Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleCAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 18, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Use in 2019 India Pakistan hostilities[edit]

Pakistani military claimed they only used JF 17 to counterattack india. it should be mentioned.. i am posting the neutral sources

[1]

[2]

Only the drive reference mentions the JF-17, and when it does it says that it’s from unconfirmed video. Not enough evidence to add if they believe it is unconfirmed. Garuda28 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi I am --Naqash Sakhawat (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Naqash Sakhawat 11:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC) On Feb 27, 2019 Pakistan Air Force was using two squadrons of JF-17 Thunder included J-7. It has been reported by international media that two Indian Jet Fighters were shoot down after dogfight with Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. 1st Indian aircraft was Sukhoi Su-30MKI while 2nd aircraft was Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. 1st Pakistani JF-17 Thunder squadron in combination with J-7 intercepted inside Indian administrated Kashmir and bombed ground targets. After that, Indian Air Force responded by Sukhoi Su-30MKI and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 aircrafts. After short but clear dogfight Indian Jet Fighters shoot down by JF-17 Thunder and Debris of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 fallen inside AJK while Sukhoi Su-30MKI fallen inside Indian Administrated Kashmir near Noshera. Later on, it was confirmed by Indian channel “India Today” in which Anchorperson Mr. Rahul Kanwal told about Sukhoi Su-30MKI Shoot Down. Simultaneously, it is reported that Indian Air Forces Aircraft mistakenly hit their own helicopter with BVR missile. However, Indian authority confirmed that their One Pilot (Abhin andhan) is missing and they lost Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Villagers near LOC captured some videos in which it is clearly visible that JF-17 Thunder was Chasing Sukhoi Su-30 and both were moving near Noshera Sector toward Indian Administrated Kashmir. Naqash Sakhawat (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

JF-17 Thunder Dogfight Feb 27, 2019[edit]

Hi I am Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC) On Feb 27, 2019 Pakistani JF-17 Thunder Shoot Down Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI during dogfight in Noshera Sector, Kashmir. Meanwhile, another JF-17 Thunder Shoot Down Indian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 inside AJK near LOC.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Pakistani JF-17 Thunder is Chasing Indian Su-30MKI

Muhammad.naqash.sakhawat.hussain (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

So far, there is no relaible report supporting the claim of JF-17 shooting down a Su-30MKI. All the links above are either questionable YouTube videos and propaganda sites. Provide a better link. DoomDriven (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Protect this page.[edit]

This page needs to be fully protected from random and unnecessary edits. DoomDriven (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Protection for the article[edit]

Repeated recent attempts have been made to remove internationally sourced of neutral sources consisting of CNN, Business Insider, Guardian etc with biased Indian POV sources of India Today, NDTV etc. The article needs to be protected by the moderators. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The section goes into far too much elaborate detail for an article on the aircraft - in addition, the sources, whether Indian, Pakistani or third party need to be reviewed objectively to confirm whether 1) they are reliable, 2) whether there assertions are usable (i.e. if a reference, however reliable, is repeating rumours or saying that something might have happened, this probably needs to be used, if at all, with care) 3) whether they actually back up what is being attributed to them - quite a lot of the claims made in articles about the recent incidents turn out not to be backed up by the source claimed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with you here, I will try to edit this section in my free time with sources and remove the claims, e.g Pakistani government didn`t claim that it shot down an SU-30 aircraft, the ISPR that is the media wing of the Pakistan armed forces stated that it downed two intruding Indian aircrafts which were shot down. The wreckage of one of the aircraft fell in Pakistan administered Kashmir and the wreckage of the other aircraft it claimed fell in the Indian administered Kashmir. The episode also resulted in the capture of an Indian airforce pilot Abhi Nandan who was released by Pakistan to India within 48 hours as a peace gesture. This section needs to be written using only neutral reliable sources and neither Pakistani nor Indian sources should be used to maintain the neutrality of the article. In the meantime, I request a semi-protection for the article, to finish the edit war. 91.212.53.253 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You are wrongly generalizing sources and your edits so far seems to be nothing more than removing critical information about one side. That is not how you decide what needs to be included, per WP:INDEPENDENT. Kerberous (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
One sentence that keeps being edited in and out is "> According to Pakistani forums, No 27 Squadron "Zarrars" replaced its Mirage 5EF with JF-17 in 2013.[1] Pages on blogspot are generally not reliable sources - this sentence needs a better source to stay.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments about India first denying and then admitting that a pilot had been captured (and probably the pilot's name as well) is WP:UNDUE for this article - which covers the JF-17. That sort of detail belongs in the article about the confrontation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Kerberous (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "PAF No. 27 Squadron "Zarrars" to be equipped with JF-17 Block II Thunders".

