Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 8 March 2012

Military history: Aviation / Asian / British / European / Indian / South Asia B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

The photo on the Folland Gnat page, titled 'Folland Gnat T.1', is not a trainer (T.1), but a fighter, therefore 'F.1'. It is one of the Gnat fighters of the Finnish airforce.

WP:MILHIST Assessment

I think it might be helpful to make it more explicit in the intro that this is a British-designed/built aircraft. When I got to "Although it was never used as a fighter by the British Royal Air Force (RAF)...", I was quite thrown off. Not knowing it was a British plane, I could have expected just as much to see "Although never used by the USAF," or "never used by the Australian Air Force..." This sentence implies that it's a British plane, but without knowledge of who WEW Petter is, the reader is not made explicitly aware of the origins of the craft. LordAmeth 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit change made to clarify origin of the aircraft. Thanks for the reminder, I'm just slow to react. :} Bzuk 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Editing changes

Major reverts should first be discussed in an open forum. I invite your comments. FWIW Bzuk 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

After a considerable period, I have made some editorial changes to the format and not to the context or information of the article. IMHO, a bit of POV was actually diffused. FWIW Bzuk 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

No problem. I think it looks better now perhaps? Idleguy 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nirmal Jeet Singh Sekhon

i would like to see the name changed so that the "jit" is changed to "Jeet" as is correct and to maintain the proper pronunciation of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.66 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerb weight?

Not an aviation term surely?! Have left it for the time being. Some contradiction in the same section; 'High operating costs' followed by 'low cost'. I trained on the Gnat, had some innovative features not mentioned here, one was 'datum shift' which was chains and cables connected from the main landing gear to the tailplane PFCU to adjust the pitch trim when the gear retracted backwards (change in centre of gravity). Clever stuff, the Tornado does the same thing electronically nowadays. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive download

Unless I am sorely mistaken, there appears to be a massive copyviol involved in the latest edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Need to provide the diffs Bill, a bigger problem is the recent image overload, call me old fashioned but we are supposed to have a flight image in the infobox (which we had). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Format of designation

Although the RAF now normally uses the "F1" format for currently operated aircraft, the "F.1" format was a format used at the time the Gnat was operated - see for example the "Folland" page on the RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus - currently at .

In WP the format of the designation should match the format used at the time the aircraft was operated. Where multiple formats were used for the same variant WP should be consistent within each article.DexDor (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The designation change was made back in the 1950s–1960s. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WT:AIR before (I'll try to find the discussions and link to them). The UK MOD dropped the dot in their designations in the early 2000s. WPAIR consesnus is not use the dot (F1) in articles for current aircraft, or those which were in service when the dot was dropped. The dot (F.1) is used for aircraft that left service before the dot was dropped. So DexDor is correct in his edits. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I contend I'm from Missouri! FWiW, for now, I'll take the above as accurate but... Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If I can't find it in the next few days, I'll revert myself. In any case, feel free to bting it up at WTAIR, and we'll see if that consensus stands. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Ricki Ricardo, "Lucy (read Bill), you got some 'splainin' to do!" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to list the discussions I've found so far. More to come, I hope! - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 10#British military aircraft designations

Not sure we should be adding the dots back in as I am sure went round removing them all not long ago! think this needs to go to project before any more changes are made. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give where that was discussed? That's what I'm trying to find at the moment, as my recollection of the consensus seems to differ from yours and BillZ's! As I stated above, I've no problem going to the project again on this, as it does come up every now and then. - BilCat (talk)

(edit conflict) And to be clear, the dots were already there - BillZ removed them with in the past few days. - BilCat (talk)

Depends on where you go back, the article started sans dots in 2004, remained that way through 2008, but somewhere along the line about 2010, picked up the dots. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Milb was implying that the new user re-added the dots on his own - he did not. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first version of the page - it uses the dot. Your serve :) - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: "Gnat T.Mk1"- not really a "dot", more like a half-hearted effort. Love-30. Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Theres also "Gnat Mk.II" so he was using dots, even if it was inconsistent! Match point. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this topic need revisiting, considering the immense changes to the Supermarine Spitfire article and numerous others that "lost the dot." FWiW, this issue seems to have been precipitated by a relatively new fellow traveller who has already made other out-of-left-field edits (although there is nothing wrong with that!) Bzuk (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange things happen in GA/FA reviewed articles, not all of them in line with WPAIR consensus (one resason I don't participate in them). If removing the dots from the Spitfire article wasn't discussed at the project level, and it disagrees with project consensus, then it's wrong, and the dots should be re-added. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

