Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:44, 20 August 2007 edit68.245.237.240 (talk) →Straw poll regarding whether the F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon← Previous edit Revision as of 23:53, 20 August 2007 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,724 edits CommentsNext edit →
Line 118: Line 118:
To those with open minds, please run the logs, look at the "positive comments" he has to others that are attempting to improve the project but cross his path. To those with open minds, please run the logs, look at the "positive comments" he has to others that are attempting to improve the project but cross his path.
To those that are in his club, I have no doubt I will be attacked, or more likely edited out. To all, please step back, look at the big picture, and do the right thing.] 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC) To those that are in his club, I have no doubt I will be attacked, or more likely edited out. To all, please step back, look at the big picture, and do the right thing.] 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:Your're not fooling anyone, bub. - ] 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:53, 20 August 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGermany
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / French / German
WikiProject iconThis 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 checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. 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.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft
WikiProject iconThis 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 checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Archives

Archive 1


Archived discussion

I've archived the previous discussions due to page size. Since it's the first archive I thought it would be helpful to explain. The archives are accessible via the box to the right. Mark83 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So now people can come in and add in what we had already discussed? There was absolutely no reason to archive it other than the fact that the discussion on comparable AC and the F-15 incident did not go your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.140.48 (talk • contribs)

As much as I love your conspiracy theory there was one reason I archived - the page said "This page is 99 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Given the amount of time I've spent explaining myself I'm beginning to regret bothering to be honest. Mark83 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

F-22 consensus

I am protesting in the strongest terms the dictating of what can and cannot be in this article by a user who does not even bother to join the community. the WP:AIR Page Content guidelines give a clear definition of what is considered "comparable", but this is continually ignored. The definition: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. It does not say "equal" or "identical", but "similar".

Similarities:

  1. SIngle-seater
  2. Twin-engine
  3. Supercruise capability
  4. Stealth features
  5. Mach 2+ max speeds
  6. Development began in the 1980s
  7. Entered production in the early-mid 2000s
  8. Primary role of Air SUperiority, with secondary air-to-ground capability
  9. Modern weapons
  10. Both the top of the line fighters for thier contries

Differences:

  1. Internal weapons for F-22
  2. F-22 has greater designed stealth abilites, tho these are untested in actual combat
  3. Higher supercruise speed for F-22
  4. Less emphasis on air-to-ground role for F-22, tho this may change with retirement of F-117.

In addition, most of the differences are of degree, not substance. I genuinely do not see how they cannot be considered "comparable" by WP:AIR's definition of the term.

Getting this page protected obviously did not help the matter, nor did simply waiting the user out. I DO NOT accept that a consensus was reached previously, just that the user was unable to edit the article, and the issue died down. How can we compromise? Put in "F-2"? It's either in or out - there is no apparent middle ground. I don't know if IPs are eligible for Arbitration or not, but that seems to be the only solution left here, as no one seems inclined to enforce 3RR on IPs. - BillCJ 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A consensus was reached, in fact. I believe the consensus was to keep F-22 as a similar aircraft. Simply, no one felt like warring the IP just yet... CyrilleDunant 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he certainly isn't interpreting the consensus that way! And do you mean "warring" or "warning" (just not sure in context). - BillCJ 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do mean warring. Warnings are for admins to give :) Users can only undo... CyrilleDunant 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Users can give warnings if needed. But it takes admins to block them. -Fnlayson 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wasn't sure of your meaning, and wanted to make sure. - BillCJ 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Will this work?

