Talk:Hwasong-15

Picrures, or it didn't happen

There is need some picrures about Hwasong-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.249.157 (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Payload

Kirliator, there is no minimum payload cited for Hwasong-15 in article written by Michael Elleman for 38 North on November 30th 2017 while also you falsely accuse me of edit war while ignoring this fact. Either you can apologize and remove "150 -" from warhead weight section or you can use this outdated article and mislead people by ignoring fact that it is previous article written by Elleman for 38 North on Novermber 29th where he asserted it was reconfigured Hwasong-14 in which he claimed maximum payload for 13,000km range is 150kg for his assertion before release of images which have shown brand new design thus this article was dismissed by subsequent article made by same author which I reference for payload. Chernobog95 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Chernobog95, the minimum payload isn’t directly stated, but it is implied. A lot of citations throughout this site have information that is not directly state, but they do give indications that indirectly imply it, some of which are even present on this particular page. Kirliator was just doing his/her job, so he/she has nothing to apologize for, thus you technically committed a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia’s Terms of Service.

There is no indication that minimum payload is and or was implied in the article, only 150kg payload for 13,000km was for hypothetical Hwasong-15 which is Hwasong-14 with improved second stage which Elleman has dismissed and raised his estimate after images were released. I went through similar stupidity by others who forced lower ranges for maximum range for Hwasong-14 and continued to do so despite test after that which lead to new assesment which raised the range and was blocked from editing for using unreliable sources despite using reliable sources. You, him/her anf other noname anonymous IP are forcing what is not stated nor implyed. You people continie to ignore facts, you people have standards of feeling attacked when corrected by someone who points out facts. You can lie or admit you people made mistake and apologize for your lack of effort of checking for facts. Chernobog95 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You were technically edit-warring because you reverted three edits within the last hour. Their is a policy that states that users should not edit-war even if they think the information is right, as it still counts as a revert, which will be stacked against you if your actions continue.

Your problem here is not what you insert, but how you behave when you insert it: your behavior is significantly hostile towards other users, and according to your talk page, you have done this many times to several users before over the past several months, some of which happened to be administrators. Unless you change this attitude of yours and start respecting other users edits, then you may eventually be reported for your behavior. Python Dan (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Kirliator, what you suggest is impossibility when other side refuses to participate in discussion to settle and come to concesus based on facts and it is clear it is not in interest of other party as by not participating there can't be concensus or if participates it will be with others who share his interest of asserting information that isn't in the article thus lie and by wikipedia rules even if a lie despite contradicting with rule of facts/sourcing the lie can stay on wikipedia because concensus the rule of majority opresses the minority. I have stated my position which is logical and rational, I replied and they didn't. They continue to revert knowing they don't have valid reasons to push what they push. That includes you. Chernobog95 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, unlike you, they seem to know the difference between "maximum" (what the text says) and "approximately" (what you claim in the infobox. Hint: not the same), not to mention what a range of numbers means. --Calton | Talk 23:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, force your fallacious narrative as you force unsourced statistics or unrelated one like they did. The highest number we got that we can source is 1,000kg for payload and we don't know how light it can be before this missile could in fact make its payload go into low earth orbit rather than sub-orbital ballistic trajectory. Should have I put ?-1,000kg or ?~1,000kg? Chernobog95 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Open source contribution, Alexander Levakov Dec 2017

I am moving Alexander Levakov's estimate of Hwasong-15's range to the talk page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

New Transporter Erector Vehicle

Does anybody have a source with more info about the new 9 axle transport vehicle for this missile? I'm wondering they aqquired this one from China as they did with the previous TEL or if they developed this "in house". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikey08 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hwasong-16?

Should information on the newly unveiled ICBM be included here or is it time for a new page,? See North Korea Unveils Two New Strategic Missiles in October 10 Parade("The new ICBM, presumably a Hwasong-16, appears to be approximately 25-26 m long and 2.5-2.9 m in diameter—about 4-4.5 m longer and about 0.5 m larger in diameter than the North’s Hwasong-15 ICBM flight tested once in November 2017."). 24.151.56.107 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)