Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder/Archive 3

Protected edit request on 15 March 2019
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. &mdash; 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 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 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 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)
 * Please be careful not to synthesize your own conclusions from a tweet. The official information from Pakistan has been coming via the Director General of ISPR. Only such pieces of information can be attributed to "Pakistan".
 * Other unofficial information from anonymous sources can only be included if it has been vetted by reliable secondary sources, especially because there is plenty of analysis in reliable sources about the unreliability of such claims. Guardian has vetted the claims that JF-17s participated in the dogfight and rejected them. So, we cannot reproduce such claims unless there is actual evidence presented.
 * But the retired Air Marshal's information, when attributed to him (not to "Pakistan"), is perfectly fine. And, this information says nothing about the dogfight. It merely says that JF-17s shot down Indian fighter planes that entered the Pakistani airspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to give it a rest. Dogfight or shot down, what is the conclusion? A claim was made that the JF-17 shot down a MiG-21 and an Su-30MKI, a claim was also made that an F-16 was shot down and a MiG-21 was lost. We cannot sit here and be judge and jury on Wikipedia. The admins have come to an agreement that until there is further evidence from reliable sources, for now the paragraph agreed upon will suffice. I will leave it at that and I recommend you do the same. Thank you. ChopperHarley (talk) 11:01, 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)
 * ❌ the edit request has been deactivated as this is not 'uncontroversial' (as there is an active discussion taking place above). Once a consensus emerges, feel free to reactivate the request if the page is still protected. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2019
JF-17 claim of Indian Sukhoi-Su 30MKI has been rejected by IAF and All Sukhoi-30s operated on that day made it back without any loss 61.0.36.8 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ The matter of what each side claims and how to deal with that in the article is under discussion above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
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. &mdash; 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)
 * ✅ with ChopperHarley's amendment &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some changes being done again, would it be ok to request a revert to the mutually agreed paragraph and enable Protection on the page again? Thanks in advance ChopperHarley (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, protection is for when reverting cannot keep up. I don't think we are at that point quite yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Article protected for a year
See WP:BLUELOCK and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Use in 2019 India Pakistan hostilities
Pakistani military claimed they only used JF 17 to counterattack india. it should be mentioned.. i am posting the neutral sources


 * 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)

There are no international media link or publication that confirms the claim of downing fighters of either side. Majnu 696 (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Our article doesn't say that any fighters were or were not downed. Our article simply reports what India and Pakistan claim.


 * 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. India denied the loss of any Su-30MKI and stated that all aircraft returned safely, whereas Pakistan denied the use or loss of any F-16 during the stand-off."


 * And there is plenty of international media coverage that confirms that they made those claims. I don't see any that say that the claims are true or false, but our article doesn't say whether the claims are true. Here is one citation:


 * "Pakistan said it shot down two Indian military aircraft over its territory Wednesday and launched strikes in Indian-controlled Kashmir, while India claimed it shot down a Pakistani fighter jet [...] Indian and Pakistani officials gave conflicting accounts of the events."


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2019
The PAC JF-17 Thunder (جے ایف-١٧ گرج), or CAC FC-1 Xiaolong, is a lightweight, single-engine, all weather multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China. The JF-17 can be used for aerial reconnaissance, ground attack and aircraft interception. Its designation "JF-17" by Pakistan is short for "Joint Fighter-17", while the designation and name "FC-1 Xiaolong" by China means "Fighter China-1 Fierce Dragon".

202.70.145.86 (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong engine performance
The current information about the engine performance is wrong, you can see the engine wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33#RD-93) to check the correct values (79 kN to 98 kN Wet) KlaatuBaradaNikto51 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Opening the new thread for JF-17 Block III
In pursuance to the subject, I suggest! Now it is time to open a new thread for Jf-17 Block III variant, as the new Aircraft is totally different from Block I and Block II variants. The Block III variant incorporate different air frame,technologies, engine etc.. in simple a totally different fighter jet. We have dozens of other air Crafts variants having separate thread. Need thorough discussion for opening of thread! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Block 3 is already mentioned in the variants section. Not sure what you mean by "new thread" this is not a discussion forum. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think Block ||| is already mentioned so we can add other details as they come in public and that will be good. There is no need to create separate thread for this as major changes remain the same like airframe, seats, wings,internal structure and others.. DarIqu 09:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Iqbal Dar (talk • contribs)

