Talk:Sukhoi Su-57

No evidence thus far regarding Su-57 combat action

The article currently uses words like "confirm" when describing supposed combat actions by the Su-57 over Ukraine, but these claims are coming out of Russian media and figures, which have dubious credibility at best, and no evidence has been presented thus far. Either this should be noted, or verbiage should be changed so that it doesn't look like it has been independently confirmed. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, EurAsian Times needs to be a deprecated source, given its poor reliability and almost no verification of information tp back its tabloid-like headlines. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam disputes stealth capabilities, most foreign buyers drop bids, new images surface

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/09/su-57-may-not-be-built-with-quality-workmanship-says-vietnams-mod/ What should we make of this? These images show screws on the airframe and Vietnam reports no radar absorbent material is present. These claims in addition to the complete lack of expected foreign sales could be taken as damning evidence that most of the serial production is not effectively stealth. The airshow photos do not appear to have screws in the airframe, but Russia has demonstrated that their military does not have sufficient inventory for more than parades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KiII_2qabk 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If these claims are included, the entire tone of the article may have to be changed 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The first question to ask here is if globaldefensecorp.com is reliable published source per WP:RS. Ditto for the video producer. That's something that has to be proven first before we start redoing an article based on these sources. BilCat (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Su-57 internal weapons carriage

Is there any actual verification that the SU-57's internal bays are functional. There don't seem to be any images that actually show it carrying weapons internally and whenever it has flown in combat it's carrying externally. In addition all of the videos purportedly showing it firing from the bays are super grainy or shot from an angle where you can't see the bays. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What we need is a reliable published source that states they're nonfunctional. Otherwise it's just speculation/WP:OR, and we can't put that in the article. BilCat (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32742/this-is-a-video-clip-of-an-su-57-firing-a-missile-from-its-side-weapon-bay-or-is-it Not the best source. I feel we should at the very least include a note saying something like “there is no verification that the internal bays are functional” YEEETER0 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Improper Source for Rebuking Russian claims of an Aerial Victory

What is currently footnote 180, https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-upgraded-su57-stealth-jet-finally-made-debut-flight-2022-10, is being used as the source to substantiate the claim that no evidence of an Su-57 shooting down a Ukrainian Su-27 with an R-37M missile has surfaced. However, the linked article does not discuss this at all, and appears to be unrelated. Perhaps we should ask for a better source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A48:AA:2D1C:376F:59B5:1190 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, business insider is pretty much never a good source--even on business matters. Thornfield Hall (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This source discusses the conservative employment of the Su-57 by the Russian Aerospace Forces more. Notably, while it's possible that they've been launching long-range air-to-air missiles, the article points out that this is just a possibility and that no actual evidence of the claimed victories have emerged. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of payload capacity

I think noting that the Su-57 has a large internal payload capacity is warranted in the lead. The patent for the aircraft configuration specifically cited having a large tandem internal weapons bay compared to the F-22, with the aircraft capable of carrying up to four 700 kg ordnance, and for all of the Su-57's flaws, the internal payload capacity is one of its few redeeming qualities. From a purely statistical perspective, the Su-57 is capable of carrying more numerous large munitions internally, four compared to two for the F-22 and F-35. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

See above but there’s no verification that the internal bays work. YEEETER0 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, what we need is verification that they don't work, not speculation. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't how burden of proof works. There's a duty to prove before a duty to disprove. The way I see it the page has 2 choices:

A.) What it is doing now, assume unverified claims are true until they are proven false

B.) What I believe it should do. Use language like "claimed" or "unverified" when speaking about the bays YEEETER0 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would the bays not work? That's nonsensical. But anyway, we actually don't have to state whether or not they work at all. We just state what reliable published sources state, which is that the aircraft has internal bays. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What reliable published source has said that the bays do work? there's no pictures and no videos. The only thing to suggest they do is the word of the Russian government. YEEETER0 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to russia I strongly disagree. The russian government has a proven track record of literally making stuff up and lying through their teeth. Same goes for russian state media. For example; Sukhoi's own patent for the SU-57 states the RCS of the aircraft will be between 0.1 m2 to 1 m2. At best this is 10% that of the F-16, at worst it's essentially the same. The thing literally has screws on the airframe, which are a MASSIVE source of radar reflection. Yet I've seen the russian government claim that it's somehow stealthier than the F-22. With exposed screws on the airframe. Hm. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Issues with the last sentence in the stealth section

"Su-57 is often questioned about its stealth but the aircraft was not meant to be as stealthy as American fighters but the aircraft's stealth should be stealthy enough to be a threat."

