Talk:Hsiung Feng III

File:Hsiung Feng III missile on display.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hsiung Feng III missile on display.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeez

Are children in charge of this article? Who came with these totally unrealistic (stupid) performance "estimates"? See Russian wiki for data that sounds reasonable. Mach 10... not even in wet dreams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.149.147 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to alter the article to refer to more reasonable speed estimates (to be clear - there are no official figures released for the performance of this missile). It was reverted back to refer to "hypersonic" and "Mach 10" with an attached "source" from "The Sun", a UK tabloid newspaper.

This missile is raqmjet-powered - this can be observed to be the case. Official information also states ramjet propulsion. any reference to "hypersonic" speeds has come from journalists, not from any technological knowledge.

There exists today, no propulsions system capable of air-breathing hypersonic flight (other than *highly* experimental craft that are far from operational use.) at HIGH altitude, let-alone sea-skimming heights (which is an order of magnitude greater challenge). It can be observed that the missile *is* propelled with ramjets (more advanced concepts would look appreciably different) and physical law prevents ramjets from operating much faster than mach 4-5. It is also widely speculated that the missile leans heavily on technology reverse-engineered from the Russian Kh-31 series of ramjet propelled missiles, which it is visually similar to, which also operate in a ramjet-limited Mach-3 envelope.

To conclude - a claim of "hypersonic" or "Mach 10+" flight is an *extraordinary* claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not a quote from a tabloid newspaper journalist.

I have reverted the text again to reflect this. Hypersonic, air breathing, sea-level flight needs to be confirmed as possible with available technology before it can be confirmed to be in use in this missile. And further to that, any speculation as to the performance of this missile, in the absence of official information, must conform to reasonable estimations, and not ridiculous click-bait hyperbole.212.194.114.50 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also removed a reference to a maximum range of up to 15,000km... This is a fantasy figure. It may as well have said it can travel at warp 10.

References from journalistic media have some use, but when they are speculating technical specifics, and are waaaaaay off the mark (not just for this missile but for what is physically *possible*) then they can be reasonably rejected.

15,000km is a good range for an ICBM, speculating that this 7m long sea-skimming weapon could do this is...ridiculous. Like saying that the new BMW 7-series comes with anti-gravity because a tabloid journalist in Texas said so.

I get that wikipedia reports whatever can be referenced, there has to be some room for discretion as not all sources are credible. If a tabloid said this missile ran on unicorn blood (which is, I kid you not, about as ridiculous as saying it can travel at 3km/s for 15,000km at sea level) would it get published here? I hope not.212.194.114.50 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This missile is not, cannot be, hypersonic.

If someone insists on reverting the reasonable changes I made without substantiation, then I cannot help you. Keep it as highly inaccurate if you wish. There are even contradictions within the body of the text and the main references do not support the speculation that is shown in the article, in one instance, the words "it is certain that" precede an unsubstantiated guess.

Note that this is a military item, whose actual performance figures have not, unsurprisingly, been released to the public. References to "hypersonic" and "Mach 10+" and "15,000km range" are entirely speculation and just because they have been seen in print, does not make them substantiated.

Physical law prevents this missile from having the stated performance. This article, as it stands today, has been deliberately made inaccurate.

By the way, this is a quote from the main reference:

"While the ministry has not released any information on the capabilities of the HF-3 missile, military magazines surmise that the missile may reach speeds of between Mach 2.5 and Mach 3 at a range of between 150km and 200km."