H-2 & H-4 in Bombs section - unable to fix DABS
H-4 and H-2 point to disambiguation pages but I am unable to edit the article. I presume these should link to H-2 SOW & H-4 SOW. Would any admin be able to fix these links?&mdash; Rod talk 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic of JF17
"India, on the other hand, claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16, while losing a MiG-21 in the aerial engagement.[124] India denied the loss of any Su-30MKI and stated that all aircraft returned safely, whereas Pakistan denied the use or loss of any F-16 during the stand-off.[125][126]"

I propose that this line be deleted as it does not pertain to the JF17. The Indian claim was it shot down an F16 and not a JF17, so this statement is irreverent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear editors
Please don't undo my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2021
change "innoventory" to "inventory" 2601:646:8381:78E0:E5B7:7126:2DF0:9D26 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Bestagon ⬡ 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 JF-17.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
I want to add information on Jf 17 block three variant. Rai Muhammad (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree Rai Muhammad (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Under Operational section there's a claim that paf Jf-17 has shot down an iaf Su-30 MKI but there's no evidence to prove that Su-30 MKI was downed or Jf-17 shot it down as - no debris of Su-30 mki claimed to be downed is ever recovered Air to air missile debris so far recovered is only of AMRAAM C-5 which is incompatible with Jf-17 ( link to image: ) so please remove that Jf-17 has shot down Su-30 MKI in aerial combat Also under the operational section the link provided is a youtube video of Pakistan Air force to back up the claim that "the mission was led by Mirage III and Jf-17" ; which can't be taken as a neutral source; so please correct it to maintain a neutral narrative

Also this narrative (On 27 February 2019, during the tense standoff between India and Pakistan, Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had taken part in the operation in which two Indian aircraft were shot down: a MiG-21 by Nouman Ali Khan and a Su-30MKI by Hassan Siddique, operating in Pakistan's airspace over the disputed region of Kashmir) is too much one-sided and biased please remove it as per WP:NOTNEWS --E1Char (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yellow check.svg Y Partly done I am not removing any of the claims, as at this point both sides are making unconfirmed reports. Since there are no reliable sources on the incident, removing any of the claims would be WP:POV.  I'll also point out that none of the claims are presented as facts ("Pakistan claimed that its JF-17s had taken part in the operation in which two Indian aircraft were shot down").  I have added the Indian claim, though, as both sides of the story do matter. -  ZLEA  T \ C 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

BilCat (talk Thanks--E1Char (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021
In the article it is written that the bombs dropped by jf 17 missed their target but Pakistani authorities say that the bombs were not intended to hit a military installation but they were dropped near the installations to show PAF capabilities. So please add Pakistani claim in this paragraph. 43.248.15.245 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BilCat (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A GA reassessment needed?
Today I've checked three cited links, and I found that in all the editor did some form or other form of manipulation, including misquoting the source, providing technical details widely different from the cited source etc. There maybe many more, either this article need a reassessment (I don't favour this option) or someone should step in and correct it. Thank you - --FoxtAl (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

In this article it is stated that jf17 reportedly missed the intended targets in 2019 airstrikes against india it is completely wrong and misquoted, the fact is that Pakistani authorities illustrated through presentation and satellite images that they intentionally missed the targets just to give the message that we are capable but we don't want escalation in the situation. Their targets were just in 2 meters of indian military installations and ammunition depots which were successfully hit by Pakistan air force jf17 thunders to show capability but not to escalate DoctorKhan304 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * JF 17 Block 1.jpg
 * JF 17 Block 3.jpg
 * JF 17B.jpg

September 2021
Hai, Good day. Let's come to the point, what was your rationale in removing this cited content? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC) 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) 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)
 * 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)
 * I know dude, If I initiate a talk there, he would not only ignore that but also remove that as he did here so it's futile. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued at User talk:Echo1Charlie. - ZLEA  T \ C 21:27, 25 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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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 ??
 * 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)
 * 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 (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", free kill huh?!)
 * 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, also how does this statement [] 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 ???

Media controlled by the government —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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.

Current and potential users
Argentina should be moved to potential users since there appears to be no consensus from the Argentinian government on its use. Mynamar should be removed from potential users since China/pakistan have withdrawn JF-17 from contention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2002:46:CC93:F8E9:A718:10C9 (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the sources in this article, Myanmar already received and has been flying JF-17s, so I'm not seeing a reason to remove them from current users. Even if they don't receive more in the future, they already have what was delivered. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021
combat range is 300km not 800km 2402:3A80:DBA:C401:CCEC:DF94:93AB:2390 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021
change In 2019, the Pakistan Armed Forces claimed to have shot down an Indian MiG-21 using a JF-17,[24][25] however this is unconfirmed. to In 2019, the Pakistan Armed Forces claimed to have shot down an Indian MiG-21 using a JF-17, however this is later proved to be false. Sachin007kaushal (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We can't use Wikipedia as a source ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

== Indian SU 27 and a SU 30 was confirmed to be shot by Pakistan by its warplanes. Not even a sigma of doubt. Indian side is trying to hide it from world to to avoid its shame. I think truth will reveal soon. ==

Indian SU 27 and a SU 30 was confirmed to be shot by Pakistan by its warplanes. Not even a sigma of doubt. Indian side is trying to hide it from world to to avoid its shame. I think truth will reveal soon. 206.84.142.94 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If only Pakistan's media were not anti-India. Unless reliable sources report that the Indian planes were shot down by JF-17s, we cannot put the claim here.  Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021
Change Payload from 1500 KG to 4325 KG reference: https://quwa.org/2017/08/31/profile-avic-pac-jf-17-thunder/

1500 KG is wrong info / typo at earlier reference. Even the 3 external Fuel tanks are heavier then 2400 KG

For example: In this photo: (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dTK4kIuPrMA/X82y3Vej6dI/AAAAAAAAVOw/USviK6lXRjkUeDc6iEWhrWMo_wR-KJzuwCLcBGAsYHQ/s800/Argentina_JF-17_Thunder.jpg) 3 x fuel tanks: (2,400 kg) 2 x Fox3 / SD-10s: (400 KG), 2 x PL-5s (~200 KG) : Total in this photo: ~3000 KG. Itsjawad (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source is quoting from PAC's brochure, which hardly counts as a reliable source. As for the photo, while it may show the JF-17 carrying more than 1,500 kg, it is purely original research and we can't exactly use it to discredit the existing source as a typo without another reliable source. -  ZLEA  T \ C 04:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please change Payload from 1500 KG to 3629 KG. Reference #1: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/fc-1-specs.htm Reference #2: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fc1xiaolongjf17thund/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjawad (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to use GlobalSecurity.org as a source since it is listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSPSS, but the other source seems fine. Turns out the 1,500 kg claim came directly from the PAC website. -  ZLEA  T \ C 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Specification
Hai, I have seen your edit regarding the payload only after I changed the payload with manufacturer's official specification. I think I need to present the reason for that So in my opinion we should stick with the manufacturer's specification until a new specification for block3 is made available by the manufacturer, what do you think? FoxtAl (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: How the manufacturer's figure has been debunked as false? FoxtAl (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Manufacturer's always try to show the best specification of their product (because it's business!) so it's natural to assume that the best payload figure is 1500 kg - acknowledged by the manufacturer
 * I don't know how much reliable is airforcetechnology in this matter, the payload figure they presented is more than double that of manufacturer's payload figure i.e, 1500 kg (official) vs 3700 kg (airforce technology), despite the fact that block1, 2 and 3 are flying with the same engine. Even if we consider an increase in thrust and weight reduction does it doubles the payload?
 * This matter has been discussed above. The fact is that the PAC brochure does not count as a reliable source since PAC has a history of embellishing the capabilities of their aircraft.  It should be noted that 1,500 kg is also an old figure, and the new official specs from a later brochure claim a payload of 4,325 kg.  Obviously, we cannot use that figure since that source is quoting PAC.  airforce-technology.com, on the other hand, is based on observations of the aircraft carrying up to 3,700 kg.  Since this figure is not quoted directly from PAC, it can be considered reliable. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Explain
Can anyone can me the reason for keeping potential operaters list in operater section. This article is a GA article so there is always need of keeping a standard of the page. See other GA pages for more. I ame Shears (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022
"Change Junk Fighter to Joint Fighter" 2.49.235.3 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Previous vandalism that went unnoticed. --McSly (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated JF17's Max Take off weight.
Max takeoff weight: 12,383 kg (27,300 lb) Updated to Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (29,762 lb) Talha IAQ (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ZLEA  T \ C 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Updated JF17's Max Internal Fuel
Fuel capacity: 2,330 kg (5,137 lb) internal fuel Updated to Fuel capacity: 3000 litres (5,400 lb) Talha IAQ (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ZLEA  T \ C 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-Shifting of Iraq and Potential Operators sections
Since Iraq is still a possible customer, shouldn't it be under possible operators? Moreover, won't the Potential Operators section be suitable as a sub-section of the operators heading? I just wanted to check out this issue with other editors before i execute the re-organising. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

New developments regarding the Argentinian deal
The Commander of the Argentinian Air Force released more details on the procurement of the JF-17, F-16 and Tejas. https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/3896537/xavier-isaac-infraestructura-apoyo-operacion-aerea-mayores-urgencias-hoy-tiene-faa Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Irrawaddy
There is a minor dispute about content sourced from The Irrawaddy. Let's see if we can resolve the issue. Per this discussion, consensus is that The Irrawaddy is generally reliable. If anyone has evidence that it is unreliable, they should probably present it at WP:RSN. Otherwise, we have no grounds to question its reliability. - ZLEA  T \ C 14:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this, and I concur. I'd intended to do it myself, but I've had family visiting (a good thing!), so I've been struggling to just keep up with my watchlist, much less do anything else on Wiki. BilCat (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Irrawaddy website is a biased anti-Myanmar government website that just about criticizes everything that the Myanmar miitary does. It is NOT a credible or reliable source. Furthermore, the news of the Myanmar JF-17 grounding is all sourced from Indian sources, which are biased towards the JF-17 because it is Pakistani and Chinese-made. If sources such as The Irrawaddy are allowed to be used on Wikepedia it will severely damage Wikiepedia's reputation and reliability. Poloplayers (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you have concerns about the source's reliability, please bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA  T \ C 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I originally tagged it with an rs, as it looked unreliable to me at first glance. But when I searched the RSN archives, I found that it was deemed a reliable source. As ZLEA has stated, the proper place to challenge that assessment is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In fact, he and/or I can raise the issue ourselves, but it's probably better if those that are firmly against the source challenge its reliability there. For the record, we fight against the same types of biases against Pakistani sources in Indian-related articles. Some Indian users are very aggressively pro-India, and we regularly have to deal with the removal of material that is critical of the HAL Tejas from that article, especially if it comes from Pakistani sources. We try to deal fairly with both sides, but it can be very difficult to do. BilCat (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Please raise the issue at RSN Noticeboard if you can. I have no issue with the truth, but I have reason to believe that that a routine maintenance report was exaggerated into a report about grounding. ALL news reports about grounding of JF-17s is either Indian or sourced from India. Poloplayers (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Myanmar
This article used as a source, Myanmar's JF-17 is a Block 2 and is not equipped with the KLJ-7A radar, why is such a poor quality article being quoted?--Omrozoo69 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion. While the website is no doubt ugly, the current consensus is that it is reliable.  If you have reason to believe it is unreliable, feel free to present your argument at WP:RSN. -  ZLEA  T \ C 01:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course I know I could remove the discredited source without having to argue about it there.--Omrozoo69 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be reverted, as it has before. It's odd that an account with 1 edit would chose this topic as their second and third edits. BilCat (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is normal for sources with erroneous content to be erased. It's up to me which topic I choose, whether it's once or 10,000 times. Can we please stop talking about things that have nothing to do with the content of the article?--Omrozoo69 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It very well may have everything to do with the content of this article. When a new editor with almost no edits comes to an article's talk page making the same arguments that another user made not long ago, it tends to raise suspicions.  Now, I'll tell you again what I told the last editor.  If you have concerns about the reliability of a source, please bring it up at WP:RSN. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)