Talk:Bangladesh Air Force

Aircraft inventory table

Please do NOT add content that is outdated or is promotional in fashion (See WP:sourcing help). If you are unsure how to insert entries into the table - then send a request here on the talk page, and an experienced editor will help you. You guys have to stop this back & forward with flags, non-notable items & numbers. This is an Encyclopedia, not a fan based website for newsy items WP:NOTNEWS. Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please Don't use faulty "World Airforces 2020" as a reference.

They don't have latest information about our airforce. Please don't use their information about our current inventory. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nafis Fuad Ayon: -You saying "They don't have latest information about our airforce" about WAF 2020 is not a valid reason. to exclude them as a reliable source. -FOX 52 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

All content must be properly sourced to Reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards - you cannot use claimed personal knowledge to overrule reliable sources. In addition, you cannot just subtract reported losses from previous inventories, as this doesn't necessarily take account of attrition replacement aircraft or aircraft that have been taken out of storage and brought back to use.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I already send mail to Flight Global. They confirmed that "Order of 8 Su-30 of Bangladesh Air Force will be removed from "World Airforce 2021" list. This is their response to my mail, "Please note that the information used in the 2020 directory is now one year old. The previously included Su-30 order has already been deleted by our data provider". Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nafis Fuad Ayon: "They confirmed that "Order of 8 Su-30 of Bangladesh Air Force will be removed from "World Airforce 2021"??? again your word alone is NOT a reliable source Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources for help - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How can'World Air Forces 2020'claim that our air force still uses FT'6 air craft which was phased out way before 2020.And it is confirmed by BAF's official website. Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Its a case of phased out (in storage but not out of inventory) - FOX 52 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, not in storage but in museum Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT the only thing i see in that source is a picture of FT-6, no data, no written text. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As per my email and information form SIPRI,Flight Global removed Bangladesh as a operator of Su-30 from their "World Air Forces 2021" list.So I am right about the information that Bangladesh Air Force is not a future user of Su-30. Please don't add Su-30 again.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The latest Flight World Air Forces directory is out now: - Hoyle, Craig (2020). "World Air Forces 2021". Flight International. Retrieved 2 December 2020. - and indicates no Su 30s (of any version) operated or on order - can this agreed now?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Supporters of Su-30 are spreading rumor. I challenge information related to 8/12 Su-30 is wrong.

Bangladesh Air Force will order 16 MRCA soon. In January 2020, the minister responsible for defence affairs in the parliament, Mr. Anisul Huq told the parliament that process is going on to procure 16 multirole combat aircraft. Tender for eight to twelve Su-30 already cancelled. Flight Global confirmed that they will remove Su-30 from the list in next update. All other references are obsolete, most of the articles are published in 2018. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol,looks like none is listening to you.Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Miad I Mahbub BD: I win. "Truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it". Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

lol Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Selex Falco EVO UAV.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Current inventory edit warring

@FOX 52 and Nafis Fuad Ayon: Stop edit warring. You both know better. It is disruptive even if you are right, and each of you is wrong on some points. For example:

• With respect to the MiG-29, Wikipedia may not state "6 Mig-29B and 2 Mig-29UB" because the two cited sources don't support that. The tender document supports 3 MiG-29B and 1 MiG-29UB, but an encyclopedia should be summarizing secondary sources, not using primary sources to support excessive detail that secondary sources don't delve into.
• The Su-30 should no longer be listed. Neither aerotime.aero nor 21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com is a reliable source, and World Air Forces, the one reliable source that did support the order, has, after many years, dropped it from their 2021 edition.[1] We should be using the latest information from the highest quality sources.

Explain here, point by point, what changes you think should be made, and why. I shouldn't have to template regulars, but I've left reminders on your talk pages about how you should try to resolve this. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "6 Mig-29B and 2 Mig-29UB" because currently I don't have enough reference for this in internet. But my information is correct. I hope FOX 52 will stop copy past his obsolete table data from his notepad. User:WorldbruceNafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nafis Fuad Ayon Regarding the PT-6 trainer previous sourcing was this video, so thats a little unsure on there current usage, - The C-130J variant "Hercules C5" has no source to that claim. - The L-410 Turbolet used as a "Used as transport trainer" is nor sourced either. Also is not necessary to attach notes like "Two seat trainer version of F-7 fighter" for the FT-7 jet, thats why we have wikilinks to allow the reader to get a more in-depth look on that specific aircraft. - Apologies all around for not being able to put an edit summary, but the rolls back feature didn't provide one- FOX 52 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Inventory tables