This sentence generally doesn't read well, and I recommend splitting it into several sentences. At the current moment, this is not very coherent. Furthermore, I recommend changing the wordage from "American" to "other fifth-generation fighters" to be more inclusive, as China and others are working on / have stealthier fighters that should be acknowledged. 2600:8803:97F2:2:65C3:5BF0:7B94:885E (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Су"

There is a common misconception about how Russian aircraft are supposed to be pronounced. The "Su" in Sukhoi aircraft is not an acronym. It is Су from Russian transliterated into English. As such, this aircraft along with all other Sukhoi aircraft with Су in their aircraft designation are pronounced like "sue" in English. Note that all the aircraft pages have an uppercase S and a lowercase u. That's not standard for how acronyms are used anywhere in English so I don't know why some of you think this is a special case. It's not. It's pronounced Su just like how it's spelled. Not S.U. By Russian convention it is an abbreviation of the manufacturer. They pronounce it like they would the first part of the full word. If you want to claim it's actually an acronym what does it even stand for? If you can't even come up with an explanation stop reverting my correct edits. 24.233.97.244 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

this is an English-language article, however, so consideration also needs to be given to how it is usually referred to in English. In addition, this discussion is probably better on one central place rather than spread out over the talkpages of multiple articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said it's a common misconception. I don't think Wikipedia allows for errors just because they're commonplace. Again, if it's really an acronym you need to explain what it represents. What does S.U. stand for exactly? And can you find a single other example of an acronym that isn't all uppercase letters? The pronunciation I'm advocating for, which is indisputably the correct one, is what should be used in the article. Pronouncing it as S.U. has no basis in reality whatsoever because Su, Mi, An etc. are not acronyms.24.233.97.244 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia to repair the world or teach people how to pronounce Russian model codes. Janes carries more weight than whatever we come up with here, and they universally write "an Su-24", as do all other relevant Eng;ish language sources I can find. See link here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, pronunciations (and modified spellings) are as they are used in English language, this also applies to article titles, Cologne in Germany is not titled Köln or pronounced as Germans would. I served almost 25 years in a NATO air force and have never experienced these Soviet/Russian aircraft company abbreviations pronounced as words apart from MiG. Procedure-wise you have been reverted by three editors and have not established a new consensus to add these changes. To air your views to a larger group of editors you could start a thread at WT:AIRCRAFT. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to first say that I do agree with the IP about the pronunciation of Soviet/Russian aircraft and that I do use them myself, but those pronunciations are not used by a majority of English speakers (even experts I talk to have asked me to repeat after I use them). Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, so you would do better by going to the source authors/publishers themselves and maybe they will make corrections. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is even disputing that I am correct on the substance of the issue. If you read through the sources in these articles the grammar split is about 50/50. If there's a conflict between the two the undeniably correct pronunciation should win out. But god forbid one of you was incorrect about something. 24.233.97.244 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Forget about fighting with wikipedians. They never back down. 5.186.78.167 (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Supposed capabilities of the SU-57

The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility, 4.5 generation heavy jet fighter. (Recorded RCS puts its signature at roughly the same as a naked F/A-18 Hornet). It does not possess supercruise capabilities, nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues (it currently uses two Saturn AL-41F1 jet engines, which are not only underpowered for the size and mass of the aircraft, but prone to failure and not even remotely capable of supercruise). Unsure of maximum speed and combat capabilities since its never actually seen combat outside of essentially being an aerial catapult for long range missiles, which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system. It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet, except for maybe Russian ones, the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war, and frankly unless they figure out how to start packing radar absorbent putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter on earth does, theyll never succeed in getting past a 4.5 gen aircraft. per 99.183.234.109 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

On WP, we just report what reliable sources say on a given subject. Our own personal interpretation does not have the slightest relevance. You will need to provide those sources to backup any change that you want to make. --McSly (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