If having listed is a POV, and not having it listed is POV, then having it in, but struck out, must be NPOV! I don't see any other way to do it! - BillCJ 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've decided to be bold and unilaterally declare a moratorium on changes to the Similar aircraft list until there's some clear consensus. I know "voting is evil", yet straw polls are intended to ferret out consensus (as opposed to defining it). Rather than the disruptive debate over on which side the consensus may rest, I've set up a straw poll below to see if we can put an end to this contentious and disruptive (and just plain trivial) debate and concomitant edit war. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of stealth features does the Typhoon have? --Eurocopter tigre 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding whether the F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

  • The F-22 SHOULD NOT BE included in the list of similar aircraft.
    • Should not be included. The role of these two aircraft is fundamentally different, as is their performance. They are from different generations in the development of fighter aircraft (see my remarks, below). Sunray 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Should NOT Be included. This is not about similarities or differences, this is about bullying(see my remarks, below). 68.245.237.240 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep it civil, respectful, assuming of good faith, and to the point.


The debate on comparability of the Typhoon and F-22 suggests the need to define "comparable." Part of the difficulty in this debate is that there are exactly two definitions of the word:

1 : capable of or suitable for comparison
2 : SIMILAR, LIKE <fabrics of comparable quality> Merriam-Webster Online

It would seem that the intent of the section "Comparable aircraft" is to list aircraft that are similar. You wouldn't expect to see P-51 or T-33 in this section because they are too dissimilar. On the other hand, it seems obvious that the F-18 should be in the list because there are strong similarities between it and the Typhoon (both are strike fighters with STOL capabilities and similar performance). The F-22. on the other hand is a fifth generation air superiority fighter with stealth capabilities. These are fundamentally different roles. Consider what the article says about the comparison between the Typhoon and the F-22:

In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance".

I think that John Jumper is in a position to judge and he says that the Typhoon and the F-22 are very different. Sunray 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark agrees with you, i.e. not a 5th generation - however in terms of generation he made an excellent point on this talk page (now archived above):Mark83 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"I don’t say this out of any desire to disparage the Typhoon – it’s a superb airplane – but general usage deems it to be the most advanced 4th-generation fighter (in that small category of elite, top-of-the-art 4th-generation designs referred to as “Generation 4.5”). It is widely reported to be the most advanced aircraft extant, second only to the F-22, and possibly outperforming the latter in some areas. We ought to be able to just write a fine article on the Typhoon's own merits. What "generation" an aircraft is will never win a dogfight." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark83 (talk • contribs) 21:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Yes, they are each the most recent generation of their type. I am arguing that their roles are different. At almost three times the weight of the Typhoon, STOL capability would be inconceivable for the F-22. Likewise, stealth capability makes the F-22 a very different aircraft, IMO. Sunray 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, according to the specs, the MTOW for the Typhoon is 51,809 lb. I wasn't aware that the MTOW for the F-22 is 150,00 lb! In addition, I doubt either the Typhoon of Hornet qualify for the NATO definition of STOL - they may be able to use shorter fields than the average fighter, but they STOL aircraft to my knowledge. The Typhoon is desinged for more of a multi-role capability than the Raptor, but they both still perfom air-to-air and air-to ground missions. Some have argued that the missile fit of the Typhoon makes it even better in the BVR mode than the Raptor. Finally, the Typhoon does have some stealth features. Again, most of the differences here are of degree; the similarities far outweigh the real differences. - BillCJ 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a moment and look at the user changes log for the 2 individuals the edit war. The first editor is an "IP", new to the community and trying in good faith to add to the article. He is guilty of standing his ground when his edits are reverted. The second editor has been around for a while. He has the ability to create positive input and has some real expertise in the field. This second editor however has a long track record of:

    • condesending if not outright nasty comments when reverting the work of others.
    • actively conspiring with other editors and admins to have those he disagrees with blocked or banned, without first attempting to resolve issues in a civil manner.
    • assumes ownership of articles and repeatedly deletes edits by others that infringe on "his" domain.

To me, it is clear. To those with open minds, please run the logs, look at the "positive comments" he has to others that are attempting to improve the project but cross his path. To those that are in his club, I have no doubt I will be attacked, or more likely edited out. To all, please step back, look at the big picture, and do the right thing.68.245.237.240 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your're not fooling anyone, bub. - BillCJ 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: