Open main menu


Needle Exchange Programme:Talk

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Minphie on 06:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC).

The White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TheRedPenOfDoom on 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Vashti on 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Delhi state assembly elections, 2013

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rushikesh.tilak on 12:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

Hinduism and other religions

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Justicejayant on 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Narendra Modi

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 on 09:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC).

Iggy Pintado

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by on 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC).

Shaolin Wahnam_Institute

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shorinjikempo on 11:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

Marie Curie

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Tokidokix on 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Keeby101 on 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC).

1948 Palestine war

  – New discussion.
Filed by Ykantor on 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?

There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement. I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).

He does not agree. He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. As of today, I reminded him in his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Summary of dispute by pluto2012

To Steven : Ykantor is a problematic editor who is involved in many conflicts and nobody wants to lose time with him any more. All this is a basic NPOV issue. Ykantor claims the right to edit only for what he calls "one side" and not to comply with WP:NPOV.

The topic he opens here was already discussed in length on the article about the 1947-48 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. External contributors who read and commented were against him.

See here the way he answered to Aua

He now has opened the same topic on the 1948 Palestine War article (which covers the same period). I answered him that it had already been discussed but he refuses the result. So he brought the topic on the help desk and there he was not followed again. So he rejected the avdices and come here.

Look at also at this dispute he had with Nishidani (and to which I had added myself.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I believe that it was indeed the arabs who started the war, as they were against the creation of Israel, and even today. OccultZone (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Pluto2012:, are you able to make some opening comments so we can get started? (Other volunteers, please close this thread in 24hrs if there is no further response). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Reading user:pluto2012 comments, he is doing his best to avoid the issue, while blaming me personally and trying to complicate the issue which is limited and simple: to write 1 concise and supported sentence which summarize his view. Unfortunately, I can not write it, because in my opinion his view is mistaken.
  • This is not a content dispute. My view is well supported and concise. The question is whether he can write his view. Ykantor (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The content is debated on the talk page of 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.
The policies managing this issue as well as your unappropriate behaviour are discussed on your talk page, on different article talk pages, on this talk page and no later than today here again.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions to the parties


I'm so sorry that this case hasn't been attended to by a volunteer for the past fortnight. This case turns on the interpretation of the "NPOV" policy. To kick off, how would parties respond to the following. PLEASE, these questions are important - they give me material to work on when considering how to resolve this dispute. These questions MUST be answered in full - they are not designed as simple "yes" or "no" questions:

1) If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter, what effect would this have on the dispute?

2) Considering that NPOV doesn't mention editors' personal opinions regarding proposed entries anywhere, how should this dispute be reconciled with NPOV?

3) How do the parties define the word "balance", as mentioned in NPOV, considering the aims of wikipedia, and the provisions of NPOV?

4) If it were possible, would parties agree to merely stating "Some people are of the opinion that the Arabs started the war", rather than stating outright "The war was started by the Arabs"? If so, does this - in the honest opinion of the parties and coonsidering the aims and principles of this project and the NPOV policy - meet the requirements of NPOV?

Addendum to questions I've gone back through Wikipedia history, to find anything else on the subject that may be of use. I've found an old Arbitration case from some 5 years ago that decided on user conduct on Arab-Israel articles IN GENERAL, without naming any specific article. By virtue of motion to amend the case adopted unanimously 1 year ago, the following finding of fact is relevant to this dispute: "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.". By my interpretation, this case falls under the "Arab-Israeli Conflict related" heading. As a result, I want to add a question to the list of questions:

5) Considering that arbitration committee determinations are considered as binding precedent, what effect does the quoted determination have on this dispute, and, applying the aforesaid provision, how can this dispute be resolved, without incurring discretionary sanctions per the determination?

I would like your answers ASAP, though by the end of next week at the latest. --The Historian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. @1 If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter than I will accept it. I guess that Pluto would accept it as well.
  2. @2 I have received a good help desk advice, to which I fully agree:" It is not your responsibility to make a statement with which you do not agree, but it is your joint responsibility (you and the other person) to make sure that all significant positions taken in reliable published sources are mentioned". However, as it seems now, Pluto's opinion is mainly supported by 1 source, which has yet to be checked for its significance. He states other sources as well, but those are my sources too. This does not make sense, so either he or myself does not understand those sources. Once those are verified, it might set the dispute solution.

#@3 The Wikipedia definition of balance is excellent: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This is the reason that I proposed to write 2 sentences, one by me and the other one by Pluto. I am not sure if I fully replied, since the question is not so clear for me.

#@4 The question is not clear. It could be mentioned everywhere, but probably, it will not be interesting for other people. Ykantor (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased the question. I've also put a strikethough through User:Ykantor's answer, since the question has been rephrased and, in all fairness to all parties, I would like User:Ykantor to answer the same question that User:Pluto2012 has to answer. The original answer is also redundant because the question has essentially changed, and the answer provided is no longer relevant. I am NOT discounting opinions just by inserting a strikethough in place of the original answer.

As for question 3, Ykantor, the question is asking how would you yourself define the term "balance". I don't want a regurgitation of the Wiki policy - I can find that myself. You are welcome, however, to use that as your starting point, to be built on. Your answer to question 3 will be replaced by a strikethrough, so you can replace it.

Finally, in question 1, please don't presume answers for other parties - for the sake of fairness, I don't want parties to try and say "I think this party would say X", or anything of the sort. That part of your answer to question 1 will also be replaced by a strikethrough. So, for the questions (or parts thereof), please remove or rewrite the bits that are covered by a strikethrough. I hope I've provided enough clarity. --The Historian (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. @1 I have read the question few times, and I could not understand what for I have to reply for what effect would this have on the dispute? rather than what effect would this have on your opinion. It seems that eventually I understood the wrong meaning. Sorry.
  2. @3 i AM SORRY, BUT i CAN NOT FIND A BETTER DEFINITION THAN Wikipedia's definition. Anyway, I will try: Wikipedia should be balanced i.e All wp:rs opinions should be represented, in proportion to the significance of the RS. I hope that this is an acceptable reply.
  3. @4 Yes, of course, for both questions. Moreover, the helpdesk excellent advice clearly said so. The assumption is that both views are well supported.
  • I am sorry if my reply is not comprehensive. If so, please let me know, and I will try to re-write it. Ykantor (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The sentence is not considered authoritative by every source and that is the reason why there is problem with it. If every reliable source would have the same analysis, there would be no problem, of course.

2) As you say, our personal opinions are not assumed to prevent us to complying with NPOV. It is understandable that an Israeli editor doesn't fell at ease with an article about evolution (and vice versa), but it doesn't offer them the opportunonity not to comply with WP:NPOV.

3) Generally speaking, "balancing" just consists in stating that A thinks A* and B thinks B* (at the condition that both A and B are reliable source of equivalent notoriaty on the matter). The due weight of each point of view must also be taken into consideration and may justificaiton the rejection of point A or point B. Note that in the current case, it is a more complex situation. The fact to know who started the '48 war is a very complex matter that cannot be solved in 2 lines and that would certainly deserve several paragraphs. Adding these paragraphs in the article to talk about this would certainly unbalance the global article. I mean that the controversy about the fact to know who would have started the '48 war is unrelelvant and undue weight. That is what was explained in the talk page of the article and supported by all editors who commented.

4) You talk about "parties" as if it was Ykantor vs Pluto2012. There is no reason to start again and again a discussion that reached a conclusion because it is not the conclusion that Ykantor wants. The matter was discussed here and a conclusion achieved. It was endorsed (before) by Nishidani and during the discussion by Visite fortuitement prolongée and LuA. Ykantor opened a DRN. Then he opened the discussion again on another article : 1948 Palestine war where I refered to the former discussion. Now, he comes here and all that was said and written should be forgotten to get some sort of weak consensus ? What about his WP:POINT and what about all that was discussed and endorsed by different contributors ?
To answer to Historian's question : I am not a representative of all parties who gave their mind and cannot decide for them and what you suggest is of course not acceptable for the reason that was debated on the talk page and lead to a consensus.
I confirm to you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA. Ykantor was already warned of this here and also here again whereas he archived some of these warnings and removed them from his talk page.

5) I don't know (but don't think) that this dispute is covered by WP:ARBPIA but it The dispute is covered by Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT and it could be brought in front of the ArbCom to ask for discretionnary sanctions to solve the issue. Ykantor has launched at least 4 DRN and he is in "so-called" disputes"in different articles with different editors. He never insulted anybody but he refuses to comply with advices that are given to him and always bring the same matters at different places. Several editors already complained about the fact they don't have time for such a game.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

sources : "he who asserts must prove"

Right. The point of those questions was to get parties thinking, and to see if they agree on anything. Now, there is a principle that states that "he who asserts must prove", so I want Ykantor to provide at minimum five valid sources that support the idea that the disputed sentence SHOULD go into the article, and, conversely, Pluto2012 should provide a minimum of five valid sources that support the idea that the sentence should NOT go into the article. Parties need to provide detail on the specific parts of the sources that support their assertions --The Historian (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • the sentence is:"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
  • The supporting sources:
  1. book|author1=Edward Alexander|author2=Paul Bogdanor|title=The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders|url= August 2013|date=31 December 2011|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-0933-7|pages=82, 107 | quote="p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35); p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948."}}</ref>
    1. The same Jamal Husseini quote, appears in citing: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19. -----------------------------------------
  2. book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url= July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|
    1. p. 79 ,"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated" , "during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive." ,
    2. p. 98, "In January 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham assessed that “official [Palestinian] Arab policy is to stand on the defensive until aggression is ordered by the national leadership. That widespread assaults on Jews continue and are indeed increasing illustrates the comparatively feeble authority of most of [the National] Committees and of the AHC. . .
    3. p. 98, "armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods.
    4. p. 101. "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs" ,The Arabs "planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads" , "The first organized Arab urban attack was launched against the Jewish Hatikva Quarter, on the eastern edge of Tel Aviv" ,
    5. p. 117 , "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense"
    6. Benny Morris, refugees revisited, "On 8 January, Ben-Gurion said that so far, the Arab countryside, despite efforts to incite it, had remained largely quiescent. It was in the Yishuv’s interest that the countryside remain quiet, and this depended in large measure on the Yishuv’s own actions. ‘We [must avoid] mistakes which would make it easier for the Mufti’ to stir up the villages, he said. Regarding the countryside, the Haganah’s policy throughout February and March was ‘not to extend the fire to areas where we have not yet been attacked’ while at the same time vigorously attacking known bases of attacks on Jews and, in various areas, Arab traffic.75 This policy also applied to the Negev. The JNF’s YosefWeitz, the chairman of the Negev Committee (the Yishuv’s regional supervisory body), put it this way: ‘As to the Arabs, a policy has been determined: We extend our hand to peace. Every beduin who wants peace, will be satisfied. But if anyone dares to act contrariwise – his end will be bitter.’76 A few weeks earlier, on 12 February, the commander of the Negev Brigade, Nahum Sarig, instructed his officers:
      1. Our job is to appear before the Arabs as a ruling force which functions forcefully but with justice and fairness.
      2. We must encourage the Arabs to carry on life as usual.
      3. We must avoid harm to women and children.
      4. We must avoid harm to friendly Arabs."--------------------------
  3. book|author=Yoav Gelber|title=Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem|url= July 2013|date=1 January 2006|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-84519-075-0|pages=3| quote="the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians’ campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Only in the wake of their military defeat did the Arabs make UN resolutions a cornerstone of their case and demand their strict fulfillment. Any study describing solely Palestinian suffering is one-sided and incomplete without properly weighing this plain truth: As victims of war, the Palestinians’ own conduct gives adequate cause to deny them the adjective “innocent”. Truly, they have paid a heavy price in this and ever since. They have been victims. But to a large extent they are the victims of their own follies and pugnacity, as well as the incompetence of their Arab allies."}}</ref>
    1. Jewish Transjordanian Relations: 1921 - 48, Gelber, p.243, "in mid december 1947...the Arab league determination to embark an organized anti Jewish terrorism in Palestine instead of the sporadic disorders"------------------------------------------
  4. An internet site, quoting "middle eastern studies" ,Moti Golani, middle eastern studies, Apr 2001, 37,2 , p.93? , The “Haifa Turning Point” The British Administration and the Determination of the Civil War in Palestine, December 1947-May 1948, Golani p 105 :"Cunningham was aware that the Arabs had triggered the violence, but he was dumbfounded by what he thought was the Jews’ eagerness to retaliate------------------------------
  5. A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami,, M. Cherif Bassiouni, ‎Shlomo Ben Ami - 2009 - ‎p. 24 ; "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan decided by the General Assembly (Resolution 181), which the violently opposed. This immediately developed into a civil war between the two communities in Palestine"--------------
  6. Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East, By Michael Curtis,, 2013 -ch. 5.6, "At the London Conference, September 1946—February 1947, the last attempt by Britain to reconcile the conflicting points of view, the Arab League strongly rejected any plan for partition of Palestine or for any Jewish state. ... In October 1947 the Arab League set up a Military Committee ... this Committee was given weapons, money, and authority to dispatch a force of three thousand volunteers to Palestine, who then crossed into the area and began attacking Jewish settlements. ...In March 1948 the mufti, al-Husseini, stated that the Arabs would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated by a holy war and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state. At best, this might include Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1914 or 1917."----------------------------------
  7. Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel,, Dan Rabinowitz, ‎Khawla Abu Baker - 2005, p. 31, "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute...The resolution by the U.N in favour of partition on November 29, 1947, triggered an immediate wave of Palestinian guerilla warfare against Jews, with hits and skirmishes in various parts of the country."----------------------- Ykantor (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See the section material and next one "Proposal" in the article. These are not just quotes sometimes taken out of context but long and global excerpts.
Again, I remind you that I am not the representative of the Party of a dispute and that this analysis was endorsed.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan

  – New discussion.
Filed by Ykantor on 09:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

user:dailycare deleted my edit. During weeks of discussion, he raised content objections of all sorts, sometimes returning tp previously discussed issues. I spent a lot of time in order to reply and have the proper RS quotations, but to no avail. Eventually he stopped with the content disputes and return (again) to the editing size issue. I do not like endless discussions. We have to stop and compromise somewhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed it in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To assist us reaching a compromise

Summary of dispute by dailycare

Hi guys, we've had a three-week discussion on the talkpage during which we've ageed on some changes to the article text. YK seems to persist in wanting to additionally introduce some quite specific material to a summary section in the article, the problem being in the main that the connection to the subject-matter of the article, and to the summary section in particular, is tenuous. Further issues with the proposed texts have been undue weight and selective simplification. In the past few days however a few previously uninvolved editors have weighed in in the discussion, so things seem ok. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I still feel that the talkpage collaboration has worked quite well since changes have been agreed, and the new editors have brought more perspective into the process. I'm not sure what the aim of this DRN process is over and above what's been discussed on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The content which was deleted by Dailycare is still missing, and results in an article with rather important inaccuracies. e.g. As is, it seems that Israel was unilaterally diverting water for its needs, creating the wrong impression that it might have been not legitimate.
  • It is quite frustrating for me, that Dailycare does not refer to the argument itself ( was it incorrect to delete it?) but each time is raising a new indirect claim e.g. whether it was quoted from the same source, the need to concise the section, What Israeli region would be irrigated with the diverted water etc. I feel like climbing a never ending ladder. Ykantor (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, sorry about the delay. Is our assistance still needed here? Steven Zhang (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I would like to have your assistance. Ykantor (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Neo ^ on 11:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Novi Sad

  – New discussion.
Filed by Iadrian yu on 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Campoftheamericas on 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC).

List of current world boxing champions

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC).


  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TParis on 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Aam Aadmi Party

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rushikesh.tilak on 06:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by HelenOnline on 19:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

Jorge Erdely Graham

  – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ajaxfiore on 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC).

Marina Oswald Porter

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Owl uprising on 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC).

Bleach (anime)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 14:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC).

Ivica Dačić

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 23 editor on 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC).


List of social networking websites

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Smatteo on 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC).


  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fortdj33 on 16:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

Talk:The Road_Not_Taken

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LeoRomero on 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC).


  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Someone's Moving Castle on 02:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC).

wiki/Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC_Ethiopia

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by BlueSalix on 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC).

Eurofighter Typhoon

  – New discussion.
Filed by Z07x10 on 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Eurofighter maximum speed was originally released as 'over Mach 2' (which was listed in various places as Mach 2+, Mach 2.0+, Mach 2 and Mach 2.0). However more current information became available.

This link from the Austrian Airforce very specifically states '2,495km/h (1550mph) at 10,975m By simple calculation this was found to be Mach 2.35. Furthermore BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer) states '1521mph', which also calculates as over Mach 2.3. EADS (other manufacturer) states 'Mach 2.0+' Furthermore Airpower Austria shows the speed to be over Mach 2 from 28,000-55,000ft

All these sources are roughly consistent with a maximum speed of Mach 2.35 as agreed by consensus earlier on English wiki and still agreed, by entirely independent consensus (without my involvement) on German wiki

Another user's position is that some sources still say Mach 2.0 and various magazines from ages ago and 'Haynes manual' said Mach 2.0, so the figure should be Mach 2.0.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy conversation on Talk page. Pointed out facts and German wiki agreement. It was ignored. Dispute unreolved.

How do you think we can help?

I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer to this one.

Summary of dispute by McSly

We have a variety of primary sources providing the top speed at high altitude for the Typhoon, essentially air force and airplane manufacturer websites. Some sources show the information in both Mach and km/h, some have only the Mach number, just one (the Austrian Air force) has only the km/h.The values provided by those sources are inconsistent, sometimes within the same source.

For the Mach value, they range from Mach 1.8[46] to Mach 2.0[47] [48][49] to Mach 2.0+[50] to Mach 2+. No source says Mach 2.35. For the km/h, we have essentially 2 values (with some rounding here and there): 2,125 km/h (1,320 mph) and 2,495km/h (1550mph). The first is consistent with Mach 2.0, the second with Mach 2.35. As an example of problem within a source, the BAE SYSTEMS source[51] that Z07x10 provided for his calculation actually contains both mph and Mach value (Mach 2.0 - 1521mph). Those 2 numbers do not add up. In that case Z07x10 takes the 1521mph value and says that we can calculate Mach 2.3 from it. But obviously doing the opposite would be just as equally valid, we take Mach 2.0 and then calculate 1320mph from it.

