Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
CAC/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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Reassessment
editThe 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) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Difficult article to keep up-to-date. This 2015 GA needs a bit of work to meet standards again
- 6 cn tags
- 8 tags to self-published source
- NAF may order 35-40 more JF-17s if the aircraft meets its requirements -> cited to 2020 source. What happened?
- Any update on Sri Lanka?
- The accidents section is tagged with " possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". I have not checked if this tag is warranted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article is a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Link fixed. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article is a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Pro-Pakistan sources for claims
editThe 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)