Talk:Shenyang J-16

Hi

there more reliable sources of this aircraft?, thanks.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to Modify 'See also'

Isn't it incorrect to add Dassault Rafale under the subsection "Aircrafts of comparable role, Configuration and era" as -- Omni role vs Multi role strike fighter; medium weight class vs heavy weight class; 80s design vs 70s design; different design philosophies etc --E1Char (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

"According to Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), J-16 represents one of recent developments reflecting China's various airpower technologies have surpassed Russia". Unless someone understands what is meant and can rework it, I would suggest deletion. Theeurocrat (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Original research

It seems obvious that Kyanamukaka‘a multiple edits in early October are original research. The significance of J-16’s capability are sourced from the Forbes article, which examined the claims from professional think tank RUSI on the Chinese aviation development. However, the original article never claimed China leapfrogged US in capability. The national interest source you added, only mentions Su-35, while J-16 is no where to be seen. So it can’t work as reference for your edit. Everything you added were original research that never appeared in any of your reference. The last long sentence "However, it should be noted that the J-16 is based on the Russian Sukhoi....itself is an upgrade of the Sukhoi...when stealth technology was in its infancy...Russia has since developed advanced fifth generation fighters with stealth technology......such as the Sukhoi Su-57 and the Sukhoi Su-75." is also an entire original sentence without any relevant reference discussing the capability between Su-57 and J-16. If you can find those, you are welcome to edit, however, as a Wikipedia editor, you are not allowed to write content without source, and you are never allowed to form your own conclusion, or to guide the reader through your understanding of the source. -Loned (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly not neutral POV

Repeating verbatim reports from the Australian government is an insult to neutral POV. There should either be a discussion of the problems and context of these allegations or the disputed allegations should be removed completely and the section should stick to the non-disputed facts: that an RAAF P-8 was intercepted in the South China sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.78.184 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

- It’s not an “insult to neutral pov” when their views are clearly relevant to the situation. Nobody is stopping you from adding counter-balancing material so please do not misuse that right to start removing stuff you don’t like because you seem to not be able to find the stuff that you do like. Thundercloss (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)