I see no indication that any of those sources is any better or worse than the others (we have 4 air forces and 3 manufacturers websites). I also see no indication than any of those values are newer or older than the others. In case of conflicting primary sources, it is not our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must rely on secondary sources to provide the information. In this case we have Jane's All the World's Aircraft. That source is highly regarded publication widely used on WP and actually already used in the article [52]. That source states that the speed is Mach 2.0 at high altitude so we can just use it. Z07x10 on the other hand feels that we should use the primary sources to back calculate the Mach value even when we already have secondary sources providing that information. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here, and I'll be taking this case now that all parties have made opening statements. I'm going to read over the talk page and the article, but one question comes to mind, first. How complicated is the calculation to convert km/h to mach? Divide speed by speed of sound, right? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the sources linked by McSly, it seems to me that 2.0 is the best supported figure, with the Italian airforce, the German air force, Eurofighter's website, baesystems and Jane's all listing mach 2.0 as the maximum speed. None of the other numbers have anywhere near as many source. Compared with rough calculations, I'd be inclined to go with 2.0. Z07x10, do you have more sources that say mach 2.35? Note that these are just my initial thoughts, very much subject to change. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The calculation is: 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6), where 216.65 K is the SI-Standard Temperature in the Stratosphere as used in aviation, 287.05 is R and 1.405 is kappa. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Eurofighter Communications regarding the question, this is the answer I recieved:
Dear Mr. Herzog,
Thank you for your interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Regarding your question:
There should be no contradiction – we quote Mach 2.0+ which is correct – the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure and our official statement on maximum speed is Mach 2.0+.
Kind Regards
Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH
The statement that Mach 2.0 is a rounded number is a clear indication for me that it is not the best number to use. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree Julian. It is also an old number that propagated since the legacy release of information and most of the sources stating it are now out-of-date. An encyclopedia should be open to change when new information becomes available. Furthermore sources from manufacturers who are in receipt of the actual figures are clearly better than sources from magazines/publications who are not and have conducted no independent testing. Aircraft speed is also relative to altitude and the fact the Austrian Airforce (and Airpower Austria) specify altitude makes them a better source. If one were to resort to independent analysis, which I know is discouraged, it should be noted that the Eurofighter has ramped intakes to improve efficiency at high Mach (unlike F-16/Rafale) and has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any operational fighter (1.15 loaded), so a speed significantly over Mach 2 is likely. Furthermore it is commonplace for manufacturers to simply state 'over Mach 2' or 'Mach 2 class' officially even when the maximum speed is significantly above that It should also be noted that originally wiki never said 'Mach 2' anyway. It said 'Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)' and this can be verified I'm sure.Z07x10 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note. As regards the speed of sound and altitude issue, information about this is available on wiki in an independent article here:
From the graph above, at 11km, speed of sound is ~295m/s, which is 1062kph ([295/1000] * 3600 = 1062). 2495/1062 = Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
So the Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, so why can't Z07x10 just accept that number rather than insisting on Mach 2.35? Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, but Eurofighter as a company confirms the correctness of the Mach 2.35 value, which is otherwise only confirmed by one source. I think that sums up the facts. Clearly, the maximum speed varies from configuration to configuration, so I think we could even include 2.0+ as a main value and 2.35 as an additional value to give an example for what "+" can mean. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, is your number based off of only one source, or do multiple sources list the same speed (after calculations)? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The BAE SYSTEMS source also states 1521mph. Whilst it also states Mach 2, this is based on the speed class of the aircraft, just as my Lockheed F-22 source above states 'Mach 2 class'. 1521mph is clearly more specific than Mach 2 and is not a calculating error based on the speed of sound at sea level, which is 765mph at ISA.

I don't think that this should merely be about counting sources. I've explained in my original post that the figure of '2/2+' has come from legacy information that has been subject to the mechanics of data propagation over time, so naturally many sources have copied that information, hence why there are more of them but they are not necessarily independent in the true meaning. When you examine McSly's sources it isn't hard to see flaws. For example the German Airforce state 'Mach 2.00', how likely is it that a plane tops out at 2.00 to 2dp exactly? Operating limits and speed classes should not be confused for genuine top speeds. E.g. wikipedia states the F-14D's top speed is 'Mach 2.34' and it is under optimal conditions but the official operating flight manuals show nothing above 2.0 (see page 4-6 configuration 1A - no stores):

