Talk:9K720 Iskander/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jerusalem Post

I was looking at on article on The Jerusalem Post today (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1219218598194&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) and it seems that they copied the first part of this article almost verbatim without attribution:

"The Iskander missile (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) is a short range, solid fuel propelled, theater quasi-ballistic missile system.

The system is intended to use conventional warheads for the engagement of small and area targets, such as hostile fire weapons (missile systems, multiple launch rocket systems, long-range artillery pieces), air and antimissile defence weapons, especially those located in relatively fixed sites, command posts and communications nodes, critical civilian infrastructure facilities and other vital small and area targets. " PBP (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed deployment statement

I removed the following passage: "If deployed in Kaliningrad the Iskander missile will be able to strike against many european countrys. Both Germany and Sweden could in theory be attacked."

I think it violates NPOV. Every weapon in the world could in theory be used against an arbitrary number of countries. Still, we do not list all those countries in the corresponding weapon articles, and this weapon should not be different. Offliner (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Treaty violation"

The sources given do not state that Iskander violates the treaty. Also, here is a source which says Iskander probably does not violate the treaty [1]: "The operational requirements for the SS-26 are probably similar to those of the original SS-23. One of the major questions concerning the program is the missile's range, which is almost certainly less than the 500 km range limit established by the INF Treaty." Offliner (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, we do not know if the extension is intended to go up to 500 km or 499 km (come to think of it, one kilometer less in range probably isn't a big loss if that keeps the missile inside the treaty limits.) What the sources also do not say is if the treaty is violated when the range is exactly 500 km or when its > 500 km. Offliner (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"The flight range of a new cruise missile (he mean a reentry vehicle) adapted for Iskander and successfully tested in May 2007 could exceed 500 km (310 miles)."[2] This test is already a INF violation!--HDP (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

All right then, guess I didn't read the sources properly. Offliner (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This "potential" stuff seems to be irrelevant. It's possible for all rockets/missiles to increase the range. Theoretical potential is not worth to be mentioned - especially because the text used to describe it sounds quite accusing. The largest figure for Iskander-M's range that I saw so far was 480km. Lastdingo (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Converting lists to prose

I think we should try to convert the embedded lists in "characteristics" to normal prose (without losing critical information.) Does anyone agree/disagree? Offliner (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good as it is. Source material lists the things like this, it can be read quickly like this and the lists are a bit too long for normal prose. Lastdingo (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about moving those lists to the end of the article, leaving a shorter prose summary of them in the main article body? The information provided by the lists is very detailed compared to other missile articles. Lets take the "targets" lists as an example. I'm not an expert on missiles in any way, but I think the "possible targets" listed are probably self-evident, and most other similar missiles would include those as potential targets. Yet the other missile articles do not list all those "possible targets." Offliner (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I implemented my suggestion. The prose summaries I wrote still need a bit work though. Offliner (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Georgian claims

In what way is the Georgian claim that the missile was used against civilian targets and the oil pipeline relevant to the missile itself? Note, that we do not usually include politics or "blame game" in the "combat history" sections of weapons articles. For example, the F/A-18 Hornet article says that it was used in Operation Enduring Freedom - but does not include claims made by various parties, that the aircraft was used to bomb wedding parties and other civilian targets. Offliner (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is F/A-18 Hornet supposed to be an example article? The version that the Iskander missile was combat-tested in the civilian area is important, especially when put forward by the country against which the weapon was first used. I don't see any valid reason to suppress this information. --Kober^Talk 15:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Of course it is important (in regard to the war), but how is it important in relation to the missile itself? You can take any weapon article you want as an example - none of them has information of this kind. And for a reason: such info goes to other articles, into political and warfare ones, not into the weapon articles. Offliner (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"how is it important in relation to the missile itself?" The information is about the first usage of the missile in question. Does not the lead section in the Nuclear weapon article provide a brief info on the combat-test details? I don't know how else to explain this to you. --Kober^Talk 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that I could see relevant are 1) that it was used in the conflict and 2) how accurate it was. Everything else is politics and does not belong into this article. Offliner (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia's threat to deploy Iskanders in Keni is also politics. Should we remove that passage from the article?--Kober^Talk 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're not deployed, then it should be removed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A Questionable Source

