Talk:Hsiung Feng III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

1.) Japan and Taiwan both maintain a discreet policy of having secret undeclared nuclear weapons, a so-called "nuclear bomb in the basement" policy, please read:        http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/japan-has-nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isnt-happy-n48976

2.) "ROC successfully conducted its diminutive nuclear test in southern Taiwan in the 1980s."    http://www.chinanews.com/2000-1-7/26/14868.html

3.) "A study by the Mitre Corporation in 1977 included Taiwan in a list of "insecure" nuclear threshold states—states with the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and the security motivations to seriously contemplate such an option. The other states were Israel, South Africa, South Korea, and Yugoslavia."    Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, Nuclear Power Issues and Choices (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977), p. 284.

4.) "U.S. intelligence believed that the Republic of China also had designed devices suitable for nuclear testing"     http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/03.pdf

103.27.220.56 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking about current nuclear weapons. None of the sources you gave state that the country possesses nuclear weapons. Neither "had designed devices suitable suitable for nuclear testing" or "have conducted tests in the past" (emphasis mine) are examples of them currently possessing nuclear weapons. I have two sources above that are highly regarded organizations whom list arms control or anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons as one of their primary goals, with The Bulletin being the first academic journal covering the dangers of nuclear weapons. They both list Israel as a state with nuclear weapons, but not Taiwan or Japan. The NBC News article also does not even mention Taiwan save for "There have been confrontations between China and Japan over small islands north of Taiwan."
 * Considering that Taiwan has itself stated having a nuclear weapon as grounds for an invasion from China (http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/6-reasons-china-would-invade-taiwan/), I would say that qualifies as 'inflammatory' in the definition of being a statement that could inflame a conflict and be potentially dangerous for the people of both China and Taiwan. Regardless of the island's possible ability to and the possibility they might, it's speculation and this encyclopedia does not operate on speculation. I don't see the pages for any of the indigenous South Korean or South African weapons listed as "nuclear-capable", either, which makes sense as they do not have nuclear weapons. We need hard facts. Also, I would suggest taking a look above at the remarks involving the missile being hyper-sonic, as you've accidentally reverted their changes as well as mine. I've gone ahead and reinstated those for the time being, as those are unrelated to our current discussion. 118.168.100.131 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment:It should be pointed out that some of the sources you present here are not, in fact, according to Wikipedia, reliable sources for such claims as are being made. specifically, the Sun and Mirror are WP:TABLOID, whilst Chinanews does not meet the requirement that sources are independent of their subject, and the remainder, whilst indeed qualifying as relIable sources, do not prove the claim made. They only speculate that RoC can do such a thing; whereas the proposed edits claim that it has been done. Do you see the difference? It is to prevent speculation masquerading as fact that SPhibric protected that page. Response copied from SPhilbric's TP, where 103.27.220.56 asked the same question. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I really don't see anything wrong with the given provided sources within the article. You have requested the first reference that you mentioned to be removed from the article entirely, you state that the problem with it is that the source "is not a summary of the weapons system", and you want replace it with a new source, "to be changed to the specification summary given". If you are referring to using the text from your perfected source verbatim, that would not be allowed, as it would constitute as a copyright violation. You also mentioned that you wanted to remove two external links. You need to explain why you think they should be removed, and how/why they have "multiple factual errors in them", and why you think they "do not contribute to the article". Aurato (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

Thank You!

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


 * As, a taiwanese, NEVER HEARD HF-3 could travel at Mach 10. There always has rumor about biological and chemical warhead development. BUT Nuclear warhead development was banned by USA in the past. HF-3 is classified as ANTI-SHIP missile. Not a doomsday weapon.Paulpaul115 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If we're looking at the fishing boat incident, that page says the missile flew 75 km in 2 minutes. That would indicate a speed of just under Mach 2 on the surface, which is completely reasonable for a missile that looks like it's a copy of an ASMP. 155.101.20.39 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider an RfC
Seeing as this ongoing argument is not getting resolved, and blocks and PP isn't going to solve it, a RfC should be called. And anyway, a RfPP wouldn't work, as the IP could easily circumvent it. Also, this would avoid anyone here being on the receiving end of edit warring UWs from me myself and I. Read and consider heeding. My tongue is not forked. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Either that or using the tried and tested method of temporarily fully protecting the page so only admins can edit it, forcing editors to come to a consensus on this talk page before an edit can be made. Either way, edit warring is unacceptable and actions should be taken to stop it. Blurp92 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both perhaps? Or would that be overkill? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not overkill at all as far as I'm concerned. The simultaneous use of both methods should bring this edit war to a screeching halt, at least for a little while. A temporary full PP would simultaneously force editors to contribute to an RfC while preventing other editors from ignoring said RfC and putting in their own edits anyway. Blurp92 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies to you, but please keep in mind that I did not start any of this. Those other editors were the ones who first started deleting sourced information from this page. I'm simply defending the original sourced and referenced article. Again, sorry for any inconvenience you may have suffered.

Thank You! 43.249.129.233 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of starting it, as the diffs say otherwise. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Here in response to the RFC, which seems to be (have been?) the sorry mess below. FWIW I do support the views of those who were dismissive of the citeability of tabloid, partisn, and similarly untrustworthy news sources. For now I'm outtahere. JonRichfield (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed
An WP:RFC has been filed to bring editors to a consensus on various issues regarding the Hsiung Feng III missile. As of 2/1/17 the nominator has not picked a side for anything below. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Be sure to !Vote down below. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First, is Indian Defence News a legitimate source. While there may be other places and times to discuss this, it is integral to whether or not cites made from it will be acceptable for this article.
 * Second, speed of the missile, and relative to other missiles.
 * Possible Third, is it Nukes capable? This may have been sorted out, I can't tell.

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

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

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

3.) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.20.252 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Mirror and The Sun are tabloids, so those go into the trash immediately. The Indian Defence News article is attributed to an author by the name of "ChinaTopix." The usage of a pseudonym suggests it's a self-published source, likely a blog. Could also be one of those "fake news" publishers that are all the rage these days. So I'd say none of the above three sources are reliable. Lizard  (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment No unacceptable, your definition of tabloids is flawed. It's too easy for you to simply claim any news article you don't like as a "tabloid," at this rate you might as well start your own news network. Please clarify your definition of tabloids? Theses sources are not tabloids, they contain legit information. 103.27.220.21 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they do contain legit information. But them being tabloid makes it such that we should take anything they claim with the grainiest of salts. Although it should be obvious just by looking at any of their covers, here are sources for the fact that both Mirror and The Sun are tabloids:  . Additionally, the Mirror's "About us" page admits they are a tabloid.  Lizard  (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Upon looking at the rest of this talk page, I see you've been adamant with your (repeatedly refuted) arguments for The Sun and Mirror sources for several weeks now. It's plainly clear you don't plan on being reasonable here. Now I'm upset with myself for not reading the rest of the talk page first, before I wasted precious editing time trying to hammer a wooden nail into a steel wall. Lizard  (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually wondering whether there is a WP:COI issue ... Is ChinaTopix one of these IP editors? merlinVtwelve (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would probably be impossible to determine. Doesn't change the fact that it's obviously a blog, so it's inappropriate for citing extraordinary claims. Lizard  (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Blog"?? Lizard  is being quite hypocritical now with his double standards. Please do not label every source that does not conform to your personal belief system as a "blog" or "tabloid". Can you not read the articles and see for yourself that the articles state the Hsiungfeng missile is faster than the Brahmos?

The Indian defence article and the others clearly state the Hsiungfeng is fast and nuclear. And I do not find any other source that saids that the Hsiungfeng is NOT nuclear armed. If you can find any source that saids the Hsiungfeng III is NOT nuclear capable, please enlighten us.103.27.220.21 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're attacking a straw man here. I haven't read a single word of any of the sources. Frankly I don't care at all how fast some rocket is. It's clear you either can't or refuse to grasp the concept of reliable sources. And just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's true. Anyway, I've said all I've needed to say here. Lizard  (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Show me the sources that specifically state that the Hsiungfeng III CANNOT carry a nuclear weapon and is not fast? You can't right? You guys are double standard hypocrites who can't get your **** together! You can't even find a reputable source to back up your personal beliefs that the Hsiungfeng III "is not nuclear capable or fast". Show me some reputable sources or shut up you stupid Lizard! edited by L3X1 to remove uncivil language 103.17.199.191 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides Lizard  (talk), why are you even wasting your time here arguing blindly if you haven't even taken the time to read the sources that were previously provided by the other editors? Don't waste your time if you are not going to read any of the sources!103.17.199.191 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CIVIL please. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I took the time to look through one of the three sources. Like Lizard  said somewhere above me, The Mirror and The Sun are tabloids. Therefore, as all tabloids are WP:QUESTIONABLE, Wikipedians shouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. That leaves Indian Defence News. Survey says...in this case, IDN isn't even worth considering. Why? Because, it oftentimes isn't a source by itself, but rather a news aggregator. And that is what it is in this case. Here, it listed ChinaTopix as the source for their post, and after a bit of digging, I found the original article in question. So rather, the first question should be, is ChinaTopix a reliable source? I'm leaving this one up to consensus, partly because it's what Wikipedians should do, but partly because, to be honest, I don't know. The most information I can arm you with is the fact that ChinaTopix is owned by Yibada. That said, remember, anybody can put up a website and say whatever they want, but it does not necessarily make it true. For instance, I can say that I'm the Queen of America, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a blatant lie and the other fact that the United States doesn't even have a monarchy, let alone a queen. Blurp92 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are 3 references from Diplomat, Taipei Times and Focus Taiwan which I believe are more reliable and from the same time-period as the ones provided above. All of these references are consistent about 3 points, (1) No mention of nuclear warhead, (2) the speed of the missile is Mach2.5-Mach3.0 and (3) it is not a surface-to-air missile (relevant because of List_of_surface-to-air_missiles). The reasons (up and above from the ones mentioned above) which make me suspect the facts of these source is that they are not consistent. One of them mentions the speed of the missile as Mach10 another as Mach6.5(5000mph). Similarly, only 2 of them mention it being nuclear while the third one does not mention it, lastly ChinaTopix says "experts believe" which is at best speculation and there has been no official demonstration or confirmation. Also, anti-ship/surface to surface missile cannot be really surface-to-air missile which makes the sources more suspicious. I support removing the content added on the basis of these sources since their reliability is under question. We should wait for more reliable reports before we add this information to the article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until there are true, hard facts that can back up statements rather than speculation (guesses, in plain English), I also vote keeping them off this article. Blurp92 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point about the Taipei Times and Focus Taiwan is that they are both published in Taiwan. Taiwanese publications tend to stick to the truth when it comes to national defence, as they live in an regional hotspot where making false claims about military technology could have very serious consequences. I would suggest another reliable source (and also published in Taiwan despite its name) is The China Post which also describes the missile as supersonic. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment For the purposes of this article, I propose that Taiwanese publications should be treated as more reliable than those from other countries, simply for the reason that it would be dangerous for them to make false claims (as outlined in my comment above). China has specifically stated that it would invade Taiwan if it acquired or developed nuclear weapons. Therefore it is irresponsible (possibly even dangerous) for Wikipedia to be making such claims, based on British tabloids and and very flaky publications such as ChinaTopix and Indian Defence News. The Taiwanese media in general, have it in their own interests to be extremely careful, and accurate, when reporting on National Defence matters. You can see this by comparing the way The Taipei Times reported the misfiring of a missile, with the hysterical rubbish published in the British tabloids. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on speed This is entirely synthesis by me so it can't be used in the article but: In the misfire mishap, the BBC says the missile travelled "about 75km." The New York Times (arguably considered the most reliable news source on the planet) says it "flew for about two minutes." 75 × 30 is 2,250 km, which is 1,398 miles. 1,398 MPH is roughly Mach 1.82. Obviously there's so many missing variables here and I know next to nothing about rockets and aviation and the like. Just wanted to point that out. Lizard  (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This speed calculation is a good illustration. And to clarify my points above, of course, The New York Times and BBC are excellent sources. I have been suggesting only that Taiwanese media should be considered superior sources to the non-Taiwanese tabloid/blog type click-baiting publications which have been under discussion. merlinVtwelve (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