Exactly in line with the modifications I have twice tried to make but were reverted without a word of discussion. I dont know how to issue warnings to people (I honestly cant figure it out, do I use the "template" here? in the body of the article?) but one may be appropriate here. 212.194.114.50 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Nuclear weapons capable"

As far as I can tell from reading other sources, Taiwan has no nuclear weapons on hand. The only thing that references it on this page seems to be an online article by a British tabloid, the Daily Mirror. In light of the extraordinary and potentially inflammatory claim that the island is in possession of or intends to procure nuclear weapons, I've decided to edit parts of this article that state or imply that this is a "nuclear-capable" weapon. I am editing in mind of data published by SIPRI (https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/FS%201606%20WNF_Embargo_Final%20A.pdf) and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook-multimedia), neither of whom list Taiwan as an entity possessing nuclear weapons. As for it being nuclear weapons "capable", I think calling it that would be overly generalizing, as a nuclear weapon can be miniaturized as small as a recoilless rifle mounted on a jeep and thus 'qualify' many more weapons systems as technically "nuclear-capable". That in addition to Taiwan possessing no nuclear weapons, and as such it would be redundant to classify an indigenous missile developed by an entity without nuclear weapons as "nuclear capable". 118.160.241.146 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Correction, Taiwan has had secret nuclear weapons since they built and successfully tested their nuclear device in the 1980s. And second, Taiwan possessing secret nuclear warheads is no more inflammatory than China, Israel, India and Pakistan possessing nuclear warheads. There is no valid justification to say that China is anymore entitled to having nukes than the USA, Israel or Taiwan, so please no hypocrisy and no double standards. Reputable academic sources provided below show indisputably that Taiwan possesses not only the advanced technology, nuclear infrastructure along with nuclear reactors, test facilities and over two tons of stockpiled plutonium for "civilian use". Japan also possesses secret nuclear weapons but doesn't declare them, like Israel and Taiwan, in order to avoid economic sanctions that would cripple the export driven economies of Japan and Taiwan. Taiwan also had the security needs that prompted them to develop their nukes back in the 1970s culminating with the successful tests of two small nukes in southern Taiwan during the 1980s. Both Japan and Taiwan maintain the policy of having secret undeclared "Nuclear bombs in the Basement". This is a diplomatic tactic that both Japan and Taiwan, and in the future possibly South Korea, use in order to keep a secret nuclear weapons arsenal without "officially" passing the so-called "nuclear threshold" of other so-called "declared" nuclear powers like the USA, China or Russia, thus allowing Taiwan and Japan to avoid being the target of international economic sanctions as both Japan and Taiwan rely heavily on the high technology and industrial exports to other countries to sustain their GDP and economic growth. Please read the following excerpt from Wikipedia:

1.) Japan and Taiwan both maintain a discreet policy of having secret undeclared nuclear weapons, a so-called "nuclear bomb in the basement" policy, please read:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isnt-happy-n48976

2.) "ROC successfully conducted its diminutive nuclear test in southern Taiwan in the 1980s."

    http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html

3.) "A study by the Mitre Corporation in 1977 included Taiwan in a list of "insecure" nuclear threshold states—states with the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and the security motivations to seriously contemplate such an option. The other states were Israel, South Africa, South Korea, and Yugoslavia."

    Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, Nuclear Power Issues and Choices (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977), p. 284.

4.) "U.S. intelligence believed that the Republic of China also had designed devices suitable for nuclear testing"

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/03.pdf

103.27.220.56 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about current nuclear weapons. None of the sources you gave state that the country possesses nuclear weapons. Neither "had designed devices suitable suitable for nuclear testing" or "have conducted tests in the past" (emphasis mine) are examples of them currently possessing nuclear weapons. I have two sources above that are highly regarded organizations whom list arms control or anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons as one of their primary goals, with The Bulletin being the first academic journal covering the dangers of nuclear weapons. They both list Israel as a state with nuclear weapons, but not Taiwan or Japan. The NBC News article also does not even mention Taiwan save for "There have been confrontations between China and Japan over small islands north of Taiwan."

Considering that Taiwan has itself stated having a nuclear weapon as grounds for an invasion from China (http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/6-reasons-china-would-invade-taiwan/), I would say that qualifies as 'inflammatory' in the definition of being a statement that could inflame a conflict and be potentially dangerous for the people of both China and Taiwan. Regardless of the island's possible ability to and the possibility they might, it's speculation and this encyclopedia does not operate on speculation. I don't see the pages for any of the indigenous South Korean or South African weapons listed as "nuclear-capable", either, which makes sense as they do not have nuclear weapons. We need hard facts. Also, I would suggest taking a look above at the remarks involving the missile being hyper-sonic, as you've accidentally reverted their changes as well as mine. I've gone ahead and reinstated those for the time being, as those are unrelated to our current discussion. 118.168.100.131 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Could someone edit out the references and links to the tabloid articles? They're not factual and have sensationalist headlines that claim that this is a hypersonic nuclear weapons system, which is pretty baseless when the above discussions are considered. Specifically, I'd like to request the first reference: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-nuclear-8730387 which is not a summary of the weapons system, to be changed to the specification summary given at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/hf-3.htm I believe this better reflects what the weapons system is, even with the limited information available about it. I would also like to request the two external links: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-nuclear-8730387 and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/ be removed for similar reasons, in that they are sensational tabloid articles that have multiple factual errors in them and thus, in my opinion, do not contribute to the article. Thank you. 118.168.100.131 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment:It should be pointed out that some of the sources you present here are not, in fact, according to Wikipedia, reliable sources for such claims as are being made. specifically, the Sun and Mirror are WP:TABLOID, whilst Chinanews does not meet the requirement that sources are independent of their subject, and the remainder, whilst indeed qualifying as relIable sources, do not prove the claim made. They only speculate that RoC can do such a thing; whereas the proposed edits claim that it has been done. Do you see the difference? It is to prevent speculation masquerading as fact that SPhibric protected that page. Response copied from SPhilbric's TP, where 103.27.220.56 asked the same question. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I really don't see anything wrong with the given provided sources within the article. You have requested the first reference that you mentioned to be removed from the article entirely, you state that the problem with it is that the source "is not a summary of the weapons system", and you want replace it with a new source, "to be changed to the specification summary given". If you are referring to using the text from your perfected source verbatim, that would not be allowed, as it would constitute as a copyright violation. You also mentioned that you wanted to remove two external links. You need to explain why you think they should be removed, and how/why they have "multiple factual errors in them", and why you think they "do not contribute to the article". Aurato (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be some new edits appearing of a speculative nature, regarding hypersonic / nuclear capabilities. Sources seem a bit dubious as well. I have reverted once, but they are back again. merlinVtwelve 07:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the legitimacy of the sources provided in this article. If you are going to be subjective in your definition of what constitutes legitimate sources then, by your faulty definition, any media outlet like CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera and others could be labeled as "tabloids" simply because you just personally do not like the information in the articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and regardless of whether you like the information or not, it is the facts that are based on legit sources which until you can provide better sources are here to stay. As a matter of fact here is another legit source, in addition to the previous several sources that said the same exact thing, that further states "The HF-3 can carry a nuclear warhead" contradicting your claims otherwise. And then it states that the Hsiungfeng III missile can travel in "excess of Mach 10" so please do your reading first before arguing blindly. Please read this legitimate academic source from the 'Indian Defence News' media outlet, and please do not say that 'Indian Defence News' is a "tabloid" because it is not. It is legit now go read the legit source here:

http://defencenews.in/article/At-Mach-10,-Taiwans-Hsiung-Feng-III-Anti-China-Missiles-could-be-faster-than-the-BrahMos-18873

43.249.129.212 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian Defence News is a news portal which acts as a news aggregator for other news websites and does not generate content of its own . Plus they also allow submission of articles from other users. It is unclear whether the news article has been fact checked. Here are three other reliable websites([1], [2], [3]) around the same timeframe which place the speed of the missile at Mach2.5-3 and not Mach 10 as otherwise claimed. I support the revert of these random edits until we actually have this sourced from reliable websites. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. DefenceNews looks like a blog to me. It even has a 'Write an Article' page, where anyone can submit an article. In other words, anyone can submit an article to DefenceNews, then use it as a source for Wikipedia. I quote: "Write An Article" is a Front Page feature for guest writers to have a say on issues relevant to Indian Defence, helping individuals express their ideas and showcase their writing skills to our Global readers. See: http://www.defencenews.in/write-an-article. The source is written by an author called "ChinaTopix". Who is this writer? It could be any amateur defence blogger, from anywhere on the internet. The quoted source contradicts what is known and is highly speculative. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree, CNN, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and BBC are also news aggregators that rely on multiple sources, including local news networks, for their information as well which does not in any way make their news any less legitimate. 'Indian Defence News' operates the same way as CNN, Fox News, Al-Jezeera and BBC, no different. Keep in mind that all these news networks repeatedly fact check, and conducts background checks, and double checks all of their sources so please refrain from labeling any news outlet as a "blog" just because you don't like the information contained in it. There are several additional legit sources which specifically state that the Hsiungfeng travels at Mach 10 which is faster than the Brahmos, indisputable and undeniable. Please stick to the facts rather than trying to weasel the article in a biased direction that you prefer due to your irrational nationalism. Wikipedia is based on sources and references and not based upon what a group of nationalistic people want. There is no place for nationalism, national pride or biased pov pushing here. I do not have anything against India or their people as a matter of fact I am a big fan of India, Bollywood, Indian food. In short I like India very much, a beautiful country, I've traveled to Mumbai and Delhi multiple times and Hunza in Pakistan once so I'm very fond of Indian and Pakistani culture. But here on Wikipedia I'm only focused on making sure that the articles are based on facts. Thank you! So please refrain.

Thank You!

http://defencenews.in/article/At-Mach-10,-Taiwans-Hsiung-Feng-III-Anti-China-Missiles-could-be-faster-than-the-BrahMos-18873 43.249.129.233 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider an RfC

Seeing as this ongoing argument is not getting resolved, and blocks and PP isn't going to solve it, a RfC should be called. And anyway, a RfPP wouldn't work, as the IP could easily circumvent it. Also, this would avoid anyone here being on the receiving end of edit warring UWs from me myself and I. Read and consider heeding. My tongue is not forked. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Either that or using the tried and tested method of temporarily fully protecting the page so only admins can edit it, forcing editors to come to a consensus on this talk page before an edit can be made. Either way, edit warring is unacceptable and actions should be taken to stop it. Blurp92 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Both perhaps? Or would that be overkill? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not overkill at all as far as I'm concerned. The simultaneous use of both methods should bring this edit war to a screeching halt, at least for a little while. A temporary full PP would simultaneously force editors to contribute to an RfC while preventing other editors from ignoring said RfC and putting in their own edits anyway. Blurp92 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My sincere apologies to you, but please keep in mind that I did not start any of this. Those other editors were the ones who first started deleting sourced information from this page. I'm simply defending the original sourced and referenced article. Again, sorry for any inconvenience you may have suffered.

Thank You! 43.249.129.233 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of starting it, as the diffs say otherwise. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed

An WP:RFC has been filed to bring editors to a consensus on various issues regarding the Hsiung Feng III missile. As of 2/1/17 the nominator has not picked a side for anything below. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• First, is Indian Defence News a legitimate source. While there may be other places and times to discuss this, it is integral to whether or not cites made from it will be acceptable for this article.
• Second, speed of the missile, and relative to other missiles.
• Possible Third, is it Nukes capable? This may have been sorted out, I can't tell.

Be sure to !Vote down below. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the following legitimate sources provided by the other ip editor before anything:

1.) http://defencenews.in/article/At-Mach-10,-Taiwans-Hsiung-Feng-III-Anti-China-Missiles-could-be-faster-than-the-BrahMos-18873

2.) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-nuclear-8730387

3.) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.20.252 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Mirror and The Sun are tabloids, so those go into the trash immediately. The Indian Defence News article is attributed to an author by the name of "ChinaTopix." The usage of a pseudonym suggests it's a self-published source, likely a blog. Could also be one of those "fake news" publishers that are all the rage these days. So I'd say none of the above three sources are reliable. Lizard (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment No unacceptable, your definition of tabloids is flawed. It's too easy for you to simply claim any news article you don't like as a "tabloid," at this rate you might as well start your own news network. Please clarify your definition of tabloids? Theses sources are not tabloids, they contain legit information. 103.27.220.21 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)