So what the Georgian article is telling me is that an Iskander, that according to the Moscow Defense Brief hit two military targets out of two military targets, that according to most scholarly opinions, including NATO's, is a top notch missile, cannot hit a stationary target that is the oil pipeline? Are you serious? If the Iskander had actually missed a stationary target, the Russian rocket forces would be screwed, and NATO would have hundreds of articles on this issue. Seriously, some claims here are the greatest works of fiction. What's next, Saakashvili arguing that 2 + 2 = 5? I want more then just one Georgian Link, confirming that the Iskander was launched at the oil pipeline. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim, whether true or not, is properly attributed to its source, the Georgian gov't as required by WP:NPOV. So what do you actually want? Your rhetoric and politically charged ranting are misleading.--Kober^Talk 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BAM: http://defense-update.com/products/i/iskander.htm "The Iskander Tactical Missile System is considered to be among the most advanced surface / surface missiles available today. The missile uses on-board navigation and flight control to shape its ballistic trajectory at the boost and terminal phases of its trajectory. Boost phase maneuvering enable the missile to correct the ballistic trajectory to best match the flight plan and mission (for example, to minimize detection range by enemy missile defenses). It also contributes to optimize the trajectory based on in-flight data. Terminal maneuvering is used to avoid missile defenses and further improve the hit accuracy, utilizing terminal sensor. According to Russian sources, the missile uses special composite materials to reduce the radar signature of the missile (or TEL?) to evade targeting radars employed by enemy surveillance sensors, UAVs and smart weapons. The missile is equipped with an autonomous inertial guidance system and is reported to use an optical seeker for terminal guidance." In other words, missing a stationary target for the Iskander, without anything getting in its way, is virtually impossible.

BOOM: http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.162/missile_detail.asp "The missile lacks the range and payload to attack strategic targets, but the accuracy and variety of warhead types make it an extremely flexible battlefield system. It was designed to be able to destroy both stationary and moving targets, specifically SAM sites, short-range missile launchers, airfields, ports, command and communication centers, factories and hardened defensive targets. In this way, the SS-26 can destroy both active military units and targets to degrade the enemy’s capability to wage war."

BANG: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-26-iskander-e.htm The missile system ensures: high probability of fire mission accomplishment in hostile active countermeasures environments; high probability of failure-proof functioning of the missile during its launch preparation and in flight; automatic computation and input of missile flight missions by the launcher devices; high tactical maneuverability and strategic mobility owing to transportability of the system vehicles by all types of transport; automation of battle management of missile units and their information support; long service life and ease of operation. The Iskander-E system is equipped with a solid-propellant single-stage guided missile controlled throughout the entire flight path and provided with a non-separable warhead.

KABLAM: http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1769&catid=265 Owing to the implementation of terminal control and guidance methods, control throughout the entire flight path, a broad range of powerful warheads and integration of the onboard control system with various correction and homing systems as well as a high probability of combat mission accomplishment in heavy hostile jamming environments, type targets are engaged by one or two Iskander-E missiles, which in terms of effectiveness is equivalent to the use of a nuclear munition.

