point in neutral editors trying to improve the edits because any positive changes are just being blindly reverted. The whole thing is rather depressingNigel Ish (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, I am giving up. It seems my positive changes are just being blindly reverted. There is misunderstanding between me and the one who is undoing my edits. Pakieditor (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that my positive changes are just being blindly reverted by you.

Point a mistake in my edit. Some sources claim that the AMRAAM missile wreckage shown by Indian officials displays a contract serial number that links a missile that was sold to Taiwan, while there are sources even claiming that the wrecked parts shown in pictures don't belong to an F-16, again you can see this other edit for references, but at the end what is even the point of including this all AMRAAM missile wreckage point in an article about JF-17s.
Kind Regards; Pakieditor (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that won't go into this article. Problem with your edit was glaring: you ripped off exactly same content which was already reverted by an editor here with a descriptive edit summary (which you obviously saw it and still choose to blatantly disregard it). Let me emphasize that the mainstream media in Pakistan is "corrupt and state-controlled" and hence we won't use such sources to state something in Wikipedia's voice as a fact: especially in this case, for the available evidence shows that the source in question was peddling fake news (vide Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 0.1#F-16_Wreckage_shown_by_Indian_officials, and rebuttal by Taiwan [5], and while you're at it, vide [6]). Thanks, Shashank5988 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not all sources provided by him were Pakistani. Bellingcat is an authentic source, while 'The Drive' is a non-Pakistani source. By the way only Indian media can have honest journalists like Arnab Goswami, so neither Indian media is trustworthy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. [7] 39.40.99.134 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder/Archive_2&oldid=1257811753"