Please do not add images to the tables per WP:IMAGEMOS. as well as flag icons per: WP:MOSFLAG - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@অগ্নিশিখা: why are you adding another column to the table? - Why are you removing images already in place- FOX 52 (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

How to clean up extensive sock puppetry since 3 May

@FOX 52 and Mehedi099: It should come as no surprise that অগ্নিশিখা is a sockpuppet of Dibosh Chakma. They have been blocked indefinitely. Of their 27 article space edits outside of List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army and Bangladesh Air Force, all have been reverted except 4-5 which were actually helpful.

I had begun the process of thoroughly reverting their edits here, a process that usually takes several hours and involves reverting to a pre-sockpuppet version, then re-implementing line by line any changes made by editors such as yourselves not related to the sockpuppetry, but I was immediately reverted by Mehedi099.

Do you both believe that no cleanup of the sock's edits here is necessary, or do you want to perform it in a different manner? I'm willing to do the tedious cleanup work, but only if you will support the effort by not editing the article until the cleanup is complete. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well my personal opinion is he did give some good information about the equipments used, by Bangladesh army.So my request will be to keep the info which have accurate prof such as picture or citations.But update some information.Like BMTF doesn't make bullet proof vests or other soldiers gear.they are produced in BOF.Other info is quite accurate.And I think The Artillery regiments reference should be checked.If the reference is repayable we can keep them Mehedi099 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If the edits are legit, then just keep'em - FOX 52 ^talk! 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@FOX 52: As I explained above, where অগ্নিশিখা's edits on other pages were clearly helpful (in one case they added a missing "=" sign, for example), I retained them, but 80-90% of their edits elsewhere were unhelpful. They routinely added unsourced information, interpreted primary sources, and misrepresented (or downright lied about) what secondary sources say. WP:BLOCKEVASION says that "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". With larger numbers of complex and low quality edits, it isn't worth the trouble to sort the rare wheat from the overwhelming chaff. This is the third time this year that Dibosh Chakma has been caught evading their block. If each time they're able to get some of their bad or borderline edits to stick, they'll just keep creating socks.

If you've examined their contributions here and are comfortable saying that everything that hasn't already been reverted is legit, then fine, there's nothing more to do. If not, I'm willing to do the cleanup. One of Wikipedia's principles is to minimize disruption when reverting sockpuppet edits. I acknowledge that the way I plan to do the cleanup, with multiple edits over a several hour period, will cause some disruption, but it will be more transparent - clearer about why each change is being made and who should be credited for it - and less disruptive overall, than spreading the cleanup out in many even smaller edits over a period of days or more. Mehedi099 wrote on my talk page "do as you feel", with certain specific requests. If you're onboard, then I'll proceed, if not, I'll leave it to you to sort out. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Air Force in Gulf War

No source was cited for the lead's "the Air Force has been involved in ... supporting international efforts including the Coalition of the Gulf War ..." or the infobox's listing of the Gulf War as one of the Air Force's battles/engagements. So I've removed the Gulf War for now.

Bangladesh contributed a small force to defend Saudi Arabia in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, but sources don't mention the Air Force or airmen, only ground troops, mainly support units.

Was the Air Force was involved in the Gulf War? If so, how? Please add it back if you can provide a citation to a reliable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Unsourced material

This edit is completely unsourced, for starters. Elizium23 (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This page is now fully protected

I have fully protected this article for a period of 12 hours for the reasons described here [2]. Upon expiration of this protection, and prior to resuming editing, editors are kindly requested to review and be carefully attentive to our WP:3RR policy. Thank you to all involved for your passion in improving our coverage of Bangladesh-related subjects. Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Change the name of Air Chief Masihuzzaman Serniabat to Shaikh Abdul Hannan. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FOX 52 is rollbacking other's edits without any proper logic.