Another source McSly uses '' have already clarified their position on the matter in Julian H's post above and importantly don't refute the claim of the Austrian Airforce. So far nobody has presented a reason as to why the Austrian Airforce source is unreliable or flawed. The fact that other sources say something different is not a good reason for ignoring it. E.g. you can't ignore the results of a scientific test just because other results say something different (especially if there's reason to believe the other tests are wrong), you have to find a flaw, like Geneva physicists had to when a neutrino appeared to break the speed of light. The Austrian Airforce is a respectable source and specifically states '2495kph at 10,975m'. That only calculates as Mach 2 if the temperature is about 26degC (at over 36,000ft). 26degC is not a standardised atmospheric temperature in any region at any altitude. If someone physically took the plane out and tested it, would that still be dismissed as just one source? As regards using secondary sources (like magazines and publications) for a matter like this, I honestly just sigh. Where have secondary sources like magazines got their information from? A true secondary source has to have seen the actual primary sources, which are the classified manuals. None of these so-called 'secondary sources' actually have, meaning that they are in fact tertiary sources, which conveniently/inconveniently aren't accessible online and therefore can't be verified/appraised by the majority of users. This could be relevant as the sources in question may specify certain conditions which are non-optimal. As you'll see in the F-14D flight manual top speed and what people quote is very dependent on fuel loading and store configuration, hence reasons why absolute limits are hard to come by. See other flight manuals for yourself. E.g.:

F-18E/F (wiki says Mach 1.8, flight manual shows nothing over 1.6 with 60% fuel load and minimal AAM load) Page XI-10-15

Furthermore, as regards calculations, McSly has now used a Mach number to back calculate a kph/mph speed at altitude on the article page, which isn't supported anywhere. Essentially exactly what I did, except the other way round using the legacy information. He is also calculating the kph/mph speed based on the altitude specified in the Austrian Airforce source that he's chosen to ignore wrt the speed. This kind of pseudo mathematics has no place. My calculation comes from a single but coherent source with a TAS (True Air Speed) backed up by the BAE SYSTEMS source - 2495kph = 1552mph, BAE say 1521mph. Spanish wikipedia also quote this speed (1522mph) and a BAE source, Italian wikipedia also quote >2450kph and German wikipedia quote Mach 2.35 using the Austrian Airforce source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

An interpretation should be able to explain all the figures provided by reliable sources and not simply ignore those that don't fit with a pre-conceived idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

McSly is also quoting the following source on the article page: "Loveless, Antony (1994). RAF Typhoon Manual. Haynes."

This document is clearly not current and almost pre-dates the in-service date by 10 years. It should be removed. I can't, for the life of me, think why he would consider it more relevant than a figure published by an active airforce user.Z07x10 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update now list '2.0+' inline with Julian H's reply from them, and not '2.0' as previously stated by McSly.

