Talk:Chengdu J-36

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Add a FB-22 link

To show where the design originates. Hcobb (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done; please be more specific - OpalYosutebito (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fake news 24.80.141.155 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A vague resemblance between two aircraft is not evidence of a connection between the two. There are only so many practical ways one can build a stealth aircraft with our current technology, so they are all bound to take one of several general appearances. Best way to describe this is probably convergent evolution in aviation. It's why so many 5th generation fighters end up looking like a copy of the F-22, despite most having no connection whatsoever. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've heard said, 'design teams of similar competence given similiar requirements will produce similar results'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Are any photos/screenshots from the recent alleged public appearance of the J-36 compatible with Wikipedia licensing? Jess_Riedel (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Someone did upload a still from the widely-circulated video early on, but it was deleted for WP:COPYVIO. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarly I'd argue that a WP:NFCC-compliant image would be appropriate given the difficulty of getting a free image for likely quite some time, but I remember the massive debate over that when the Chengdu J-20 was new and it was seriously proposed that a Wikipedian's hand-drawn sketch be used in the article(!). So best to wait, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to "sixth-generation fighter"

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- we do not speculate on the future. At the present time, there is no verifiable information about the J-36's capabilities that can be cited to a reliable source that would allow us to call it in wikivoice a "sixth generation fighter." Further, some of the alleged sources simply don't support the claims being made. For instance, the SCMP source (an outlet that requires caution when dealing with potential bias issues relating to the CCP) does not state directly it is a sixth generation fighter, it says it's "widely believed to be a sixth-generation model" without attribution or methodology explaining who believes this, or whether such beliefs are well-founded. The [Asia Times source does not support this at all, in fact it actively says the opposite. It says While China’s new-generation stealth combat aircraft may have some characteristics of sixth-generation fighters, not enough is known about their capabilities to warrant that designation. The Bulgarian Military source does not ever use the phrase "sixth-generation fighter" at all. The ASPI Strategist article also says the exact opposite: While China’s new-generation stealth combat aircraft may have some characteristics of sixth-generation fighters, not enough is known about their capabilities to warrant that designation. The Eurasian Times link is an opinion piece from questionably reliable Indian sources that simply repeats China's assertions, and then closes by saying Is it just showmanship, or have real sixth-generation technologies been imbibed in this aircraft yet to be seen?. Finally, the Sunday Guardian Live link is also an opinion piece from questionably reliable Indian sources, repeating China's assertions, and notably falsely claiming that the F-35 is also "sixth-generation", which is just nonsense.

At this point, we're clearly crossing past "good-faith mistakes" and into deceptive and malicious source misrepresentation. So just an open warning to those who have been misrepresenting sources -- we typically indefinitely block editors for this sort of behavior, it's extremely disruptive and not tolerated. The next time you do this, I'm bringing you straight to AN/I and seeking sanctions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the misrepresented sources; the ones that are left are questionable, and I've tagged them as dubious. Pending a discussion here, ~~I think we should remove the entire sentence from the lede~~; it is both a violation of WP:LEDE (because the information is not contained in the body of the article) and a fringe position being given undue weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it out of the lede instead, into the body, and removed the fringe claims instead.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "generations" thing is piffle anyway (as I recall, the whole "fifth generation" it was originally coined by Lockheed Martin to promote the F-35, and spun out wildly from there (even "second generation fighters" are spoken of now!) and seems to be applied to all combat aircraft in some form...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a definition of a "sixth-generation" fighter, there are no guidelines, standards or requirements that a fighter must meet. Even if there is a source that calls this fighter 6th generation, this source is not reliable. Some sources try to create a sensation, but are based only on guesswork and speculation. We will probably have to wait at least a few months for reliable sources based on facts and not speculation. 77.222.224.161 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In the meantime, I find it interesting that Chengdu's new aircraft had an article created immediately, while the apparent Shenyang type "unveiled" on the same day has yet to receive one! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]