Text removed[edit]

I've removed the following text from the lede - " The JF-17 has seen active military service as it is used by the Pakistan Air Force to bomb militant positions in the War in North-West Pakistan,[1] using both unguided munitions and guided missiles for precision strike capability.[2]" The express tribune source does not say that the JF-17 was used in these attacks, it merely has a photo of a JF-17.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Fighter jets bomb militant hideouts in North Waziristan after Taliban attacks". Express Tribune. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Edit war[edit]

I really don't want to be involved in an edit war, but please respect both the sides of the story, especially if authentic sources are provided. Some users have been undoing newer edits in this talk page and in the main article for no appropriate reason, maybe just to show their patriotism, but please keep in your mind that this is just an article about JF-17s, not about F-16s or about tensions between Pakistan and India. Pakieditor (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that so much of the recent incident is media reporting of unconfirmed rumours - for example I haven't seen any official confirmation that the JF-17 was involved at all - Pakistan has officially denied that F-16s have been involved, but not (as far as I know) officially stated that what aircraft did take place. Then there is the whole drift from saying that Pakistan has claimed this and India has claimed something else (which is probably all the article - which is about the aircraft - should be saying) to definitely say that one side or another is correct. How much is this is deliberate by editors, or reflects the conscious or unconscious biases involved in sources, is uncertain, but it something that all editors should guard against.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, however in a recent statement by the DG ISPR of Pakistan, an official statement was given that Pakistan only used its jf-17s in the whole combat. Pakieditor (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to be involved in an edit war, don't edit war. Per WP:STATUSQUO I have restored the last stable version from before the edit war.
Edit warring means repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT for how this is done.
Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially if the editor violates the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not involved in an edit war. I am just modifying disruptive edits, so that it is more related to this article. My latest edits are a prove, however if I have done a mistake, then I personally apologize for that.
Kind Regards; Pakieditor 17:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That meets the definition of WP:EW. Why you are still reinstating your edits without describing them?[1] Shashank5988 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Both sides are edit warring with the excuse of "making things more neutral" (i.e. to fit one side's nationalistic POV) or "reverting to the "stable version" (i.e. the version that you like). There is little point in neutral editors trying to improve the edits because any positive changes are just being blindly reverted. The whole thing is rather depressingNigel Ish (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, I am giving up. It seems my positive changes are just being blindly reverted. There is misunderstanding between me and the one who is undoing my edits. Pakieditor (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that my positive changes are just being blindly reverted by you.

Point a mistake in my edit. Some sources claim that the AMRAAM missile wreckage shown by Indian officials displays a contract serial number that links a missile that was sold to Taiwan, while there are sources even claiming that the wrecked parts shown in pictures don't belong to an F-16, again you can see this other edit for references, but at the end what is even the point of including this all AMRAAM missile wreckage point in an article about JF-17s.
Kind Regards; Pakieditor (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that won't go into this article. Problem with your edit was glaring: you ripped off exactly same content which was already reverted by an editor here with a descriptive edit summary (which you obviously saw it and still choose to blatantly disregard it). Let me emphasize that the mainstream media in Pakistan is "corrupt and state-controlled" and hence we won't use such sources to state something in Wikipedia's voice as a fact: especially in this case, for the available evidence shows that the source in question was peddling fake news (vide Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff/Archive 1#F-16_Wreckage_shown_by_Indian_officials, and rebuttal by Taiwan [2], and while you're at it, vide [3]). Thanks, Shashank5988 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not all sources provided by him were Pakistani. Bellingcat is an authentic source, while 'The Drive' is a non-Pakistani source. By the way only Indian media can have honest journalists like Arnab Goswami, so neither Indian media is trustworthy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. [4] 39.40.99.134 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Reassessment[edit]

CAC[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It should be reverted to the pre-disruption state (which Guy Macon has done several times). I have fully protected it for now. The various warring parties can then discuss it on the talk page. Once a consensus position is determined, the article can be unprotected and the edits made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I concur with PM67; a delisting does seem to be premature for this situation. Applying criteria 5 in this way to justify a GAR seems unreasonable unless it is a particularly protracted situation that has not been able to be resolved through discussions on the talk page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Zawed and PM67. This shouldn't be here. Sort it out on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. Clearly not stable and not NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Delisting per Peacemaker67. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Against delisting. Problem only resides in operators section of the article. Pakieditor (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - Owing to threats of Discretionary Sanctions by Guy Macon, I will not participate further in this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I sent a DS alert to every editor who hasn't gotten one in the last 12 months. Nigel Ish was not singled out in any way. And the alert was crystal clear: "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date."
These DS alerts are a required step before asking an admin to apply discretionary sanctions to the article and those who have edited it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I have also received a lot of edit war warnings in my talk page, and there have been complaints about me sent to other admins for my behavior from Guy Macon. Pakieditor (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Pakieditor has been indefinitely blocked for undeclared paid editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Don't forget to add Template:Pp to the page. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that the page is protected...[edit]

Now that everyone sees one of the things that can happen when multiple editors refuse to follow the rules, let me explain the other things that will happen if the disruptive behavior doesn't stop now.

If the bad behavior continues, I will put together evidence, present it to Arbitration Enforcement, and those of you who have ignored warnings are very likely to either be topic banned from all articles having anything to do with Pakistan or India, or simply blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dialing up the aggression and complaining about me will have zero effect; I have been doing this long enough that I find those sort of antics to be rather boring. I have just started started putting together the evidence.

A word to the good editors who are trying to make the page better and follow Wikipedia's rules; if you have done nothing wrong, I will find no evidence and no administrator will sanction you without evidence. Also, I don't care about the content of this page. Not even slightly. If you think I am taking sides against you, you are sadly mistaken.

OK, here is what you all need to do. Explain, calmly and civilly, what you want to be in this article and what sources you believe support your preferred version. Dial down the aggression and emotion, and treat each other with dignity and respect even when you disagree. Read our page on WP:CONCENSUS and follow the advice on that page.

Those who get with the program will be able to shape the content of this page. Those who edit war, engage in personal attacks, and in general act like jerks, will be removed so that the rest of us can work on the page without interference. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I entirely agree with what you have said. I'll add that I have now watchlisted this article, and if calm discussion does not reach a consensus on the edits that need to be made, I will extend the protection until it does. If the protection ends and anyone continues the edit-war, I will block them without hesitation. Just discuss the different sources and their reliability here on the talk page, and come up with a consensus on the form of words to be inserted into the article. Where reliable sources differ on detail, it is usual on en WP to compare and contrast the content of the differing sources, not to choose one and go with that exclusively. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019[edit]

Indian Claims of shooting down a Pakistani F-16 has nothing to do with JF-17. So why is it mentioned on a wiki page about JF-17? 82.27.172.255 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019[edit]

Dear admins/mods, please remove following text as it has nothing to do with the topic of JF-17 page...

"India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets.[123] While Pakistan denied India's statement, stating that Pakistan used no F-16s in the whole engagement, India produced evidence in the form of an AMRAAM missile wreckage fired by the F-16s which it recovered within the Indian territory, while adding that its airborne early warning aircraft had recorded electronic signatures of the F-16 jets.[124][125] The Indian Air Force also rejected the Pakistani claim of shooting down a Su-30MKI aircraft as a cover up for the loss of a Pakistani aircraft, stating that all Sukhoi aircraft dispatched returned safely. [126][127]"

Thank you. ChopperHarley (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but a similar edit request was placed today and turned down because consensus was not established. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The above request is invalid on the face of it. it conveniently cuts out the first part of the paragraph:
"On 27 February 2019, during the tense standoff between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had shot down two Indian aircraft: a Mig-21 and a Su-30MKI, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir.[121][122] India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets..."
Claiming that a paragraph on a Wikipedia page "has nothing to do with the topic of JF-17" with a quote from the Wikipedia page that cuts out the part where it talks about the JF-17 is a disruptive attempt to insert false information into this article. Pakistan claims one thing. India claims another. Wikipedia simply reports the claims and who made them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
My apology if it seems like an "invalid request" but I saw it as a claim being countered with a counter-claim which held no merit as the evidence that India presented for downing the F-16 was laid bare as false by DFRLab's M J Sheldon (https://twitter.com/michael1sheldon/status/1101227325025382405) and Bellingcat (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/02/falcon-vs-bison-verifying-a-mig-21-wreck/). You may say that the kill of Su-30MKI was never proven, to that I would then suggest you remove any mentioning of Su-30MKI. If it's OK with you, perhaps we should mention the analysis by DFLab and Bellingcat as additional material to what India claims and what Pakistan claims. What you think? Once again I apologise for my mistake. ChopperHarley (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should present to the readers what India and Pakistan claim. We certainly are not going to keep one claim and omit the other because of something on Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Putting Twitter aside, what of Bellingcat's unbiased analysis, are we to ignore facts and instead paste in propaganda which has many flaws - be it from either side - and present that as reading material for readers of Wikipedia? ChopperHarley (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The only "evidence" is that the pictures of the wreck are an Indian Mig-21 everything is really speculation and made up. As been said nothing wrong with mentioning what either side had claimed as it relates to the alleged use of JF-17. Everything else is not actually relevant to the JF-17 so everything after "While Pakistan denied.." can be deleted as this is dealt with on other pages related to the tiff. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't evaluate evidence or decide what the "facts" are. When two nations disagree about something, we don't arbitrarily label one side as being "propaganda" and delete it. What usually happens is that both sides lie about some parts and tell the truth about others, which is why we specify things like "Pakistan claimed" and "India, on the other hand, claimed". We only report what is in the sources. Your suggestion would retain what Pakistan says happened while deleting what India says happened. Find a source that meets our standards (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR) and suggest changes to the article based upon that source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I propose that the paragraph about the current India/Pakistan standoff be shortened to only those comments related to the JF-17 and the claims may by each side. This is the beginning of current wording: "On 27 February 2019, during the tense standoff between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had shot down two Indian aircraft: a Mig-21 and a Su-30MKI, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir. India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets." I dont propose any change to this wording but removing the rest of the paragraph which doesnt directly relate to the JF-17. MilborneOne (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. That sounds very sensible to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree too. It seems reasonable enough but if I may suggest that we omit the sentence "with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets" and reword it to keep it neutral, as, "On 27 February 2019, during the tense stand-off between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had shot down two Indian aircraft: a Mig-21 and a Su-30MKI, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir. India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement." Thanks. ChopperHarley (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no need to add extra information that is irrelevant about jf-17s, and is supported by Indian sources. Please, I request to all South Asian to not make this article just another Pakistan vs. India battle arena. 39.40.99.134 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No objection although I am open to someone coming up with something even better. I also like ChopperHarley's suggestion of removing "agressing". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done with ChopperHarley's amendment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019[edit]

Hi,

I would like to propose the removal of the entire paragraph below. The entire paragraph is of low quality and irrelevant due to the following reasons:

1. No official Pakistani source has confirmed or denied the specific use of JF-17 Thunder aircraft in this war. We only have the official denial of using F-16s, and that is completely irrelevant in the context of Wiki entry about JF-17. Furthermore, the references 121 and 122 provided to show Thunder's use during the war actually do not state that anywhere in the article itself. Thus, this is a case of intellectual dishonesty and fabrication of references.

2. The entire discussion on F-16s is completely irrelevant to the Thunder page. I hope administrators will take the necessary steps to ensure Wikipedia does not become a tool for spreading fabrications and misinformation.

On 27 February 2019, during the tense standoff between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had shot down two Indian aircraft: a Mig-21 and a Su-30MKI, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir.[121][122] India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement with the agressing Pakistani F-16 jets.[123] While Pakistan denied India's statement, stating that Pakistan used no F-16s in the whole engagement, India produced evidence in the form of an AMRAAM missile wreckage fired by the F-16s which it recovered within the Indian territory, while adding that its airborne early warning aircraft had recorded electronic signatures of the F-16 jets.[124][125] The Indian Air Force also rejected the Pakistani claim of shooting down a Su-30MKI aircraft as a cover up for the loss of a Pakistani aircraft, stating that all Sukhoi aircraft dispatched returned safely. [126][127] Junkaccount36 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Declined = The form of words needs to gain a consensus on this page before it can be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    MilborneOne: better not to take admin actions (like "declining" a request) on pages you are involved with. You can just make a comment or say you disagree. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Junkaccount36, when two nations disagree about what happened, we don't arbitrarily decide that one side is wrong and delete their claims. We only report what is in the sources. The sources say that Pakistan claims that their JF-17s had shot down an Indian Mig-21 and an Indian Su-30MKI. The sources say that India claims to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing an Indian MiG-21. It is our job to report both conflicting claims with citations showing exactly who made the claims. Per WP:NPOV we don't take sides. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deletion of the paragraph - As this Guardian article [6] notes, the supposed use of JF-17s in the dogfight is entirely dubious. There is no need to mention the standoff in this article at all, unless some better evidence surfaces. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Unless reliable sources turn up that say the JF-17 did participate in the standoff. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 21:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of the paragraph - As pointed out in this New York Times editorial, "The India-Pakistan Conflict Was a Parade of Lies". Even the remaining claims after the paragraph was trimmed down are still highly dubious. --McSly (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of the paragraph. What Kautilya3 said. Kerberous (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree The Guardian article you refer to makes no mention of JF-17's dogfight so it is irrelevant in my opinion. However, there is a CNBC article [7] that corroborates the use of JF-17 in a dogfight with India's MiG-21. ChopperHarley (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is not accurate. Guardian said that the Pakistani military (presumably anonymous sources) claimed JF-17 made the hit. But they didn't have any evidence that it could fire the kind of missile whose debris was found in India. CNBC is a business news channel, hardly an authoritative source for international politics. As a matter fact, they seem to have printed a Reuters newsfeed after adding their own OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The debris you refer about is not conclusive evidence. We just don't know how many dogfights and encounters took place around the time the IAF MiG-21 was shot down. Anyway, there is a tweet made by the JF-17's ex-project director which I won't bother referencing but you can read about it in this Middle Eastern article [8] ChopperHarley (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The tweet says “Today, same jets targeted and shot down Indian Jets which entered Pakistani Airspace.” You are welcome to add that suitably attributed to the retired Air Marshal. Note that there is nothing about the dogfight in the tweet. As far as I know, the dogfight occurred in the Indian airspacae. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing about the dogfight in the tweet? He clearly mentions it in his tweet: "Proud to announce, I was project director for JF-17 Thunder program jointly produced by Pakistan and China during the tenure of General Pervez Musharraf. Today, same jets targeted and shot down Indian Jets which entered Pakistani Airspace." He was the project director and he's a ret. AM so I am sure he is privy to first-hand info ChopperHarley (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I went back to read over the Guardian article you've mentioned and you was correct, it does indeed mentions, "Pakistan’s military said it used Chinese-designed JF-17 warplanes", so my apologies on that. ChopperHarley (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion It isn't our job to decide that India or Pakistan (or both) are lying and delete what they say on that basis. It is our job to accurately report what each side says and then to accurately report what reliable third party sources say about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)