What they're all saying, translated from military to English, is that it's impossible for the Iskander to miss a stationary target. I can easily find more sources. I have yet to find a single criticism of the Iskander, except for Georgia's faulty claim that it missed an oil pipeline. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This sort of political nonsense should be omitted altogether in my opinion, but as it stands, this is properly attributed to the Georgian government and I doubt anyone still believes anything they say anyways, so who cares? It's not being presented as the actual truth, just as a claim by the Georgian government. If you have any non-Russian government sources that contradict their claim as well you should add that to the article. LokiiT (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See, here's the thing: the Georgian government has been spewing more lies about Russia regarding this war, then any other organization. So if a credible defense magazine tells me "these missiles have never missed a stationary target" and NATO articles tell me "these missiles have never missed a stationary target" and in comes the tie chewer and says "these missiles have missed a stationary target" - well I'm inclined to call the tie chewer a liar. Iskander/SS-26 Stone doesn't miss stationary targets at that range. It never has. I mean heck, even Chinese, Mexican and Indian sources are saying the Iskander doesn't miss stationary targets at that range. Israeli sources agree. It's literally the World vs. the tie chewer on this issue. Perhaps Russians used other cluster munitions against the oil pipeline, but not the Iskander. And if the World contradicts your source directly, then your source needs to go. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. And it won't go. Again, your rhetoric is misleading. Cite me a Wikipedia guideline which is violated in this case. Your I-want-so logic won't work. --Kober^Talk 16:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure: WP:Fringe: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." Show me a reliable source stating that the Iskander can miss a stationary target at close range. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can supply a source that quotes NATO or western military intelligence saying that the Iskander has never missed a stationary target, we could use that in the article. LokiiT (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How many sources do you know that say "Missile so and so never missed a target"? If a missile hits a target, then it gets very little press. If a missile misses a target, it gets quite a bit of press. There has been no record of the Iskander missing anything. Every paper I read through, praised the Iskander. My issue isn't with whether or not Russia used the Iskander. My issue here is with the Iskander missing a stationary target. If that was the case, in reality, not in Saakashvili's tie-chewing mind, then it would be all over the press. I cannot find a single other article even remotely claiming that the Iskander has missed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Every type of missile can malfunction, typically with a chance of several per cent. There's no silver bullet in the real world. Nevertheless, in case of doubt I say the Georgian officials are liars. Their bad, they were caught way too often. Lastdingo (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but you have to realize the Iskander is a complex missile. In order for it to malfunction to avoid hitting a stationary target, first the guidance chip has to fail. Then the person guiding the missile has to screw up. Finally the satellite data itself must be corrupted. In other words, while each of those may have a small chance of failure, in order for all of that to fail at the same time, the odds are pretty miniscule. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"person guiding the missile"? No, it's a fire&forget missile. No human commands after launch. Furthermore, one single technical failure can lead to a mission failure. It's a one-way munition; such munitions have no or rarely dual redundancy of components. There's typically just one inertial navigation system. A single jammed steering component may fail. There are many possible reasons for failure, and failure rates of a few per cent up to 40% have been reported for several guided munitions. Lastdingo (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

