Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

(Redirected from Talk:CAC / PAC JF-17 Thunder)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by ZLEA in topic Pro-Pakistan sources for claims
Former good articleCAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 18, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2015Good article nomineeListed
March 31, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
February 24, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Difficult article to keep up-to-date. This 2015 GA needs a bit of work to meet standards again

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-Pakistan sources for claims

edit

The sources used in this article for making the claim that "IAF MiG-21 was also shot down by a JF-17" is taken from pro-Pakistan sources. The sources you mentioned ([125] [126]) which are from "CNN" and "The diplomat" respectively do not put the facts correctly. Firstly, CNN says "According to some reports, It may have been one of those jets that on Wednesday downed an Indian Air Force fighter plane" KEY WORD- some. They don't mention any specific report they used for this, but it probably was from some pro Pakistan report as no other media proudly claims that this is what happened (more proof for this is the second source you mentioned). Now, The Diplomat says "According to unconfirmed media reports, the PAF military aircraft that shot down the Mig-21 Bison was an Aeronautical Complex/Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (PAC/CAC) JF-17 “Thunder” Block II multirole fighter jet" KEY WORD- unconfirmed. They themselves said that these reports are unconfirmed so it means that both of the sources you took for this claim are not saying what you framed in your article. (brief history time here) Moreover, we all know that India found the AIM-120C in its territory which proves that it was the F-16 which shot down the Mig-21 (more proof for this in the next line). Heck, in the stupid "memorial" they made for the shoot down of mig-21, it is written "This aircraft was shot by PAF F-16" THEY THEMSELVES SAID IT. So, I ask you to change this, as their is simply WAY TO MUCH proof for the fact that it was shot down by a F-16, not the jf-17. Experience31 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Experience31 Are you asking that the reports be removed entirely? Or are you asking that it be changed to clarify that the reports are unconfirmed and conflict with others? - ZLEA T\C 12:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ZLEA Either of the two would do the job. But if the editor is so keen to keep this rumor in the article, clearly specifing that the reports themselves are unconfirmed and no official evidence is there to prove the use of Jf-17 in shooting down mig-21 (in reality f-16 was used)(no su-30 was shot down) would be a great relief for showing the truth and more than satisfying. Experience31 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are there any sources that directly call out those reports as false? If so, then we can add that the reports were debunked to the article. We can't just make the bold claim that the reports were wrong through WP:OR or WP:SYNTH of conflicting sources, we need a source that directly calls out the reports as wrong. - ZLEA T\C 20:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply