Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

F-16

At best this is a minor incident in the history of the aircraft and so wP:undue comes into play.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One dogfight in many, agree. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Again there is no evidence India shot down an f-16. Indian admits they lost a Mig-21. This article now contains a falsehood.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is disruptive, the page was rightly protected. While an upgraded MiG-21 bison could plausibly shoot down an early model F-16, it is uncertain this actually happened. Even if it did happen, it is an insignificant event. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not again, there is no evidence that India shot down an f-16, it is an unsubstantiated claim and has no place in this article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It is an unsubstantiated claim, and if it keeps on being added I will ask for page protection. Stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Its not an unsubstantiated claim. In the air exercices of 2005, US pilots were impressed with the performace of IAF's Mig-21 Bisons. In 2008 too, a senior USAF officer praised the IAF's Mig-21 Bisons. If bisons can impress USAF, there is no reason it cannot shoot down an aircraft produced by it. 8 pieces of clinching evidence that show how IAF’s Abhinandan shot down a Pakistani F-16 - The Print is a must read for you.

As far as Pak's denial is concerned, it lied too many times during the entire episode. Lets see the sequence of events:

• Pakistani jets intruded the Indian airspace on 27 Feb 2023. Abhinandan's aircraft fell. In its briefing of same day, Indian MEA stated that a Pakistani jet (without naming it) was shot down by IAF's Mig-21 Bison. On the same day Indian media reported that the Pakistani aircraft which fell was none other than F-16. Responding to these reports, Pakistan said that no F-16s were even used in the entire operation.(Lie No 1) In the same media briefing Pakistan claimed it has two Indian pilots in its custody.(Lie No 2)
• In the evening itself Pakistan changed statement and now said they have only one Indian pilot in its custody.(Lie No 2 exposed by Pakistan itself)
• On 28th Feb 2019, IAF debunked Pakistani claim of not using F-16s in the operation by showing parts of an AMRAAM missile and claimed that its Mig-21 indeed performed an F-16 kill before getting shot down.
• On 2nd April 2019, Pakistan admits using F-16s in the operation saying it retains the right to use "anything and everything" in its self-defence.(Pakistan itself exposing its Lie No 1)
• As per eye witnesses' accounts, as many as three parachutes were spotted on the day of clashes, all within Pakistani side.
• On 5 April 2019, it was reported in media that US has conducted a count of Pakistani F-16s and no F-16 was found to be missing.
• This lie was debunked by Pentagon which said no such count took place.
• On 8 April 2019, IAF shared radar images with media reiterating that its Mig-21 downed a Pak's F-16.

In and all, we can see that Pakistan lacks credibility here. They lied, later took u-turns and its all in public domain. The debris fell in Pakistan due to which they could do cover up.

We still can't say that its a confirmed kill but if you ask whose claims are backed by stronger evidences, thats India. --Yoonadue (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because it's not unlikely does not mean that it is not unsubstantiated. Sure Pakistan may have attempted to spread disinformation, but that doesn't mean we should just accept India's claims as fact. The fact that India has no wreckage to show makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate the claim unless Pakistan itself confirms it. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@ZLEA: Please check the wording that I added. I wasn't adding the incident as a fact but a claim, a claim which is substantial enough for inclusion here considering the evidences provided by India and Pakistan admitting its lies. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing substantial about it. It's just one of hundreds of unconfirmed kill claims attributed to the MiG-21. If it were some sort of exceptional claim, such as a first generation MiG-21 shooting down an F-16, then it might be substantial enough to be included here, but the Bison is a heavily upgraded variant of a third-generation MiG-21. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Excaty, this is wp:undue, as well as a wp:npov violation, what makes this claim special? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes (by the way) it is unsubstantiated as if it was substantiated non-Indian RS would have said an F-16 has been shot down. Indoa's claim has not been independently verified.12:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@ZLEA and Slatersteven: I can see both of you being too adamant over non- inclusion of Indian claim. I am aware of WP:CIVILITY, but I don't find your behaviour in-line with WP:NPOV. You are exaggerating things to suit your agenda. You say there are hundreds of unconfirmed kills attributed to Mig-21 which are not part of this page. Are you SURE? Tell me how many of those instances had opponents openly taking U-turns in public domain like Pakistanis did here? In how many cases, was the American media openly making false claims of US counting the aircraft of Pakistani inventory? In how many cases, did the claimant addressed media multiple times to reiterate its claim along with the evidence like radar images? Indian claims are strong and there have been no inconsistency in its claim since the very first day. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, its an unconfirmed claim that tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Repeating the same thing again and again is irrelevant. Yoonadue (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