From previous analysis: "Owing to the implementation of terminal control and guidance methods, control throughout the entire flight path, a broad range of powerful warheads and integration of the onboard control system with various correction and homing systems as well as a high probability of combat mission accomplishment in heavy hostile jamming environments, type targets are engaged by one or two Iskander-E missiles, which in terms of effectiveness is equivalent to the use of a nuclear munition." How do you accomplish the bolded part without a person guiding it? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Control" is ambivalent in such a context. Most missiles are not "controlled", but "stable" during descent. Iskander is under a kind of autopilot control on descent. Keep in mind that the firing battery and overall missile regiment infrastructure does not include the necessary radar and communications equipment for missile tracking and control and the missile has never been claimed to have an autopilot. Lastdingo (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And what about "correction homing systems"? Also, a regular missile regiment might not be equipped with radars, but an Iskander isn't your average, run of the mill, missile, and the regiments of Iskander have special equiptment, possibly radars. In addition, the Russians aren't going to release the details on how one of their finest missiles work. So I guess until they do, we'll have to agree to disagree. Twenty years from now, or whenever sixth generation missiles are introduced, whoever was right gets props. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Lastdingo is correct here. "Iskander never misses a stationary target" is a very unrealistic assumption. Offliner (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well from what I know, all of the times that it was tested, it never missed. And it hit 2/2 in the 2008 South Ossetia War. There's a reason that the Iskander is Russia's most wanted high tech weapon at the moment. And in terms of stationary targets, I meant if it's a direct launch, i.e. no one starts screwing with the missile; because if you shoot down an Iskander, it will obviously not hit the target. I was referring to a scenario similar to the Gori one, rather than a potential confrontation of high tech weaponry, such as Iskander vs. Missile "Shield". (It's not really a shield, it's a bunch of precision missiles launched in unison, or separately to shoot down other missiles, and/or hit ground targets.) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Kober, are you going to counter-argue any of the above posts? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this info, properly attributed, should not be present in the article. It's only one sentence in a paragraph; I think we can trust a reader to make his/her own conclusions after examining all the presented info. Alæxis_¿question? 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theories. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are they worthy of it? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. The cited source is reliable once it is used to illustrate the position of the country where this "toy" (as you like to put it) was combat-tested. You are just trying to suppress everything that does not meet pro-Muscovite POV. --Kober^Talk 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the HRW doesn't meet pro-Moscow POV. Where have I been suppressing that? This is sheer propaganda. An Iskander missing an oil pipeline? So if the Russian Government published a source saying that "All Georgian Government Leaders are Orcs" would you edit that into Wikipedia? Or if Putin states that he was unable to grab Saakashvili by the balls, due to the lack thereof, would you edit that into Wikipedia? This has nothing to do with pro-Moscow POV. The claims made by the Georgian Government are absurd. A fifth generation missile cannot hit an oil pipeline. In two attempts. Riiiight. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read can't you? Whether these claims are absurd or not, they should stay once they are properly ATTRIBUTED and SOURCED. "All Georgian Government Leaders are Orcs" should also say once it is clearly stated that the claim belongs to the government of Russia. Clear now? --Kober^Talk 05:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy/paste what I left on Kober's talk page, which he hasn't yet responded to: A government making unsubstantiated accusations at a country they're at war with may be "official", but it's unimportant for an article about a weapon. The type of missile used in this alleged attack is of no importance, and the fact that they even mentioned the Iskander specifically points to obvious political motivations in the accusations (ie. your're using your shiny new hi-tech weapon to destroy civilian infrastructure, shame on you!) This sort of political bickering has no place in the article in my opinion. There are specific articles and sections to put government propaganda. LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And to add to that, how the heck would the Georgian government know what type of missile the Russians used in this one instance, even if they did target civilian infrastructure? Unfortunately the source doesn't answer that question. The claim is so far fetched I just think it's ridiculous to include in this article. LokiiT (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia has one of the best, if not the best, Rocket Forces in the World; Russia has one of the best, if not the best, Rocket Force Doctrines in the World. If you have such knowledge, you do not waste your 5th Generation missiles on a stationary target. If Russians wanted to hit the pipeline, they could have used the Tochka missiles, which would have worked. It's really not a complicated target to hit. With enough mathematical knowledge and modern technology, you can use a modified catapult to hit it, especially when your satellite has the exact coordinates of the target and the target doesn't move an inch! The equivalent of what the Saakashvili and Co. are suggesting, in layman's terms, is that a professional boxer goes up against someone weighting 300 pounds, in a wheelchair, with the wheelchair nailed to the ground and that someone's legs are missing, and the hands are tied to the wheelchair; and the pro-boxer misses; twice! This is beyond absurdity. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Operators

I just want to know why Iran is listed as an operator with the description bought from Belarus as the reason why when Belarus is listed as a potential future operator and is known not to currently possess Iskanders. If the situation has changed please update this article otherwise I think we can remove Iran from the list or downgrade them to potential future operators 81.132.142.2 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Syria

December 10, 2012 "Hours after NATO agreed on Tuesday to send Patriot missiles to Turkey because of the crisis in Syria, Russia delivered its first shipment of Iskander missiles to Syria." Link: [3] Ratipok (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deployment in Kaliningrad in 2011

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev just said on national television that he intend to put missles again in Kaliningrad if NATO doesn't back with the missile defense system. I think someone should add it at the end of the section "Deployment and combat history". (I am a non native english speaker so I don't feel ready to the task) source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eBf0I-rB0m0 (Kremlin youtube channel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.68.238 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

http://expert.ru/2014/04/27/doigraetes____do-iskanderov/?mml 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement that this system's intended targets included critical civilian infrastructure seems pretty POV-ish and is uncited. 31.18.251.194 (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a bridge would be an ideal target for such a missile, and permanent bridges are civilian infrastructure. The quote may provoke biased interpretation, but it is correct. Lastdingo (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Algeria operator - Unreliable cited material

Discussion copied across from User tallk:BlackFlanker (note added — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC))

BlackFlanker Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The sources provided are misleading and have no relation to the content. Unless you provide reliable sources for the content, it will be removed. Sources from social media accounts & blogs (ex: livejournal) are not considered reliable sources, for more info read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Further discussions shall be held in the talk page. - AHMED XIV (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason why I should be blocked because all the content I add in Wikipedia is always sourced by well known and reliable sources. As for the content about the export of the 9K720 Iskander to one of the North African countries, it was confirmed by two realiable sources, by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti that got the information from official representatives of the Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation during the Dubai Air Show 2017 exhibition; this was even confirmed by the Jane's Information Group in its article. The mention about the delivery to Algeria was brought by a well known Russian journal that publishes its material "under the auspices of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST Center), a Russian research organization dedicated to studying the issues of the defense industry and military-technical cooperation, founded in 1997. It publishes both the messages of the ACT Center and the messages of the authors, who have been actively cooperating with the AST Center for other projects for a long time." - original citation as the bmpd.livejournal stated about itself. Furthermore, a publication about the delivery appeared also in the Algerian DSI Magazine, published in September 2017.

Your acting in this way contravenes to WP:ATWV when you're blaming me for vandalism which in this case obviously didn't occur and was caused just by your own ignorance/misinterpreting of the facts I provided to my edits. Therefore, this also contravenes to WP:VERIFY when you're removing any sourced and verified content. Also, try to stick more to WP:GOODFAITH when considering to revert someone's edit; describing your changes in the edit summary.

The content you removed will be added again since as per the WP:SOURCES it doesn't violate any of the rules.

BlackFlanker (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No sir, the source provided, about Algeria being a user, is misleading and definitely not reliable.

LiveJournal is a Russian social networking service where users can keep a blog, journal or diary, it is a Blog hosting site. Per WP:USERGENERATED, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums,...".

The blogger "bmpd" contributes the information to some sort of Facebook account, where he states: "Algerian user Hammer Head on his Facebook.com page reported that Algeria had purchased four Iskander-E tactical missile systems". Per WP:RSSELF, Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

Your edits on the page are more of a Disruptive editing which is not always intentional, but the repeated changing of the content beyond all recognition, without any regard to verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

Before citing any sources, You should read them carefully and make sure that the information is based on reliable, published sources, like an official confirmation or announcement, not from blog articles and social media tweets.

- AHMED XIV (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You're getting it wrong all the time, not even trying to understand what kind of source was provided, whether the source publishes just author's personal opinions or claims based on obvious facts. I'm not talking about the LiveJournal in generaly but about the blog bmpd.livejournal.com that publishes its material in accordance to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST Center), what is a Russian research organization dedicated to studying the issues of the defense industry and military-technical cooperation, founded in 1997. The employees of this organization are active publishers of most of the content on the bmpd blog and therefore this blog is not a subject of the WP:USERGENERATED or WP:RSSELF. Once again, the bmpd.livejournal.com is not a personal page acting like a self-published news site.

As per the WP:RELIABLE you could also notice there is an exception for some kind of blogs, where the bmpd.livejournal belongs. "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

In the case about the 9K720 Iskander for Algeria, the bmpd.livejournal.com cited the Algerian user Hammer Head because he shared a post about the delivery of the Iskander-E missile system published by the Algerian DSI Magazine. It can be found here. Therefore, this claim wasn't based on claims of the user Hammer Head nor on claims of the bmpd blog itself, but on claims of previously mentioned DSI Magazine.

Be aware of what you're doing because your behaviour already fill some characteristics of disruptive editing as per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS such as the tendentious editing and ignoring the consensus-building with your repeated disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits what may lead in restrictions from administrators if you will continue in doing it.

If something on some Wikipedia' page seems doubtful to you, as per the WP:DISPUTE you can try to discuss about the issue with other Wikipedians at a talk page of the certain Wikipedia' page instead of starting a edit war with continuous and disruptive removing/reverting sourced content without even let other, more experienced Wikipedians express their opinions what could help resolve a certain issue more effectively.

BlackFlanker (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you need to cite DSI Magazine, not Livejournal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I added as reference both LiveJournal and DSI Magazine. As I mentioned before, there was a publication in the DSI Magazine, September-October 2017 edition, page 57, where is clearly stated the Algerian Army has 4 units of the Iskander-E missile system in inventory. You can find the mentioned page 57 of the magazine here. When you look at the right lower corner, you can see the logo of DSI Magazine as well as url address of the website which publishes the online form of the magazine. Despite that, AHMED XIV acting disruptively and continue in removing the content without any serious reason what is clear violation of the WP:DISPUTE and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Even now, before let this issue to be resolved, and despite the compromise wording Buckshot06 added, he again removed the part about the possible (but better said very likely) delivery to Algeria.

This has nothing to do with some violating of WP:RELIABLE as the AHMED XIV stated, because I proved several times on my talk page the reliability of my sources (bmpd.livejournal.com, DSI Magazine). Moreover, even the Sputnik (news agency) in its article stated that Algeria started negotiations with Russia about the delively of the Iskander missile system in 2008.

I'm afraid this intransigent attitude of AHMED XIV is just a result of his own personal issues with Algeria what seems to be the reason why he is not able to accept the obvious facts. BlackFlanker (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Persistent disruptive editing by BlackFlanker. He continues to add content with unreliable sources from blogs, social network tweets without any regard to Verifiability. It would be great if you look into this and take administrative action. BilCat DrKay Llammakey Steelpillow Buckshot06

- AHMED XIV (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have flagged this up to a couple of WikiProjects who might know more about LiveJournal than I do, sorry I can't help more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, there's no need to insert every rumour into WP at the speed of light. This is covered by WP:RSBREAKING. Clearly the system has been delivered to a MENA country; it seems entirely possible that it was Algeria, but wikipedia's publishing date has not come yet(!) and we are WP:NOTNEWS. I've come up with a compromise wording that indicates it *may* have been Algeria; now back off, both of you, and let a couple of months pass. More reporting *will* come to hand and we can firm up what's actually gone on. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

On what exact basis have you decided that the MENA country may be Algeria ? a blog that uses a tweet as a reference ? or a photo of unknown source uploaded on Imgur ? So in this case, I can post on Twitter or Facebook and then take it as a source in Wikipedia. The proper way of dealing with such situations is to remove the content immediately and wait until a reliable source confirms the information. Otherwise, you are completely violating reliability standards on Wikipedia. AHMED XIV (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is how one gets preliminary data these days - exactly via these type of sources. The preliminary indications are referenced, and support the idea that Algeria is the recipient. Given Algeria's history of receiving Soviet/Russian weaponry, Algeria is quite likely to have received these weapons. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems that you and BlackFlanker do not understand properly how Wikipedia works. This is not a place for rumors or preliminary data that is uncertain, nor is it a forum or blog for people to express their opinions. Data here is either totally confirmed based on reliable, published sources or not confirmed. Per WP:RELIABLE, If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Also, self-published media like social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are largely not acceptable. You are going around in circles trying to prove a point that is mainly unacceptable per consensus. So right now, you have some preliminary uncertain data, good for you, keep searching the internet for more reliable sources, once you find that you can bring it here and I will be the first to add it for you. I'm not trying to be stubborn here, I just want to help improve Wikipedia and make it better. AHMED XIV (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, saying that someone who is an active Wikipedian over 11 years (I mean Buckshot06) doesn't know how Wikipedia works is disrespectful itself. Just because you are apparently failing to deal with what is already obvious, it doesn't give you any right to judge someone on basis just your own assumptions and lack of informations. You are continuously ignoring all kind of evidences because simply this is a matter of something you don't like. We talked about the reliability of provided sources before, for example I provided informations about the bmpd blog like under whom administration it belongs, who are the publishers of the content but instead of taking this into account you chose a way of ignoring all of this. As per WP:RELIABLE you refer so much, there is a note you some magically overlooked. "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Same goes for the photo evidence of what was stated in the Algerian DSI Magazine, there is clearly visible (according to DSI logo in the right lower corner) that it comes from the DSI Magazine but neverthless was ignored just because the photo was uploaded on the Imgur. When you take into account that it's also already officialy confirmed that one of the MENA countries is an operator of the Iskander-E, you will get in no way just some rumors or preliminary data. If you want to help improve the Wikipedia as you claim, WP:GOODFAITH this is the place where you should firstly look at instead of blatantly removing any sourced content of Wikipedia. BlackFlanker (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't waste your talkpage space, either of you. The situation is ambiguous. BlackFlanker, find us a better link to the Algerian DSI magazine. Otherwise, I'll call in another senior Milhister and we can go with their opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Here is the complete September-October 2017 edition of the DSI magazine that contains the mention about the 4 delivered units of the Iskander-E. The part about the Iskander-E is on pages 56-57. The magazine is not for free, so if you want to read its content you have to buy it. However, the page 56 and 57 can be seen here. BlackFlanker (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's solid. The article in question, saying that Algeria had four Iskander-Es, was written by Philippe Langloit, from the research centre fr:Centre d'analyse et de prévision des risques internationaux. That is solid enough to say "..CAPRI says that.." and I will amend. AHMED XIV, Philippe Langloit of CAPRI is a reliable source - a military-scientific expert - as replicated in DSI magazine. France's long links with Algeria provide a good explanation of why he would be aware of such a buy; but because that is the first reliable source reporting it, I will say "Philippe Langloit of CAPRI wrote in the XX issue that.." instead of "Algeria has bought.." Buckshot06 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that is good, in this case, photo attachments are not required as you have provided a direct citation to the magazine. Anyone can feel free to purchase the edition for further review. The Citation template has been changed in order to better suit citations for articles in magazines and newsletters, per Template:Cite magazine.

AHMED XIV (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please correct the "In mainland Russia and elsewhere" section

For some reason I can't do it myself. Penza is in the Volga region, not Ural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew CPSK 65 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Superior" missile?

The Description starts: "The Iskander ballistic missile is superior to its predecessor, the Oka." There is no expansion of this, and the Oka is already referenced in an earlier section. Either the sentence should be struck as superfluous and possibly a violation of NPOV, or expanded to compare the characteristics of the two missiles (and probably moved to after the description of the main subject, the Iskander).NelC (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

"Los Angels Times" = "Los Angeles Times" 2605:E000:1301:4462:B05A:29BC:45B1:8D4 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in missile designations

At the end of the history section R-500 is called SSC-8. In the Iskander-K section R-500 is called SSC-7 (9M728) with the designation SSC-8 used for 9M729. The relation of these two missiles with strongly differing ranges (but there are strong range differences among the Kalibr/Club missiles too according to that article) to other missiles seems confusing.

According to the description section the maximum power of the nuclear warhead is 50 kt which may be reasonable for a tactical missile. According to the front page facts it would have a thermonuclear warhead, but aren't these typically too large for a tactical weapon?

At the end of the variants section it is stated that there are 7 types of missiles for both (K & M) variants of the system but only 3 missiles (9M723 (+9M723K1) 9M728 and 9M729) are listed plus 6 different types of warheads for 9M723.150.227.15.253 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Second?

"The road-mobile Iskander was the second attempt by Russia to replace the Scud missile" Wasn't the Oka the second attempt to replace it? What was the first? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Armenia Fired Iskander Missiles in Azeri War 2020

Dear administratoros, I would like to bring you your information into the facts of the use of Iskander complexes, which will clarify the issue as a whole. The GlobalSecurity.org analitic Joseph Trevithick say about using Iskander also cites a video as confirmation of his words, here: , . Also Colonel-General Movses Hakobyan told reporters Thursday in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, after he had stood down as head of the Defense Ministry’s military control service the short-range missile, which has been fired only rarely in combat, “was used during the war though I will not say where,”. Russia also delivered military supplies to Armenia during the fighting “as much as their conscience allowed,” he said. here: , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuxbani (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

References

"kommersant magazine"? what is that?

should be read "daily" 109.252.118.194 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Update wars in infobox

Three should be added: the Russo-Ukrainian war. Wiki Jonathan2 (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Operational range in infobox

The entry for operational range in the infobox looks weird: "50 km (31 mi)-400–500 km (250–310 mi) for Iskander-M". ehn (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Deployment Crimea

Media in Ukraine and Poland report deployment of Iskander-M in northern Crimea https://en.thepage.ua/news/enemy-deploys-four-additional-iskander-m-launchers-in-crimea-defense-ministry-or Not sure if that's good enough source to insert. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Numbers used against Ukraine, and remaining

Ukraine estimate about 780 Iskanders have been used by Nov 2022, of the estimated 900 that Russia had in Feb 2022. [4] - Rod57 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifications of missile in infobox

"Specifications" in infobox, (eg mass, engine) presumably relate to the original missiles used (not the launcher vehicle). Can we clarify, and identify the specific missile ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

R-500 Link Goes to the Wrong English Page

I'm not sure how to fix this, but the link in the third to last paragraph of the "Design" section has a multi-language link to an article about the R-500 Cruise Missile. The link to the Russian page is correct, but the link to the English page points to an article about an American Radial Engine. Can someone fix that link? Cmdrraimus (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the R-500 redirect that goes to the radial engine, but there is no R-500 missile article. The only mention is in this article under Iskander-K so I've made R-500 (missile) redirect to Iskander-K (for now). - Rod57 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Claimed damage of Patriot systems

"However, it has been claimed (though controversially) that the Kinzhal, a closely related missile to the Iskander, had destroyed a number of Patriot missile systems."

This is clearly Russian disinformation that should be removed (I am unable to remove it because of semi-protection). Firstly, this information is not relevant for the Iskander article. Secondly, only one Patriot system received "minor damage" (https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-damage-us-made-patriot-system-ukraine-minor-fixed-pentagon-2023-5). KoenigseggOne1 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this still in the article? There are way too many source citations, which is usually a sign that the sources don't support the material. I checked a few of them, some don't even mention Kinzhal, and none of ones I checked say "destroyed a number of Patriot missile systems". GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

One image just says "Null" as a description

on gallery. 2nd image 2603:8081:8AF0:87B0:2224:A9F2:8783:5060 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

About destroyed Patriot units

The Patriot destroyed on March 9 was the first clearly confirmed, not "the first time". No one knows (except the ones who knows) how many have been really destroyed, beyond any claim or counterclaim (or may I say, "PR"). 152.206.236.210 (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)