To summarise 3 official sources now state '2.0+' (EADS, Airpower Austria and and 2 sources state mph/kph speeds inline with Mach 2.3+ (BAE SYSTEMS and Austrian Airforce). have also officially stated that '2.0+' is the official figure AND that the Austrian Airforce's figure is for a specific configuration and fuel load. Z07x10 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Just a note for the drn-volunteer I have protected the Eurofighter Typhoon article pending a consensus as users have continued to edit war while talk page and drn disucussion are ongoing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a reliable set of sources which confirm "2.0+" to be acceptable, has anybody considered adding in a note alongside the references to state that "Mach 2.35" or "higher speeds" are capable depending on height, air pressure and payload considerations as we have a suitable reference for this and confirmation via Eurofighter that 2.35 is possible depending on configuration etc.
The RAF Typhoon Manual was actually published in 2013, not 1994, whoever added that reference needs a whack over the head with the aforementioned manual. but it gets a pretty scathing set of reviews, so it might not be the best of resources anyway. Nick (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
MilborneOne, that note is a very good idea. So as a proposal, we could state:
"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][ source]"Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick, you are right on its quality as a source. Haynes do not produce official Typhoon Maintenance Manuals, that book is a novelty item and nothing more, as stated on your link, "An insight into owning, flying and maintaining the world's most advanced multi-role fast jet." Definitely not a reliable source. I'm sure if I wrote "the world's most advanced multi-role fighter" on the article page and listed Haynes as a source, it would be followed by a gigantic sht storm.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a few things to unpack here but I'll focus on 2:
Precision of measure: Z07x10 insists that the value '2495kph at 10,975m' is very precise and specific and that's why we should use it. By doing so, he's making the basic mistake of confusing precision with accurancy. Being precise is no indication of being correct. If I say that the distance between Paris and New York is specifically 2,495km, I would be precise, but wrong. If I say it's about 6,000km, that's a lot less precise but more accurate. I'd like also to point out that when he's talking about the Mach value, suddenly being precise doesn't seem to matter anymore. Mach 2.0 is just formatting or "Mach 2 class" and anything with the plus sign is consistant with Mach 2.35. Well, that's not correct, for example, Mach 2.0+ means less than Mach 2.1, because there is a zero there. If it was more than Mach 2.1, it would read Mach 2.1+
Quality of source: Z07x10 also insists that the Austrian air force site is a good source for the value, but I don't see any indication that that's the case. We have 4 official air force websites here Italy, Germany, Austria and UK. All with different values for the top speed. They all look like 4 generic PR site for the respective air forces with basic information about units, equipment and so on. The Austrian page for the Typhoon is actually pretty bare (it doesn't even list the weight for example). In any event, nothing warranting any special treatment.
So like I said before, we have a bunch of primary sources with different, incompatible values and no way to really evaluate which source is better (4 official air forces sites for example). Now in order to move this thing along. For the Mach value, any mention of Mach 2.35 is out of the question. I would much prefer to have Mach 2.0 since that's what our best source (JANE's) says but since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+. For the km/h conversion, since we have contradictory values and no good secondary source, I'm all for removing that value altogether.--McSly (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
3 Comments from my side:
  • Mach 2.0+ doesn't mean that the value is below 2.1 - ist just means that it is above Mach 2.0. Even the manufacturer of the aircraft confirmed that (see above). Why would the "+" be limited?
  • Precision is of course not the same as accurancy, I don't think anyone confuses the two. But assuming, again, that the manufacturer of the aircraft is correct, all values except for the ones stating "Mach 2.0" are accurate, and with this knowledge, shouldn't our focus be on using - among the accurate sources - the most precise one?
  • Generally: Why do you ignore the official response by Eurofighter GmbH?
— Julian H.✈ (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Julian, If we want this discussion to get anywhere, we need to actually read what the others say. From my comment above, I specifically wrote "since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+" What part of that was not clear? Please reply to this comment to acknowledge that it is indeed what I said. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course I read what you wrote, and what I wrote reflects that. I referred to your statements describing numbers as inaccurate and the mentioning of Mach 2.35 as "out of the question" despite the official confirmation of that value.
I don't understand why it's not possible (and the best solution) to mention "Mach 2.0+" as the general value and, for example in brackets, add Mach 2.35 as an example for a specific configuration to give the reader an idea of what the "+" can mean. I just think that this would give the reader the most and most precise information, and I think that this should be our aim.
If we can't find consensus towards that, then I guess "Mach 2.0+" will have to do. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I also do not think that 'less than Mach 2.1' is the correct interpretation. We have two sources (BAE and Austrian Airforce) that state kph/mph figures not consistent with this theory and one of them (BAE) quote '1521mph' together with 'Mach 2.0' showing that '<2.1' is not the correct interpretation of '2.0+' or 'Mach 2 class'. have also confirmed this to be the case. Furthermore the initial release of information for the SR-71 stated Mach 3.2+ but there are now several sources stating >3.3 ( and this book written by ex-pilots suggests >3.5 Mach 3.2 turned out to be the recommended operational cruising speed.
  • It has already been explained by Julian, myself and why some sources list '2.0' and that top speed will depend on fuel, store configuration and operating guidelines relevant to maintenance planning (MTBOs etc.).
  • The precision vs accuracy argument is null and void in this instance, since the precise figure in question has come from an Airforce operating the aircraft and have indicated that this speed is for a specific set of conditions (fuel, stores etc.).
  • I do not subscribe to the notion that Jane's is the ultimate and best source of evidence for everything pertaining to aircraft. If Jane's had access to the official specifications for the Eurofighter, the specs would also be on the internet, and it's not as if Jane's have independently speed-tested a Eurofighter. Therefore the logical conclusion is that their information has also been derived from official PR releases saying '2.0+' that they have then 'rounded' as stated by
Z07x10 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a big problem with a lot of these sources is that speed can vary a lot with altitude (which I think is why so many of the sources say 2.0+). If we could find two or more good sources that indicate the same speed at the same altitude, that would be a number I'd be willing to accept. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always nice to be able to find extra sources but for something like this it's very difficult. We have another source saying '1521mph' but without an altitude. However, fundamentally it's aerodynamically more difficult for a plane to achieve 1521mph below the troposhere (11km) than at or above it. The air is denser (more drag) and the ambient temperature is higher so the jet engines don't work as efficiently in terms of both the compressor efficiency and the amount of heat that can be added during combustion, because TET (Turbine Entry temperature) is a limiting factor and incoming air is hotter. Hence why top speed at sea level is usually only around Mach 1.2 for modern fighter jets.
At present we have: - 2,495kph at 10,975m (Austrian Airforce) - 1521mph (BAE SYSTEMS) - Mach 2+ from 28,000-55,000ft (Airpower Austria)
We also have a response from indicating that the Austrian Airforce figures are possible depending on fuel, stores etc. "the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)"
And we have several sources stating a Mach 1.5 supercruise without afterburners making Mach 2.35 with afterburner seem plausible:
It's also worth pointing out that only one source is used on other pages for such matters. The other problem is that if we did find another source saying the exact same thing, it would likely only be copied from the aforementioned source, as is the case with many other sources. Unless we can find flaw with a source we shouldn't discount it IMHO.
In light of the above, what about an edit saying:
"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][ Note**]"
-**Note reads " 'The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' -".