OK,.let's try this, do any non indian RS say (in their words) says India shot down an F-16? Also read wp:undue, is this one claim really all that significant in the history of the aircraft? Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see the user above is trying to push their narrative across various articles I think everyone here will find that non-Indian RS and non-Pakistani RS's cast major doubts over Indian claims [1] considering India went into a propaganda overdrive to save face from the confirmed downing of their mig-21 any Indian source brought here as proof should be considered for comedic and propaganda value only there is zero evidence from the Indian side but plenty of proof that a mig-21 was shot down. Mrdabalina (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I have previously suggested creating an article that focuses solely on Indo-Pakistan aerial victory claims where it can be monitored closely, to steward these claims and counter-claims in aircraft type articles (F-104, Gnat, F-86 Sabre etc) is near impossible, very tedious and time consuming. Per UNDUE there should be little coverage in these articles with a link to the section in the new article. This has worked very well for Aircraft in fiction which was created for the same reason, to remove lengthy fancruft from articles, it also complies with summary style (WP:SUMMARY). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nay, nay and thirce nay. There is no way we should create a fork whose sole purpose is to allow various unsubstantiated claims. I suspect this might well violate wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am bowing out now, I have said enough, time for new voices to have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you have misunderstood, the claims would be reverted instantly if not referenced to a very reliable source. In these aircraft type articles incorrect claims are not spotted and dealt with for years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did, and this makes it worse, as why do we even need an article on their claims? Do we do this for anyone else? This seems to me to be a violation of wp:not, we are creating a special fork so propagandists can post claims, wp:undue is there for a reason, and one reason is so we do not clutter up articles with trivia. In fact (if anything) this is causing me to think we need to remove claims of kills unless genuinely notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We have Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II and probably more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yoonadue Over the past few years, I have been accused by editors from both sides of having either a pro-Pakistan or pro-India bias or agenda. In truth, I simply don’t care. My main interest is aviation, and some articles just happen to overlap with this specific conflict. As a show of good faith, I will ignore your blatant disregard for WP:AGF just this once and tell you what I told the others. Warring countries lie. They’ve been doing it since the first war ever fought. It can take years or even decades after a war ends before historians can piece together an accurate picture of what happened. It doesn’t matter that one country was caught lying, for all we know the other country could be embellishing their claims as well. Unless and until India’s claims are verified by a third-party or Pakistan themselves, they are no more worthy of inclusion than any of the other unverified kills by a MiG-21. And no, I will not give you any examples of other unverified claims as it is not worth my time to comb through hundreds of news articles just to prove that India’s claim is not worth inclusion in this article. It is on you to prove that it is worthy of inclusion over the hundreds of other claims, and so far you have not done that. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I am not asking for inclusion of an assertive statement like "Mig downed F-16" but rather in a claim manner like "India claimed to have downed an F-16 but Pakistan denied it." We have no conclusive evidence to confirm Indian or Pakistani claim but Pakistan's u-turns over usage of F-16 and the number of captured Indian pilots somewhat puts weight to Indian claim. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It does not put weight on India’s claim. It just shows that Pakistan has been engaging in the age-old tradition of spreading disinformation during a conflict. India’s claims are not more notable or even trustworthy because of this fact. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No Operational History - USSR/Russia

There's a single sentence listing for Mig-21s in the List of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 operators#Soviet Union, but other than that there seems to be next to nothing detailing the Mi-21's operational history in Soviet or Russian service. Seems like a significant omission. Is there a reason for this? 180.150.113.30 (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That section is about wartime use? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, Operational History is not (only) Combat History. Most Wiki pages about military AC include this even if there was no combat/wartime use, and do so rightly and importantly!

The SU was the largest user and developed the ac! Including and describing the different branches of the soviet military using the Mig-21 is imho mandatory.

When did which squadrons in which locations recieved which variant of the Mig-21? When were they retired? How many did they operate, in total and broken down to variants and also branches?

How was the accident rate?

Incidents of intercepting AC violating soviet airspace?

Incidents of soviet or warsaw pact Mig-21s straying into western airspace?

(I know both did happen)

Involvement in Afgahnistan war if it happened, and why not if it didn´t happen? Truedings (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Claimed Kill Numbers

The article makes heavy use of claimed kill numbers without seeming to verify or put them in context. Claimed shootdowns historically wildly overestimate the number of aircraft downed and should be put into context. 153.90.167.151 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Finding verified kill numbers is all but impossible as verifying kill numbers is usually very low on a warring military's list of priorities. If you have a reliable source that calls into question any of the claimed kill numbers, then we may be able to add the relevant information to the article. A general "but claimed kill numbers are often inflated" from a source that has nothing to do with any of the specific claimed kills in this article would likely be considered WP:SYNTH. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)