User:FOX 52 is rollbacking other's edits without any proper logic. He is removing other's edits on "Aircraft and equipment" table section with his personal opinion. Even other edits does not violate any of Wikipedia's rules. He likes to copy past table information from his notepad and removed any new information that added by other users even the information has proper references. List my of edits he is removing again and again: (1) I have added sequence to the table that increase redability. My sequence is more capable aircraft top and less capable aircraft button, example: MiG-29 top and F-7 button; More important type top and less important type button, example: Jet trainers top and basic trainers button. This will surely increase redability and bring aircraft of each types close to one another. Worth to mention that FOX 52 is not following any kinds sequence. My sequence is not against any Wikipedia rule. It has actually improved the table. (2)Removing Nanchang PT-6 from table even I have added reference for it. It is currently the only basic trainer of Bangladesh Air Force. (3)Removing variant of Mig-29 even I have added reference for it. (4) Removing sentence "trainer variant of F-7" for FT-7 trainer with "license variant of the MiG-21" but it already mentioned for F-7 fighter. It is better to mention FT-7 as "trainer variant of F-7" to remove confusion as FT-7 on trainer aircraft section. (5)FOX 52 likes to use reference only from "Flight Global" most of the times and remove any other latest information from other sources. Worth to mention that Flight Global updates their list once in a year. (6)Calling Aero L-39 as a "primary trainer" when it is a well known jet trainer. So, I hope administrators will compare both versions of the table and take decision which version should remains. FOX 52 even threaten me block from Wikipedia even I have no desire to join any edit war. But actually he is the man who created edit war here. I still believe Wikipedia has equal rights for every logical users. Please help: User:Chetsford, User:আফতাবুজ্জামান User:Worldbruce, User:Nigel Ish. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nafis Fuad Ayon - please report cases of edit warring to WP:3RRN. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nafis Fuad Ayon:

• (1) Tables, as a form of list, must be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical. The criteria for any other form of organization must be equally clear and consistent. Organizing by most capable/important to least capable/important is highly subjective, so not at all clear, and thus against Wikipedia's guidelines. It would be inconsistent with other aircraft tables, would be a nightmare to implement and maintain, and I don't see any way in which it would improve readability. I recommend organizing each section alphabetically by aircraft, or in the same way as any reliable secondary source that lists substantially all of the Bangladesh Air Force's aircraft. If FOX 52 has another way to organize them, they are welcome to explain their system.
• (2) 30+ PT-6 training aircraft are listed in the BAF's equipment by International Institute for Strategic Studies (2021). "Chapter Six: Asia". The Military Balance. 120 (1): 244. doi:10.1080/04597222.2021.1868795. So there would have to be a very good reason to exclude them from Wikipedia's tables.
• (3) When discussing disagreements, it would be helpful if you provided diffs. Walls of text are also hard to read. Are you talking about this edit? You added a dead link to a primary source that talks about 4 of the 8 MiG-29 aircraft (while at the same time fiddling with flags, the dates of an existing reference, and whitespace). Are you really surprised it was reverted? I have no strong opinion on how much detail the article should have about variants. Of the three most reliable secondary sources, World Air Forces says just "MiG-29", The Military Balance says "MiG-29/MiG-29UB", and SIPRI says "6 MiG-29S, 2 MiG-29UB". With some work you could probably find an archive of the source you used and another source that identifies the variants of the other 4 MiG-29 aircraft.
• (4) Notes sections are frequently abused to include in a table information that doesn't belong there. Notes are appropriate for additional information the source provides, or to clarify how the row corresponds to the source(s). None of the sources contain additional information about the FT-7, the table already lists it as a variant of the F-7, and the row is in the trainer aircraft section, so I don't think any note is necessary or helpful there. On the other hand, in the combat aircraft section all the sources call the aircraft an F-7, but Wikipedia is calling it a J-7, so that needs an explanatory note.
• (5) FlightGlobal is probably the single best source available, so it makes sense to use it extensively. Other high-quality sources are The Military Balance and SIPRI. Each is updated annually. There's very little reason for anyone to touch the aircraft and equipment section of this article more than three times a year. Only occasionally are there timely reports in other reliable sources, such as Jane's or mainstream news outlets.
• (6) A trainer can be both a primary trainer and a jet trainer. The real world type of every aircraft on this list is the same today as the day it was first added to this list. If experienced editors are edit warring over how Wikipedia should describe those types, that would quality for the list of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. For crying out loud, discuss the subject on the talk page (in a thread of its own), reach a consensus, and enforce it.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thank you for that - you pretty much explained my sentiments exactly, unfortunately edit summaries can't always come across in the same manner- FOX 52 ^talk! 17:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bangladesh Aviator badge.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• বাংলাদেশ বিমান বাহিনীর প্রতীক.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Grob G120TP - Serial 1188 - Bangladesh Air Force - VGHS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)