...and nearly every other RAF type, Hawker Hurricane ad ad infinitum... you may have found yourself a new hobby (LOL). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus upholds using the dot in historical article, we can probably find a bot to do the updates, so that's no big deal. But again, it should have been discussed at the project before such drastic changes were made. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note my comment was because I saw a bit of dot adding removing at English Electric Lightning at the same time it was being discussed here and I thought I would try and move you across to aircraft project for a discussion. Hasn't worked! - Perhaps we should use sunday names and go for Trainer Mark 2 doesnt need any dots! MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Let's do that, in trying to go through the mishmash of this article archive, it was written by a succession of idjits, looking right in the mirror at this point, and it certainly cannot be used as an example of anything other than bad research ability. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

No argument there on the idjts! Anyway, I was waiting for the cool-headed admin to start the discussion at WTAIR. ;) - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here goes, not waiting for Cool Hand Luke, see here and here (not sure where the discussion should go?) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Updates

I have made a lot of changes to the article recently as it did not flow clearly and was missing a lot of important detail. I still need to add references for these changes but please bare with me I will add them shortly. Also note I made no attempt to do anything with the Indian operational history bit other than add an introduction - could probably do with a review. Thanks for your patience. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabre Slayer

The comment is related to the title it has been given and is a valid refutation. Just because the section name is "India" doesn't mean the article is only to present that country's views. The information is well sourced and is relevant to the title the Indian Airforce has claimed for the aircraft. Do not try to WP:CENSOR the refutations. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming ownership of the article. Do not confuse personal ownership to contents of article. WP articles and sections should contain data relevant so that section and are in fact made to this can be achieved. Thus Indian section should contain number and details of planes along with IAF reviews as a user. Individual views by anyone would fall under WP:UNDUE since individual views do not affect the aircraft. For example CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder does not contain any individual views.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret a flight test, done on duty in capacity of an airforce officer, as an individual view (you will either call it that person's view when it is not misleading or other wise that airforce's view). About the article content, that way you might not be able to put a neutral balance to the war sections of Pakistan Army article for instance, if I use your comment to say that Indian views or claims are not to be presented here since the article is not titled on their name. It doesn't work that way. It works by notability. The captured aircraft is a notable one now in a museum and so were the test flights and checks done on it since they are published in a reliable source. Now if an Indian comment is present on the topic claiming it to be a 'Sabre Slayer', a refutation (if present and verifiable) is due to keep it neutral, other wise it's an obvious case of POV or unless you want to remove the title 'Sabre Slayer' given by the Indians, it would also be WP:UNDUE since a refutation is present and not given. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been reworded to make it more neutral. The plane was referrred to as a "sabre slayer" by IAF pilots. A single opposing nation's pilot's opinion (and not a fact) quoted in a non-reliable source (not a flight magazine) by a third party and expressed in an unprofessional manner cannot be considered as the correct rebuttal. It is UNDUE & original research, or more correctly, a case of sour grapes. The versatility of Gnat as a dogfighter was recognised. The question of rebuttal of the existence of the nickname would arise if the gnat was not regarded so by some Indians or if too few Indians regarded it so and in which case it is UNDUE. In any case PAF issued figures of aircraft losses are present in the article and hence balance of POV has already been given heed to. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey, go slow, you've almost added every allegation there is on a citation. Read WP:NEWSORG. The source is RS, one of the oldest newspaper of Pakistan, the writer is renown, and the pilot who tested was a PAF officer. It is not a matter of Indian rebuttal. This article covers the topic from a global perspective. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer chiming in. The cited reference appears to lack subjectivity and smacks of "hometown" boosterism. I can't see a reason for using it at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many instances that a significant person's view is given in the article and this one in specific should be regarded as PAF's view. About subjectivity, I think the cited article explains the scenario pretty well even though it is quoting RT callings, but again it's a reliable source. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I buy that reliable sources are a prerequisite, but in this case, my BS meter was off the scale, I wouldn't even give this the benefit of the doubt. No stats, nothing but an opinion, that's not even close to being verifiable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

In that case you might need to review the publisher (jang.pk). Its a mainstream source. I'm afraid this article might need a tag like {{globalize|India|UK|Finland}}, The argument the editors are giving above, that only Indians can refute a nickname given by them to affect the global perspective of the aircraft is ridiculous. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument above is that a one-sided, opinionated commentary should not be accepted on face value. Is that what you meant? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)What I mean is, when such controversies are there, views of all parties should be presented. If the nickname 'Sabre Slayer' is being mentioned as attributed to the Indian pilots, the refutation from the other side should be given as well. Esp. when it's published in a mainstream RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To reply to TopGun, a news publication may be considered a reliable source for news reports and reporting facts but not for the op ed piece. The article here is a Defence Day feel-good report by the Air Comde. He recalls events of fifty years ago. His account of Sqn Ldr Saad is hearsay, the tone is anecdotal and what is expressed is Saad's opinion not a fact. It is not Saad who says so but Kaiser and in a non-serious article. The fact that Gnats shot down lots of Sabres for the IAF is the only issue. If the issue of the Gnat's unsuitability was discussed in a flight magazine in a professional way with details of performance, where other pilots can judge the veracity of the claims, it would have made sense to add it but worded NPOV. However, this is a single instance, with no real proof that the Gnat was not technologically capable. It is a source which is not reliable for use where the fact is disputed and it is disputed by more than one editor (including an uninvolved editor) as non-RS and UNDUE. If neutral third party references can be found stating that the Gnat is technologically not up to the Sabre, then I will be very happy to add it. Remember, if the Gnat was inferior, the IAF pilots who used it to shoot down superior aircraft get greater credit for superior tactics, superior piloting skills not to mention courage. AshLin (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you need to read WP:NEWSORG before giving comments on the reliability. It clearly states that opinions of people in the relevant field carry a significant view (ie. Kaiser Tufail, the writer of the cited article). And the article is not based on hearsay and rather a research on the topic. You are judging this on your own accord. Further more, I never added it as a statement that the Gnat was not upto the Sabre, rather as an attribution to the test pilot which has no inherent bias. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This kerfuffle is obviously going nowhere, the options for all parties are to ask for a RFC or following that, if there is still no consensus or resolution, seek authoritative review by an acknowledged, objective experte. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

It is not Tufail who is giving an opinion here but Saad. Saad's opinion is not backed by a reference or citation so it tantamounts to hearsay by Tufail respected though he may be. I'm not disputing the fact that Tufail said it or Saad said it or that the source is verifiable. I am saying that it is one man's unverified casual mention of another man's opinion casually given no one knows where or how and as such is neither reliable nor significant to be added to the article. You are free to take it to RFC or to ask for opinion from an acknowledged expert at WP MilHist or Aviation, as mentioned by User:Bzuk above. AshLin (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) First, stick to your views, you claimed it non-RS, non-serious and hearsay at the same time, so you should stand by that when you are replied to. Second, the article is a researched topic, that's why published on a mainstream media source. The fact checking has been properly done by the author and his reputability vouches for the view he is giving about Saad (the test pilot). Whether or not Saad is correct is a different debate, not applicable here since I attributed that view to Saad. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement appears to be an aside by Saad and doesn't go into sufficient detail as to why ge said it wasn't a "Sabre Slayer" - the comment is so short that it is not clear whether he is talking about inherent flying characteristics of the aircraft itself, the well publiced lack of reliability of key systems or some other factors - i.e tactics, pilot training, disagreeing with the Indian claims etc. Also note that brief evaluation flights on a patched together Gnat (with presumably no spares support from Hawker Siddeley or HAL) which had forced landed due to systems failure may not truly represent the performance/handling of the aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The systems failure is a claim only by the pilot who surrendered (and later his airforce I guess), but the undisputed fact that it was flown back by another pilot to Sargodha contradicts that. In any case your arguments stand very well for both sides of the given nickname. I don't think the editor above or the one citing the nick name has cited any technical details that would make it so and rather its popularity among the Indian pilots which is equivalent to the view I cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter why but the addition of Saad Hatmi's quote has been challenged so really needs a consensus on this talk page before it can be added again, please dont edit war on the article page, this doesnt stop TopGun making his case on this talk page or appeal to other forums, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Justification for my edits/revert

• The Pakdef.info source was tainted hence removed. It cannot be used whenever the matter is disputed.
• The opinion of Saad Haatmi has been challenged and needs consensus before adding. Please see last paragraph of the previous section.
• The reason for Sikand's landing is disputed by the Pakistanis. I have not insisted on the empty fuel excuse and have also not deleted the mention of the Starfighters but only brought out both sides neutrally. Please feel free to refer the issue to Disputed Noticeboard if you fee it is not neutral.

AshLin (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AshLin, not only you stomped the non controversial edit without explanation but also fail to adhere to WP:BRD. The sentence was per the source, there were no other claims than the pilot who got captured him self. This was also flown back after capture. Those claims are dubious and the only reliable claim should not be over attributed as such. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are always going to revert me over when you get reverted, it will count as gaming/baiting of the 1RR.. avoid doing that. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• B-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles