Jump to content

Talk:Chengdu J-10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egyptian order

[edit]

Previously the article mentioned the confirmed Egyptian order of the J-10C; it was later removed for some reason, i added it back Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was removed again. A few days ago there was news that Egypt received the first batch. 136.142.159.18 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, editors seeking to add or modify information here need to source their edits to a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it's already confirmed on multiple sources, why it is always being removed in wikipedia? Can someone just update this article with this new confirmed piece information? 196.130.177.13 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. The responsibility of providing reliable sources is on the person seeking to insert the information. Without doing so, you've not provided "confirmed" anything. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i understand, but i think it's already verified and cited by multiple sources on web whether western outlets or chinese ones. I can name and send you many right now if you want to check it yourself, both in english, arabic, chinese and other languages
I can add it myself here on wikipedia but i'm not an expert on editing 😅 196.130.177.13 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these sources then - do they count as WP:RS - most "sources on the web" are not usable on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do not, and I suspect the IP is well aware of this as I've already explained to them that Army Recognition is a generally unreliable source. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This from Chatham House, probably counts as reliable, although it only says that the order is "reported", while this from TRADOC says unconfirmed reports. This report from Daily News Egypt, which appears to be a print newspaper, says that deliveries have started, but uses "aviation defence analyst Húrin on social media platform X" as a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Chatham House is a reliable source in most cases, but as you note getting the language correct so that the claim (in the article body or the infobox) is accurate and supported is important regardless of the source. For instance, a purchase order is not operation, confirmed or unconfirmed; the sources make no claim about "primary operator", etc. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, up to you
But i'm not a newby to Wikipedia, i see too many sourced citations here based only on "journals articles" like NYT,Indepedent and such stuff written by no experts about the matter, let alone "needs citation" things.. i don't know why y'all so adamant regarding this..
Anyway.. sooner or later y'all will see J-10CE with Egyptian markings rest assured.. just about time 2C0F:FC89:53:CDC6:1:0:42C0:3356 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That very statement gives away that you are entirely unfamiliar with the core content policies of Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And i have a name already, i'm not IP, just call me fellow human 😂 2C0F:FC89:53:CDC6:1:0:42C0:3356 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing, this list of wikipedia's "reliable sources" is based on what? Editors right?
Like i just checled NYT's credibility and history record of reports related to military intelligence in ChatGPT and the result is "not good", just to be polite
And it's condidered a reliable source.. and the more specialized "ArmyRecognition" is just considered "unreliable" for "copying" from other sources and conducting "marketing"
Hope you're aware of all of that 🙂
Won't dicuss it here anymore until we all see the J-10 with EAF markings
But i hope someone won't question the video of Official Egyptian MoD as "unreliable' 😂 102.186.38.212 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is our reliable source guideline. It covers situations like self-published sources, video sources, etc. ChatGPT is not a reliable source, and LLMs are not suitable for fact-checking here. Please spend even a modicum of time making yourself familiar with how our project works before presuming to lecture me on the application of our core pillars, thanks.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, appreciate it.. still sticking not to discuss it until you see the markings yourself
But still need more clarification about Wikipedia's process of verification itself and "who" conducts it actually, cuz the article you just gave only shows definitions and explainings but not the technique or process itself, let alone "jurisdiction"
Second thing, are you Wikipedia admin? 2C0F:FC89:41:99A1:1:0:D411:1295 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and btw,,whether you're a Wikipedia admin or not, i think Wikipedia needs just to expand this list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/
Because it doesn't include at all sources like "Bulgarian Military" ,"Military Watch Magazine" and "Defense Post" and all of these sources citing an order or acquisition of J-10CE by Egypt..
I don't know if this list is comprehensive or just giving example.. as a Wikipedia can you clarify to me more and try to report my demand of making more specialized credibility checking lists in every known major or interest?
That would help alot more than sticking to a generalized list that says "A" is credible "B" is not don't know based on what... appreciate your effort and thanks in advance! AW97 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These questions are answered on the source page, which is why I keep redirecting you back there. For instance, you ask if it it's comprehensive or just giving examples -- the guideline very clearly states The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.. It talks about the types of reliable sources, types of unreliable sources, gives links to a list of perennially reliable and unreliable sources based on prior discussions, and answers everything you'll need to know. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just meant this list you gave https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARMYRECOGNITION AW97 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing, won't reply anymore
Just seen on the list some sources being considered "noncredible" for being "user generated" or "user editable" or being an "open wiki".. isn't Wikipedia itself same thing?? AW97 (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is not self-citable as a source for precisely this reason, i.e. you cannot use another Wikipedia page or the existence of content elsewhere on a wiki, as a source for Wikipedia content. This is not the same thing as whether Wikipedia, taken at large, or when properly cited is credible or reliable -- it's the very existence of policies and guidelines like the aforementioned that make it such. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've removed the external links that were in violation of WP:ELNO. These are:

These links violate rule #1 of external links to avoid: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. If these are suitable for inclusion, please find a way to bring them in-line with the text, ensuring that they are appropriate and reliable first (some of these links clearly are not suitable as sources).⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chengdu_J-10&oldid=1276153920"