Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JF 17 Block 1.jpg
• JF 17 Block 3.jpg
• JF 17B.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

@Satrar: Hai, Good day. Let's come to the point, what was your rationale in removing this [1] cited content? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Satrar: What is your objection in adding that content with inline citation? Please respond here or else your reluctance to respond here would be treated as WP:SILENCE and the said content would be re-added, so I request you to write your objections regarding the said change here. Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Satrar: I hope that you've seen the verdict of Administrators' noticeboard, as per the suggestion I'm requesting you again to respond here so that this dispute could be solved as early as possible. Thanks —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie If you want to contact a specific editor about their behavior, it is best to do so on their talk page. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: I know dude, If I initiate a talk there, he would not only ignore that but also remove that as he did here [2] so it's futile. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:Echo1Charlie#Continued from Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder#September 2021. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

I'm opening up this section in an effort to discuss recent neutrality issues. Certain issues are being pushed in the article in an effort to introduce undue weight. This particularly concerns Indian and Pakistani sources which seem to be making contradictory war/conflict claims such as the shooting down of jets. It would be great if a consensus can be reached amicably. I invite other editors to put in their thoughts here.

The particular section that is being introduced is this: "however India disputed this claim and stated that Pakistan has used F-16s to shoot down the MiG-21, to back up this claim India has produced debris of AIM-120 AMRAAM, which could only have been fired from a PAF F-16".

The first half of the section is fine, but the part highlighted in bold is a source of contention. The claim is from an Indian source. I propose using this article instead as a more reliable citation. I also suggest using this article to add the following sentence "however there is no publicly available data to verify what aircraft type engaged the IAF jets"; which would adequately address neutrality issues. At the end of the day the claims are being made by two opposing countries and neither of their news media is reliable. They both rank extremely low in the press freedom index.

-NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee I have re-added the part about India disputing the claim using one of your sources. I would like to point out that the details of the incident belong in the body of the article, not the lede where they had been. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Great. That's fabulous. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: Hai, Good day. I'm extremely sorry to say that I disagree with your argument, the reasons are

1. "The first half of the section is fine, but the part highlighted in bold (which could only have been fired from a PAF F-16) is a source of contention" — Is it actually an assertion? PAF inventory has only one fighter capable of firing AMRAAMS that's their F-16, it's a fact, and the debris of AMRAAM presented by India [3] reaffirms the involvement of F-16, on the other hand there's no evidence to support the involvement of Jf-17 other than Pak military's claim
2. "The claim is from an Indian source" — so what? by default it becomes an unreliable source? Do you know that the source you've removed calling an 'Indian source" is actually a recognized reliable source WP:INDIANEXP?? I have a question, Would you allow me to remove every claim on this article with a Pakistani inline citation (with this rationale [4]??
3. "neither of their news media is reliable. They both rank extremely low in the press freedom index." — If we take Freedom of Press Index as a guide to assess reliability of Individual news agencies (it sounds odd btw), then we have to remove at least 70% of the content on Wikipedia and could only contribute with sources from - Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Costa Rica, Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland as these Countries are in the top 10 position on WPF index, and the website National interest you've presented as "more reliable citation" have no consensus to be called so. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest removing the whole claim, as independent sources like Reuters reports that "While Pakistan has denied using F-16 jets during a dogfight that downed an Indian Mig-21 warplane over Kashmir on Wednesday, it has not specified which planes it used, though it assembles Chinese-designed JF-17 fighter jets on its soil" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee Sorry, I think I was so rude in my replies, I would like to apologize for my behavior towards you, I'm sorry, if it hurts you. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You're first point is a case of OR. As I discussed with another user a better source was required and was indeed inserted. Your second point is pretty ridiculous. I'd advise you to look up at the top of the page you gave a link to which states "This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. Consensus can change, and context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list". So in short no it is not a reliable source when discussing matters regarding Pakistan because the paper is Indian and certainly has a vested interest to slant towards supporting it's home territory (this is called bias + conflict of interest). The same can be said of Pakistani news sources. Furthermore I will repeat again, both India and Pakistan rank extremely low when it comes to the press freedom index. They are both highly jingoistic third world countries. Virtually all news from these two nations is tightly controlled by the government in some form as described by the index. Also please do not insult my intelligence. We won't ever have to remove "70% of the content on Wikipedia" - you just made that up. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Let's check the scope of OR (as you mentioned) and Neutrality issue

1. Claim 1 - "however India disputed this claim and stated that Pakistan has used F-16s to shoot down the MiG-21", Source: https://theprint.in/defence/8-pieces-of-clinching-evidence-that-show-how-iafs-abhinandan-shot-down-a-pakistani-f-16/278752/ ; Quote from source: "About 45–50 seconds after his R-73 launch and about 7 km inside PoK, the MiG-21 was hit by an AMRAAM fired by a PAF F-16."
2. Claim 2 - "to back up this claim India has produced debris of AIM-120 AMRAAM, which could only have been fired from a PAF F-16", source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-pakistan-tension-amraam-missile-debris-f16-jet-5605806/ ; Quote from the source: "India’s Exhibit A: Debris of AMRAAM missile that nails Pakistan’s F-16 denial" "India Thursday presented parts of a fired AMRAAM missile which can only be fired from an F-16 aircraft"; — explicitly stated in the source, also can you see the photo of AMRAAM debris which clearly shows the missile part with its name AIM-120 C-5 and its serial number here: https://images.indianexpress.com/2019/03/pak-1.jpg ???
   — Is this a mere jingoistic claim or can you verify it? How does this falls under the definition of WP:OR as you mentioned in your edit summary here [5], also how does this statement [[6]] added to the first claim :"In 2019, Pakistan military claimed the shoot down of an Indian MiG-21 using JF-17" — to make it WP:BALANCE and neutral here, affects the neutrality, as you mentioned here [7]???

(Side note: interestingly you seems to have no problem keeping this claim only "In 2019, Pakistan military claimed the shoot down of an Indian MiG-21 using JF-17" [8], free kill huh?!)

Media controlled by the government

1. "Furthermore I will repeat again, both India and Pakistan rank extremely low when it comes to the press freedom index." — Why? India ranks low in press freedom index is because the media blackouts in JK, and why Pakistan ranks low?
2. "They are both highly jingoistic third world countries. Virtually all news from these two nations is tightly controlled by the government in some form as described by the index." — while JK media blackouts push India to the low rank in WPF index, in Pakistan press freedom is axed with legislative process (https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-media-regulation-bill-proposes-jail-term-for-journalists/a-59190390) - Can you see any such bill or legal initiatives from India government? ——Difference—
3. " Also please do not insult my intelligence" — No I'll not, but tbh I still can't figure out how did you termed this [9] as WP:OR, have you read the definition?
4. "We won't ever have to remove "70% of the content on Wikipedia" — Not everyone tops the press freedom index, so "Virtually all news...(from nations that are ranked low in the index) is tightly controlled by the government in some form as described by the index" — in your words.

—Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes required for user country's

I am hear to request you that jf 17 fighter jet user county is not only pakistan.its use Nigerian air force and Myanmar air force also .so please add those country's as well with Pakistan Air force.thanks Arslan Satti (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The primary user of the type is the Pakistan Air Force. Nigeria and Myanmar are secondary users. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)