Z07x10 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a fair compromise to me. Anyone else? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really I'm afraid. The Austrian air force source is dubious at best. It is also flatly contradicted by better or equivalent sources and those cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, with all the sources and all the values that we have for the max speed, none of them, none, says Mach 2.35 so adding a value with no source, especially in a dispute context is a non starter. Lastly, there is a good discussion going on the Reliable sources Noticeboard on essentially the same question we have here. In the light of this discussion, I propose to set the Mach value to Mach 2.0+ or >Mach 2.0 (either is fine with me) and since we have contradictory values for the mph speed and no good source providing it, let's remove it altogether.--McSly (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't see where this contradiction is and we aren't just stating the word of the Austrian Airforce on their own, we're stating the response of on the matter of the Austrian Airforce's quote and presenting the data exactly for what it is (with qualifiers) and nothing else. The statement that none of them say 'Mach 2.35' is irrelevant because that's what 2,495kph calculates as under ISA conditions at the altitude specified by the Austrian Airforce - it would only calculate as Mach 2 at 26degC (299K) so it isn't simply a mistake using the speed of sound at ground level (15degC, 288K --> 1224kph). The mph/kph speed should definitely not be removed because we have very clear sources stating that as 2,495kph and 1521mph (Austrian Airforce and BAE SYSTEMS). As an official airforce user and a manufacturer in agreement that out-ranks all other sources on the matter. EADS and also quote 'Mach 2+', which is not inconsistent with this. In fact, plainly speaking, once you remove BAE, EADS, and the Austrian Airforce (who have stated a specific speed at a specific altitude indicative of a test or spec reference), there are no other 'good' sources. What remains are only copy and pastes and nothing more. We should definitely not remove mph/kph figures because the ones we have in this case are very accurately specified. I keep hearing that the Austrian Airforce is a dubious source but the protagonist is yet to mention why. Exactly why should we simply cast aside this very specific metric from an Airforce user? Other sources copying, pasting and 'rounding' (to quote a legacy press release doesn't qualify as a good reason. Z07x10 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10, where is the source from Eurofighter that says, "The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' -"? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it just an email? If so, I don't think it's a reliable source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to ask Julian H as he has the proof but the fact that they changed their figure to '2+' shortly after responding indicates that they looked into it.Z07x10 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I can forward it to any address or ask them to send it somewhere if that helps. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only thing the sources can agree on is that the max speed is more that 2.0, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the Austrian source is better than the others. Is there any reason to assume that it's better than all the other sources that contradict it? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Which source contradicts the Austrian source? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the fact the Austrian source quotes an altitude makes it better than the other sources. 'Mach 2+' could mean a lot of things. E.g. Mach 2+ over a wide altitude range, Mach 2+ at high altitude, or Mach 2+ at sea level? Quoting a speed at an altitude at least ties it down to a speed capability at that altitude with a given load and within a limited likely temperature variation (Mach 2.30 to Mach 2.41 for -10degC to +10degC from ISA, respectively, for 2495kph at 10,975m). It's not really about whether the Austrian source is 'better' though, it's about whether it can be ignored without explanation. An explanation has been provided for all the sources stating '2' or '2+'. No one has explained why the Austrian source should be dismissed. If someone could say, "the Austrian Airforce source is wrong because X, Y and Z," I would be more than happy to listen to such an explanation.Z07x10 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ White Queen bags five stars of awfulness, The Daily Mail, 22 June, 2013.
  2. ^ Pardo, Gastón (13 August 2005). "Los responsables están avalados por el gobierno". Voltaire Network. Retrieved 12 January 2013. A lo largo de 1997, una secta denominada Instituto Cristiano de México lanzó ataques en los medios informativos en contra de líderes religiosos, a quienes intentó desacreditar con el empleo sistemático de difamaciones y calumnias.