Talk:Sukhoi Su-30: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 155: Line 155:
::The question, then, is whether we should cover the existence of the claim at all. Some policies like [[WP:FRINGE]] limit the coverage of false or discredited claims outside articles specifically about them. In this situation, however, it is [[WP:DUE]] because it is an allegation made by a nation state and the existence of the claim is notable. We also don't yet know if the claim is a roundly-discredited fringe idea so we cannot treat it as such.
::The question, then, is whether we should cover the existence of the claim at all. Some policies like [[WP:FRINGE]] limit the coverage of false or discredited claims outside articles specifically about them. In this situation, however, it is [[WP:DUE]] because it is an allegation made by a nation state and the existence of the claim is notable. We also don't yet know if the claim is a roundly-discredited fringe idea so we cannot treat it as such.
::Due to the ongoing content dispute, I would ask that [[User:Faraz]] avoid inserting information that has been challenged over lack of consensus.[[User:Leugen9001|Leugen9001]] ([[User talk:Leugen9001|talk]]) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::Due to the ongoing content dispute, I would ask that [[User:Faraz]] avoid inserting information that has been challenged over lack of consensus.[[User:Leugen9001|Leugen9001]] ([[User talk:Leugen9001|talk]]) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

::: I never insinuated that I don't want the Indian rejection in the article. To the contrary, I want both, Pakistani claim and Indian denial to be in the article as it is. My entire argument is based on inclusion of both claims. [[User:Faraz|Faraz]] ([[User talk:Faraz|talk]]) 17:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:15, 7 March 2019

minor mistake

in the section "Performance", there should be a blank between "(1,620 nmi)" and "at altitude", but I was unable to insert it. Best regards.178.26.108.15 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su_30mk/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted links replaced or removed.-- Dewritech (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sukhoi Su-30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sukhoi Su-30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sukhoi Su-30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India's Procurement Plan

It is reported that IAF is no longer interested in procurement of any further batch of Su-30. This information is being included in this article. The reasons why IAF is not interested is also mentioned in the news article. (Link provided) Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. Specifics on India with sources belongs at Sukhoi Su-30MKI instead on this main S-30 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was covered in the article. The text and source has been moved to the Sukhoi Su-30MKI article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operator section in infobox

Why is the Indian Air Force and People's Liberation Army Air Force is not being considered while Algerian Air Force and Venezuelan Air Force also flies different variants of the Su-30 aircraft but are covered in the infobox. Then what is the reason behind this ?

This article is an introduction to the other variants with more detailed information regarding specifics. But to not allow the two most significant countries having more aircrafts than the other mentioned is seeming very much partial.

I hope there's a much important reason for not including one party as they are included in another similar article. It will be great if the reason is being clearly stated inside the caution brackets. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because India's version is covered at Sukhoi Su-30MKI. China's Air Force is similarly covered at the Su-30MKK article. This has been stated in a hidden note in the Infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India-Pakistan Standoff

On 27 February 2019 it was reported an Indian Su-30MKI was shot down by a JF-17 Thunder of Pakistan Air Force in Azad jammu & Kashmir as reported by India Today TV Channel. [1] The event happened when Pakistan conducted surgical strike inside Indian Occupied Kashmir and one Indian Mig-21Bi and one Indian Su-30MKI tried to intercept that were shot down by Pakistan. [2] Both pilots arrested by Pakistan.

This part should remain in the article as it clearly belongs to an Indian source. Not a Pakistani source. Also, the Su-30 MKI belongs to Su-30 family.

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDSp3hnfZlg
  2. ^ "Pakistan Shot Down Su-30MKI".
This is obviously not a reliable source. So it cannot be included in the article. The removal of that section from the article was correct. --McSly (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a reliable source? It is from an Indian TV Channel called India Today. Faraz (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You have 2 sources listed. One is a Forum and therefore cannot be used. The second is a 15 seconds clip posted on a random (so not official) youtube channel with no context. This is about as unreliable as it gets. If that event actually happened, more reliable sources will cover it and we can re-add the section. --McSly (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15 second clip is not random as I said it is from India Today TV channel. I agree on the forum part. However, the video is genuine as reported by India Today on 27th of February, 2019. Faraz (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The clip is a 15 second screen capture posted with no context on a random, non official youtube channel. For all we know, they may have said that the report was mistake later on the same broadcast. But since we just have a cherry-picked version of the it, we have no way to know. This is the very definition of an unreliable source. Again, if that incident actually happened, it will be reported in national and international newspapers. We just have to find those reports. Although, the fact that we don't seem to find any after 4 days likely indicates that it didn't. --McSly (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that editors are now using references that do not mention the Su-30 at all to try to justify the continual re-adding of this rumour - this intentional attempt at deception is disruptive and is completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The video appears to be false. India tv never reported this news in its official website or YouTube channel. Also even the Pakistani government acknowledged that only one indian pilot was captured. India government reported that no su30mki was shot down. So this news is just Pakistani propaganda and should be removed. Quanta127 (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well versed on the issue. I think we should keep the section on India blank for now. I propose something like this:
On February 27, 2019, the Pakistani Air Force reported that it downed an Indian Sukhoi Su-30 in an aerial skirmish. The Indian Air Force rejected the statement as a cover up for the loss of a Pakistani aircraft, and stated that all Sukhoi aircrafts dispatched returned safely. [1][2]:
On March 4, 2019, an Indian Sukhoi Su-30 shot down a Pakistani drone in Indian airspace.[3]

UPDATE: I have updated the page to use more reliable news sources and cover both sides more fairly.

Leugen9001 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-made-false-claims-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-fighter-jet-indian-air-force-1471065-2019-03-05
  2. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/false-claim-india-rubbishes-pakistans-claim-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-2003211
  3. ^ https://www.rt.com/news/452980-india-shoots-down-drone-pakistan/

The paragraph is mentioning Pakistani part of Kashmir as azad Kashmir and indian part of Kashmir as india occupied Kashmir. So this is a clear Pakistani propaganda paragraph and completely unacceptable here. Quanta127 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Faraz: as noted above, unofficial YouTube videos and forum posts are unreliable sources.
  • @Quanta127: Faraz's paragraph is not good from an editorial point of view, but calling it propaganda fails to WP:assume good faith. Leugen9001 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Three sources were used to claim that Pakistan said it had shot down a Su-30 - of these sources, Air Forces Monthly [1] says that the PAF claimed that two fighters were shot down, but does not say that one of them was a Su-30, and does not say that its pilot was killed. It does say (attributed to an IAF official statement) that Su-30-MKIs, Mirage 2000s and MiG-21 Bisons were scrambled in response to the Pakistani operations. The "The News" source [2] credits the Su-30 shootdown to a tweet by "The News Editor Investigations Ansar Abbasi" - so the PAF hasn't claimed that a Su 30 has been shot down, a news editor of an unspecified organisation has done in a Tweet - this appears to be media speculation. The Third source, the Daily Telegraph [3] says that Su-30s were scrambled, but does not state any claim that Su-30s were shot down. The statement that Pakistan has claimed that it has shot down a Su-30 are not supported by the sources and without something better should be removed - there is reliable sourcing to indicate that Su-30s were scrambled in response to the Pakistani incursion.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


″The News Editor Investigations Ansar Abbasi Tweeted, “Wing commander Nauman shot down SU 30 while Sqn Leader Hassan Siddique hit MIG 21.”
As per The News link.Faraz (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a claim that can be attributed to Pakistan - it doesn't come from the government or the PAF - but from a Tweet from a journalist. It cannot be used to say that Pakistan claimed the shootdown because it doesn't say that - it says that some journalist has said it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't India refuting Pakistan's claim enough? IAF denied yesterday officially as stated in the links. So We have both sides POV. Faraz (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't - the article is currently saying that Pakistan has claimed something without a source - that is not acceptable for what is meant to be an encyclopedia. We are not meant to merely repeat any random rumour that circulates, half of which appear to have been made up to stoke up nationalistic feelings on both sides or to boost circulation for news outlets.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a nationalistic feeling when your own IAF has come forward to deny Pakistan's claim Faraz (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my IAF - I am neither Indian or Pakistani - please do not make assumptions about other's nationality or reasons for editing. Some people are interested in producing a reliable encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just read this as per news article from INDIA "Pakistan made false claims of shooting down an Indian Sukhoi 30 fighter jet to cover up the loss of their F-16, the Indian Air Force has said in an official statement on the air space violation by Pakistani Air Force (PAF) on February 27."

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-made-false-claims-of-shooting-down-sukhoi-30-fighter-jet-indian-air-force-1471065-2019-03-05

WHat is not clear in this? Faraz (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this india tv article Pakistan made false claims about shooting down an IAF SU30-MKI. So, what is your point here? Do you think just because someone from Pakistan made a statement that it shot down an IAF jet, it became an authentic information? You will need proof for that. Then indian side of the story, claiming that the Pakistani news is false, should also be published. Don't you think? Quanta127 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look the Indian Air Force came out yesterday with a press release denying the claim. So we have both POVs on this page. Faraz (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR, Wikipedia is not qualified to try to investigate whether a SU-30 was really shot down. Instead, we must report what reliable sources say. Right now, people are making accusations and counteraccusations of propaganda. This is not constructive. Instead, all parties involved should WP:Assume Good Faith and make a real effort towards resolving the dispute.
User:Quanta127 insinuates here that User:Faraz does not want the Indian side's rejection of the Pakistani claim to be in the article. This misrepresents Faraz's proposals. Faraz's current proposed version is the one that explicitly includes the Indian side's reasons for rejecting the Pakistani claim. We must discuss the merits of the actual proposals rather than misrepresentations of them.
The truth of the Pakistani claim is not supported by the sources, but the existence and notability of the claim are. Insofar as it is reported as a claim and the rejection is covered with due weight, it is unclear how there is a problem. We cover the existence of untrue claims like flat Earth by describing them as claims that exist while providing due weight to the reasons why the claims are false.
The question, then, is whether we should cover the existence of the claim at all. Some policies like WP:FRINGE limit the coverage of false or discredited claims outside articles specifically about them. In this situation, however, it is WP:DUE because it is an allegation made by a nation state and the existence of the claim is notable. We also don't yet know if the claim is a roundly-discredited fringe idea so we cannot treat it as such.
Due to the ongoing content dispute, I would ask that User:Faraz avoid inserting information that has been challenged over lack of consensus.Leugen9001 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never insinuated that I don't want the Indian rejection in the article. To the contrary, I want both, Pakistani claim and Indian denial to be in the article as it is. My entire argument is based on inclusion of both claims. Faraz (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sukhoi_Su-30&oldid=886654803"