45.120.201.201 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, all major media outlets like CNN, BBC and others have reporters situated directly in Taiwan so it's not true that only "Taipei Times" and "Focus Taiwan" are accurate and everyone else is incorrect. Keep in mind that whenever a new weapon system is announced by Taiwan's military they usually hold press conferences as well as publicity venues, as well as the yearly Han Kuang military exercises that the Taiwanese conduct on a regular basis every year in which they test missile systems such as the hypersonic Hsiung Feng III. So it's fair game for all the major news outlets to be receiving the accurate information about the missile systems involved. Several sites and articles specifically state that Taiwan had previously developed nuclear weapons and that many of their missiles are designed to be capable of carrying either conventional warheads or nuclear bombs depending upon mission requirements. Based on expert analysis, the Hsiung Feng III is most likely hypersonic in nature with a speed of at least Mach 6. And whether or not it reaches Mach 10 is open for discussion because the Taiwanese miitary does NOT, and has NEVER, released the top maximum speed of this missile, for strategic tactical reasons. The above sources which state "Mach 2" or "Mach 3" are just simply stating one of the OPERATIONAL SPEEDS that the missile uses when skimming above the ocean waters and hitting enemy ships. It is NOT the only operational speed or the maximum speed of this missile which, judging from it's propulsion system, is most likely in excess of Mach 10. Since all of you appear not to be aeronautical engineers, let me state that if you look at pictures of the missile from behind and lateral you can clearly see that this missile is powered by both a so-called "ramjet" which appears not to be any kind of ordinary ramjet as it looks more like a type of enhanced "ramjet" that would best be described using the name scramjet in addition to high powered rocket boosters mounted to both sides of the missile which accelerates the missile to hypersonic speeds. Wikipedia is about providing information based on reasonable reputable sources, which we already have now, as both the Sun and Mirror while they both do have their "tabloid" celebrity news section, also contains other sections of the publications which put out legitimate news. And additionally, if you are trying desperately to confirm something be 100% correct, well, that would be impossible for all of the articles on Wikipedia, try confirming the information about Britney Spears or Justin Bieber on Wikipedia as you and I both know those two pages, and all other articles on Wikipedia, have not been confirmed to be entirely 100% accurate, but they are still there because otherwise we will have nothing to post and write on Wikipedia if you insist on 100% confirmation of every information source. Try confirming the information on the Wikipedia pages of Jesus Christ or the Prophet Mohammad? You understand my point now? So I propose that we include the information from Indian Defence, Sun, Mirror, Taipei Times, Focus Taiwan and other sources and put a disclaimer on top of the page saying that "information on this page is still being updated with more accurate information as we receive it".
 * You've already made your entirely policy-contrary (and logic-contrary for that matter) points several times on this talk page using multiple IPs and have been unanimously refuted. Lizard  (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I hate to have to bring this up for a second time in this RfC, but please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Blurp92 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the official website of the missile manufacturer which happens to be National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology(NCSIST). They have an entire page dedicated to the missile and have some specifications of the missile. The speed of the missile is stated as supersonic and the engine as liquid fuel ramjet. Another important point to note here is that this is Mk3 version of the missile and the Mk2 version of the missile is subsonic(Mach0.8 to be precise). This is supported by the Missile's wiki page as well the web-page of the manufacturer. I somehow find it a bit far-fetched that a new version of the missile would be developed directly from a subsonic capability to a hypersonic capability without ever achieving a supersonic capability. To conclude, Wikipedia considers offical sources to be the correct sources at the end. In this case, if the manufacturer itself claims that the missile is supersonic then that should end the argument on it's speed. Taking this argument further, if sun/mirror/chinatopix do mention the speed of the missile to be hypersonic(which is wrong according to the manufacturer) then the other details they mention might be false and thus cannot be admitted. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a very interesting angle. The missile is a commercially available product (presumably only to approved buyers). So it would be in the manufacturer's interest to make the strongest performance claims possible. And yet they are not claiming it is either hypersonic and/or nuclear capable. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Your assessment is incorrect, the Hsiung Feng III is absolutely not for sale and is NOT, and will NEVER, be a commercially available product, unlike the American Patriot Missile defense systems which have been exported by the USA. The Hsiung Feng III hypersonic missile is designed and built in Taiwan exclusively for use ONLY by Taiwan's military force. It's 100% guaranteed that you will never see Taiwan sell this missile to any other country. The Taiwanese do not even sell their domestically built IDF Jet Fighter and neither do they sell their long range ballistic Yun Feng missiles to any other country. All of these weapon systems are used exclusively by Taiwan's military and ONLY by Taiwan's military. Both Taiwan and the United States have a policy of not publishing all the data on the weapon systems of their military forces for tactical strategic reasons. What you see in the public domain is just a small portion of the real data. Do you really think the U.S. military or Taiwanese military will publish all of their military secrets for the world, as well as their enemies, to see? Take a look at the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile and note the maximum speed listed, this number is guaranteed to be nothing more than deliberate misinformation, the actual speed is much faster just like the actual hypersonic speed of the Hsiung Feng III missile.45.120.200.30 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay I stand corrected. The missile is not actually 'on sale' to overseas buyers at the present time. However, according to what I classify as a reliable source, The Taipei Times reported in 2016 that a number of foreign buyers had 'expressed interest' since it was put on display at the Paris Air Show in 2015. If it's not a potentially commercial item, why is being put on display at an air show? See this article here . The Taipei Times calls it a 'desirable item in the global arms market'. Part of the reason given in the article is that demand from the home market is out stripping supply. Looking at its nozzles and speculating about its 'hypersonic' capabilities is WP:CRYSTALBALL and/or WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which we should be doing our best to avoid.  merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Taiwanese built missiles and jet fighters as well as the Taiwanese designed submarines and Tuo Chiang stealth missile ships which are currently being built, are all being designed to carry the hypersonic Hsiung Feng III nuclear missile along with the subsonic Hsiung Feng II missile which you mentioned as the "MK 2" version, and will NEVER be offered for sale by the government of Taiwan, not even in the future. The MK 2 version Hsiung Feng II and the MK 3 version Hsiung Feng 3 are two separate and entirely different missile systems and this is self-evident even to non-engineers if you look and compare pictures of the two missiles together. The hypersonic Hsiung Feng III has additional solid fuel rocket boosters mounted to both sides as well as a centralized scramjet built into the heavy superstructure of the missile. What the manufacturer's website publishes for the public domain is just deliberate misinformation, using misleading terms like "ramjet" when any aeronautical engineer can easily see that it is no ordinary "ramjet." It appears that the manufacturer's misinformation, most likely under orders from their president, is purposely designed to conceal the maximum true speed and destructive power of the missile while simultaneously projecting Taiwanese military power to the world and intimidating the enemies of Taiwan without revealing too much information about the actual missile itself. And if you don't believe me, just try to find some information, any information about the computer guidance systems on board the missile as well as the materials used for construction, you're not gonna find anything. The missile is being displayed in air shows and military exercises and rolled around military parades for one main purpose, something that military generals and politicians call power projection. The Taiwanese government is using this formidable hypersonic nuclear missile to send a message of intimidation to their enemies, mainly China, basically telling them "back off, don't mess with Taiwan" since they know very well that China has absolutely no defence against a missile traveling at hypersonic speeds. The only thing China could do is just retaliate with their own ballistic missile strikes resulting in the mutual destruction of both China and Taiwan which obviously does not benefit either side, but the reality is that the hypersonic Hsiung Feng III nuclear missiles, even if loaded with just conventional warheads, could level a tremendous amount of destruction given it's extremely high kinetic energy and that's what puts fear into the communist Chinese military brass of a military and economic superpower like the People's Republic of China (PRC). This Hsiung Feng III missile is essentially a "super weapon" of Taiwan much like the "super weapons" of World War II that were created by the Nazi Germans with their Luftwaft jet fighters, V-1 and V-2 rockets or the Imperial Japanese with their Yamato super battle ships and air carrier I-400 submarines, which during their time was state of the art technology that even the USA didn't have. But it's fact that Taiwan will never sell the missile to any other country, not even their allies of Japan or USA, simply because it is a tactical secret to their military forces.  Additionally, Taipei Times is no more "reliable" than CNN or Indian Defence News. If you want to make the alleged claim that Taipei Times is somehow more "reliable" then please back up your statements with hard evidence showing Taipei Times to be the more "reliable" source.  Please provide peer reviewed empirical research data proving your point and not personal opinions. There is no evidence to suggest that any Taiwanese news outlet is any better at obtaining news than experienced internationally based news media veterans like CNN, BBC or Indian Defence News.  CNN, Fox News, Sun, BBC, Mirror, Reuters, RT News are all equally valid. 49.77.132.106 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about WP:RELIABLE SOURCES not about conspiracy theories. There is a clear difference between sources like The New York Times, the BBC, The Taipei Times and click-baiting tabloids and blogs. They are not all the same. Honestly, this is just going around in circles. merlinVtwelve (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Since when is Indian Defence News a "click-baiting tabloid" or "blog," you are slandering them without any evidence. Please prove your personal opinions??? 103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As per note, the onus of Verifiability and providing Reliable sources is on the editor adding information. In my opinion, here the editor has to demonstrate with reliable sources why the manufacturer NCSIST has labeled the missile supersonic and not declared it nuclear. The editor can alternately provide an official statement from the Taiwanese government/army/defence forces that the missile is actually hypersonic and nuclear capable. In the absence of this I would consider the missile to be supersonic and not nuclear capable. If the editor cannot demonstrate this, then I support the closure of this RfC with the consensus that the missile is supersonic with no nuclear weapon capability. I have so far not seen any sources from the editor which would make me believe the information he/she added is more correct then the one provided by the actual manufacturer. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The onus of verifiability lies in those editors who are claiming that the missile is not hypersonic or nuclear. The sources provided by some of the other editors lay support to the missile having the above mentioned qualities. Not one single source of information has been provided by any of the antagonistic editors disproving the nuclear capacity of the missile. Not even one single source!103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As recently as 12 January 2017, we have a direct quote from one of the engineers of the missile, Chang Cheng: “I have no doubt that our Hsiung Feng III missiles could do the job,” Chang said, adding that the supersonic missiles have earned the nickname “aircraft carrier killers” and can reach 2.5 to 3 times the speed of sound." No mention of nuclear from him either. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This does not prove anything, there is no mention from him, but he also does not say anything about it and nothing in that article states anything against the nuclear capabilities of the missile, nothing. 103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This IP has seriously become a nuisance. I'm about to request this talk page be semi-protected so we can have an actual discussion instead of trying to explain common policy for the umpteenth time to someone who's vehemently refusing to get it. Lizard (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do what you gotta do, Liz. P.S. Kudos to you for keeping your cool despite the relentless barrage of direct WP:PERSONALATTACKs against you from those IPs (*cough* WP:DUCK *cough*). Blurp92 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what WP:DUCK has to do with this?? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a case of SOCK going on here but I could be wrong. Yes, you can argue that it's just because he has an unregistered account but there are 3 instances where the same editor refers or wants to say that those IP's are not him/her. Examples: Case1: "if you haven't even taken the time to read the sources that were previously provided by the other editors?", Case2: "Please see the following legitimate sources provided by the other ip editor before anything:" and Case3: he makes 2 comments to the same RfC. I think the IP editor should come out and clarify whether all these IP's are the same person or not. Also, there have been at least 3 instances of personal attacks on other editors from the same person. and 3RR being violated on 2 articles. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are totally right, the IP should clarify whether or not they are related/in control of the other IP addresses. The wording "please see…by the other ip editor" is extremely interesting, as it does imply a lack of symmetry between the 2. I was thinking (or hoping) that the difference could be explained by the fact that the IP may not have home internet, but that seems to be fading. The PA and lack of civility are not going to help the IP when an investigation takes place, IMO. If they make attacks again, I will look to bring admins into this. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I was asked to take a look at this dispute, since it has gotten rather ugly. I will not comment on the specific disagreement, but just a couple of general reminders. First, comment on the content, not the editor. Civilty is a policy, and is not optional. Second, edit-warring is not okay. Please discuss the dispute here, and come to a consensus: if the "other side" begins to violate policy, then invite more scrutiny (which you have already done via an RFC) and if the issues persist then report them. If the edit-warring resumes, the page will likely be full-protected for longer. Finally, verifiability is also not an option; especially in contentious situations, all facts need to be backed up by reliable sources, and the burden of demonstrating reliability is on the editor adding information. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Vanamonde (talk) ! Cudos to you! Well said, you're absolutely correct! The editors: Lizard  (talk), Adamgerber80 (talk), Blurp92 (talk) and  merlinVtwelve (talk) need to provide reliable sources backing up their claims because they are the instigators who are trying to add new information to this article stating that the missile "is not hypersonic" and "is not nuclear weapons capable." Not one single paper or reference has been given that proves their point, not even one reference. No article that they have submitted for review thus far has stated that the missile "is not nuclear capable"...none, not one. Please provide any if you can???103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose closing RfC This RfC is in shambles, and it's questionable whether it was even needed at all. I contacted an admin, User:Drmies, who said similar. As far as I can tell, the questions have been answered: 1) Are the sources in question reliable? No. 2) Can the missile carry nukes? No evidence. 3) Is the missile hypersonic? No evidence. There's no need to draw this out any longer. The ONLY editor arguing against these facts is a single disruptive IP hopper. Per WP:RFCEND, "RfC participants can agree to end it at any time." I propose we do just that, followed by semi-protection of the article. Lizard  (talk),  Lizard  (talk), 23:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree ... (Not sure of the procedural fine points as I have not previously taken part in an RfC.) The IP is very hard to track ... whether it is one user hopping, or several different editors. The consistent language would suggest the same person. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Noises made by humans when they're being indecisive I was hoping to run this longer, seeing as only one day has elapsed and 5 different users (3 of whom have a familiarity witht he topic due to editing it) have commented. I understand your point though, I was 99% sure of the outcome of the RfC. I would also wait to see if any action were to be taken against IP for possible SOCK, incivility, and edit warring/refusing to listen to consensus. SEMI won't work if IP gets an account and looks to continue the conflict. In regards to continuing this RfC, I don't think any thing is going to change from the sample above, so I guess we can close this, sometime tomorrow? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I support closing this RfC and Semi-protecting 3 articles(atleast for a short duration) which would be directly affected by this and have seen disruptions in the recent past. The 3 articles are Brahmos, Hsiung Feng III and Hsiung Feng IIE. SEMI in my opinion would work because if the IP does get an account that would be easily track-able and could be banned if it continues with disruptive behavior. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also consider Semi-Protecting a fourth article: Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction. While researching this discussion / article, I noticed some similar 'nuclear/hypersonic/long range' assertions being made there by an Anon / IP user, which I have edited for the time being. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel is necessary, but I think it's best we close it ASAP lest we subject ourselves to more tomfoolery. How about this: if you feel satisfied with the points that have been made, there's no need to respond to any more unreasonable or off-topic counterarguments. An RfC closer should take the weight of the arguments into account when closing. Don't waste your breath if it's not worth it. Lizard  (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the section on this on Drmies talk page, I will close this RfC by 1800 UTC Feb 4 2017, unless useful constructive discussion takes place. I'm not going to ask for a vote, because I'.m pretty confident that my inference from this RfC is correct, everyone sans the IP believe that the DefNews is not a source, that the missile can't be proved Supersonic, and that it will not be marked as nuclear capable. Am I right? Thanks to everyone for participating, sorry more people didn'come ;-( L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, is this what Wikipedia boils down to..a group of guys (buddys?) trying to push their point of view while ignoring several reference articles that CLEARLY states the missile is hypersonic and nuclear capable. This is giving Wikipedia a bad reputation for inaccurate information that come about from "Mob rule" despite the written evidence available proving the contrary. Y'all gonna just keep ignoring the written evidence and keep writing stuff that makes you feel happy rather than on real evidence which was already provided? Where's the real consensus? 103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to convert 1800 UTC to my own time, but I'll go ahead and agree anyway. Lizard  (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ~Noon Central time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No argument there, L3X1. We got all that we need; the majority of us have reached a consensus and know how to proceed from here. It's best to close this RfC before any more WP:PERSONALATTACKs from the IP hopper devolve this discussion any further. And while indefinite/long-term semi-protection isn't completely foolproof, it at least protects the article from IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts, minimizing the chances of an incident like this from happening again. And if said IP hopper creates an account and gets to an account level capable of editing semi-protected articles, an account is a fair bit easier to deal with than various IPs. Blurp92 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No consensus has been reached, please refrain from pov pushing! Thanks103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see any POV pushing in the comments by Blurp92. If you look closely at the word 'consensus' it means 'the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned', it does not mean 'unanimous' judgement. BTW, you are not helping your own cause by using continually changing IP addresses. Other editors have little choice but to assume you are doing it deliberately to appear as if more than one person is involved, i.e. engaging in a form of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Please look it up. merlinVtwelve (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Really? Coming from you that's very funny, You and I both can see very clearly that the IP addresses come from different editors from several different countries. Yeah, so I'll fly to Japan today and tommorrow I'll go to Australia and the day after I'll fly back to Alabama, USA, get real brah! You should speak for yourself before pointing fingers and making false accusations! It's not gonna help you change the article! The Christian Bible Matthew 7:1-3 saids "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged," but you probably haven't accepted Jesus Christ into your heart have you? I'd be happy to tell you about Jesus Christ if you want? You mean "Mob rule" rather than real consensus? Have you even attempted to read the various sources provided by the other editors. I just read the Indian Defence News article and it seems fine to me. I don't understand why you got to keep making noise with the articles stating that the missile is hypersonic and nuclear. The articles and references listed above clearly state that that the missile travels at hypersonic speeds and is "nuclear capable". The original article stated that the missile was hypersonic and nuclear capable and since you are trying to change and add new information to the article the onus of verifiability is now on you. If you disagree then send us a reference source that explicitly states the missle "cannot carry nuclear weapons" and travels below hypersonic speeds???103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This blatant denial, so a SOCK investigation will be opened soon. WP:DUCK. We're not strangers to the ways and means of sockpuppetry. As for mob rule, remember that personal attack and bad language are aginst Policy, so if there is any mob nearby, you appear to be a homie! As a Christian I can assure you that "Judge not lest ye be judged" mean to judge righteous judgement, not to abstain from judging. And as for judging, look at your own actions. You are judging "innocent", and accusing them of judging "guilty" L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * L3X1, I have a list of IP addresses and some evidence in a discussion with the concerned administrator. Please evaluate that if it is worthy from the point of this SPI. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per what you wrote on Vanamonde's page, the fact that the IPhopper is denying, and the general mysteriousness of situation, I think a SPI is good idea to pursue. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this merits a SPI investigation but the administrator thinks otherwise. I understand why it will be difficult with unregistered accounts but we have enough to go with. I would go ahead and open one anyways since we would then have it on records. Can you please take the lead on this since I have not really opened a SPI before. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a little confusion regarding what I said about an SPI, so I want to clear that up. SPIs are commonly used to use WP:CU and other tools to link registered accounts. Obviously, that is not relevant here. The "accounts" being discussed here are IP addresses, using a VPN. Therefore, the technical tools available during an SPI will not tell us anything. All that remains is behavioral evidence; and based on behavior, it is abundantly clear that there is only one IP user present. Therefore, an SPI will only serve to document the behavior of this IP, for future reference. It will achieve very little with respect to this dispute. IP, if you want to keep pretending you are many people, go ahead: but that will be considered disruptive editing, and the page will be semi-protected. I would strongly suggest you drop the pretense, and find reliable sources supporting your position; otherwise, drop the stick and move on. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining . I'll create a sandbox with all the evidence, unless you feel there is a better place to do that. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, while we're on the topic of Bible verses, doesn't the very same chapter the IP hopper brought up a verse from also have a verse about taking the log out of one's own eye before taking the speck out of someone else's eye? Matthew 7:5 is a verse about hypocrisy, ironically. Blurp92 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Matthew 5-7 are probably some of my favorite chapters in the NT. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this closure template As 1800 UTC has passed, I have closed the RfC. However, the "please don't modify" warning canbe ignored, If anybody has anything else to say. I couldn't find a template that closed it without having a PDM notice. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment / Question for other editors who may know the ropes better than I do. Now that the above discussion is closed, I would like to pursue this further up in the higher echelons of Wikipedia. I want to propose that any and ALL pages that involve Nuclear Weapons (and perhaps countries' possession thereof) should have a special template warning, similar to those found on WP:BLP articles (i.e. 'any unsourced or poorly sourced material to be  must be removed immediately  etc., etc.). My reasoning is that in today's highly volatile world, newspapers and journals are turning to Wikipedia and assuming that what is found here is reliable. Which can result in irresponsible and inflammatory tabloid headlines such as these. I looked through the page history for this article and the indications are (I can’t prove anything) are that The Sun and The Mirror were using Wikipedia as a source for those potentially catastrophic headlines. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia alone could start a war. However there is a risk of catastrophic damage to human lives, similar to WP:BLP articles. Perhaps if you could point me in the right direction, I will do the legwork. This discussion may indeed be useful as a case history / illustration of what can happen. So my question is this: where would I go on Wikipedia to put forward such a proposal? merlinVtwelve (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding pages related to nukes
I'm replying in a new section because I feel it's time to bury the above discussion. Closed discussions should be closed. Anyway, guidelines are relatively easy to change but I think policy is a little more difficult. See WP:PROPOSAL for the ins and outs of proposing new policy. Personally, I don't think it would go through. There's just not enough evidence to support its necessity. That's usually how the higher-ups operate; they may empathize with your concerns but ultimately they'll need convincing evidence that it's a problem. Lizard (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lizard the Wizard, that looks like a good place to start. I'll draft something up and give it a whirl. It's worth a shot, and perhaps may provide fuel for some interesting discussion. Although there may not be much evidence to support it, the stakes are potentially very high indeed. I will ponder carefully before proceeding. Cheers merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism continues
Despite the closed RFC all of the disruptive edits discussed in the RFC were found on the page by myself this morning, the user/users (at this level of long term dedication we might to be dealing with a nation state here) is also making themselves a nuisance over at Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert recent edit by 2600:8801:2e00:1c62:ecb5:fb81:41e3:18e0
Edit by User:2600:8801:2e00:1c62:ecb5:fb81:41e3:18e0 violates closed RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed. Whats the point of even having an RfC if the vandals can just keep copying and pasting? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ This page is no longer protected and my be edited directly. Please ensure that contested edits are discussed here on the talk page first. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)