He is probably talking about how most of the sources on this article are not up to WP standards. MarkusDorazio (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility" 3rd party testing has shown it to have a low rcs (ignoring ram) under 0.5 on average. "It does not possess supercruise capabilitie" I have found no source that claims so. " nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues" even at the time of this post this was untrue. "which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system" there have been no reliable sources for those claims. "It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet" gross exaggeration at best, lying at worst. "the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war" another baseless claim. "putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter" inaccurate claim about early prototypes of the su-57. You're clearly expressing extreme bias with everyone of your claims. Vamlov (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "3rd party testing"? As far as I'm aware, few outside the Russian military have had access to the Su-57, let alone the ability to reliably test the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Computer based rcs testing, not exactly prefect but it can give a good rough estimate of the rcs. Vamlov (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/ It likely can't serve as evidence of it being a stealth aircraft, but it's a sufficient model to demonstrate that the 0.1 average RCS claim is inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as proof that it isn't a stealth aircraft. Vamlov (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disregarding the WP:BLOG issues, this test was clearly conducted by an amateur. Such unprofessional tests do not meet WP:RS and cannot be used to prove or disprove the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The laws of physics don't change depending on if the person observing it is a amateur or not, and every other rcs test there that uses the same methods fits within the known rcs of those aircraft. Yes it the source itself doesn't work within Wikipedia's guidelines and shouldn't be used within the article but it undeniably disproves the claims above. This is unnecessary to argue about. Vamlov (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If we aren't going to discuss actual reliable sources, then this is a waste of time. I doubt any article improvements will result from the continuation of this discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I reviewed all of the citations this article is built on - in candor, I do not think many of them meet WP standards - see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

It is a challenge to obtain such citations - many are obviously propaganda and the Russian language ones - a lot of chatter and opinions - but there are not a lot of reliable sources of information. BeingObjective (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think adding lots of low quality citations - around 258 might make the article look robust - a terse examination of these sources suggest the vast majority do not meet WP standards - see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Removing the low quality sources and maintaining those that meet a credibility threshold - might be a good exercise - 258 is a large number, but it does not mean the article is really robustly supported. BeingObjective (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I did look at these, I did consider the challenges of how many robust citations are likely among these - that meet WP standards.

I seriously think the 258 can be dropped far fewer truly reliable citations/sources -

Context matters

Shortcuts

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In this article - most citations are not very robust, many do not support the claims. most are far from authoritative - many have been added to pad the article -

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article (see WP:INLINECITE and WP:inline citation).

References[edit source]

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b}
2. ^
3. ^ https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4756536.html
4. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c}
5. ^
6. ^
7. ^ Jump up to:^{a b}
8. ^ Jump up to:^{a b}
9. ^
10. ^ Butowski (2021), p. 5
11. ^ Gordon 2021, p. 7
12. ^ Jump up to:^{a b}
13. ^ Butowski (2021), pp. 21–22
14. ^ Gordon 2021, pp. 95–96
15. ^ Butowski (2021), pp. 22–24
16. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Gordon 2021, pp. 96–97
17. ^ Butowski, p. 13
18. ^ Butowski (2021), p. 25
19. ^ "Russia to test PAK-FA in 2007". Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. 8 June 2005

BeingObjective (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is this list meant to indicate? Reliable sources, unreliable sources? Butowski and Gordon are widely published aviation authors - very much WP:RS, so it seems strange to bundle them in with stuff like bpmd that have beed discussed at WP:RSN with the conclusion that it isn't a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Per prior comment: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden BeingObjective (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain anything, how is Butowski or Gordon unreliable? 2601:646:A002:5780:498B:766A:30B2:31C1 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

258 or so citations - likely 10 actual citations that meet WP basic standards.

One can debate this - and I know someone will.

This is an actual citation from this article:

https://gametyrant.com/news/bandai-namco-europe-launches-aircraft-focus-trailers-to-tease-ace-combat-7

There are many very well written GA military articles, and why this document has so many citations that do not meet even common sense thinking is rather a mystery - the tag is legitimate - removing it will not change the problems with this article. BeingObjective (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss the sources you think aren't reliable in the context that they are used - note that the source immeadiately above is used to reference that the aircraft is featured in a video game, so it isn't as daft as it may at first appear (whether it is a reliable source for video games, and whether the featuring in video games is due are different questions.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to become familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden BeingObjective (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeingObjective OK, I've read it. Now, what point are you trying to make to @Nigel Ish with that policy? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s been months without you explaining why sources such as Butowski aren’t reliable. 2600:8803:F50F:7E00:1CAE:4A5D:8B67:5D01 (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We're not likely going to get an explanation. BeingObjective was blocked in December for disruptive editing, among other reasons. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You are 100% right, also the insistent use of TASS and other propagandistic new channels as sourcing on the abilities of the aircraft is very short-minded. Preferably the information would come from either academia or a more neutral air related news articles or reputable mil-blogger. See WP:SOURCE if anyone is interested. MarkusDorazio (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands

According to the GUR, on 8 June, 2024, at least one Su-57 was severely damaged or destroyed at a Russian airbase in Astrakhan. This has been reported by CNN [1], Forbes [2] , UK Defence Journal [3] , Newsweek [4] and many other credible second-party news media outlets. Bricology (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've expanded the paragraph covering the attack with these sources. Thank you. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the section "Accidents" to "Accidents and incidents" and add the June Ukrainian drone strike against the Su-57 on the ground to that section, instead of just being in the Ukrainian War section. (see the talk page section #Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands directly above this one) -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Combat losses of military aircraft are not usually included in accidents and incidents sections unless they occurred under singular and unusual circumstances. A drone strike that damages or destroys a parked military aircraft almost certainly does not belong in the section. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

I request that stealth be removed to describe the SU-57 as it is not stealth and has the same radar cross section as an F-18. 96.245.165.120 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Time is hardly a reliable source nor are the claims is the article. Vamlov (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is more that the actual info in the quoted source is already well reflected in the article, and certainly does not support the OP's change request. Lklundin (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

that is absolutely delusional considering the reported rcs of the 57 is 1m^2 and that's from an American news article, the design of the 57 itself is made to be as stealthy as possible and you shouldn't try to change a trusted website's info about it just because of your own whims Tuklon sane (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

More information about the equipment export info , production info and others things AlexanderMaestro (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

The number of su57s produced on the page is 32 and should be changed, according to multiple telegram channels ("Slavyangrad" and "WE THE FURY") another batch of su57s was delivered on September 12 2024 and confirmed by the website "airdatanews" according to the website "military watch" the number of those produced su57's is 20 Tuklon sane (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done... The first ref does not specify how many, and the second ref only mentions "scheduled to exceed 20". Please request again when the number delivered has been confirmed. And reading the article just now, it already states "another 20 aircraft are expected to be built in 2024", using the second ref (from January 2024). - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Use of ROE Su-57E product card

The use of the Su-57E product card from ROE should be valid in terms of air vehicle performance, because there is currently no difference in terms of air vehicle and propulsion between the Su-57 and Su-57E. Both use the same AL-41F-1 engines, with the main difference being the avionics and the removal of some domestic Russian avionics systems and modes. This is also in line with how Russian export aircraft have been distinguished in the past, where the difference is mainly in the avionics. As such, purely for air vehicle performance the Su-57E brochure should be applicable. This is similar to how the domestic Su-27S/P and the export Su-27SK are nearly identical in the air vehicle and propulsion, and the difference was in the avionics. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of the image used as source, I wanted to note that it is hosted on a eBay-domain, i.ebayimg.com. As such I have to wonder how long it will be accessible there. Lklundin (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no difference in terms of air vehicle and propulsion between the Su-57 and Su-57E. The brochure does not make this claim, so this is WP:OR. Assuming this claim is true, then this is also a prime example of why we should avoid mixing sources for even the same variant, as they often contradict each other. I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Su-27SK and Su-27S/P as an example, since the Sukhoi Su-27 article does not appear to use Su-27S/P sources for its Su-27SK specifications (if I'm wrong, then that needs to be changed). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The specification section of the Su-27 is for the SK variant, but it uses sources for the SK, SKM, and a generic S/P variant.

With regards to the Su-57, Gordon & Komissarov 2021, page 367, states: "In parallel with the FGFA, the Sukhoi Holding Co. started work on an export version of the basic single-seat Su-57 which was designated Su-57E (eksportnyy - export, used attributively). It differed from the standard version primarily in having a different IFF system; the EFIS software would be rewritten so that instrument readings would be in Imperial units and the cockpit labels would be in English. Also, non-Russian weapons could be integrated at the customer's request."

The source is in the bibliography. I can send a picture as needed. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, but we should at least tag it with Template:Better source needed until a source that actually covers the proper variant can be found. As for the Su-27, I do not see any sources that cover the Su-27S/P, and the one source that is titled with "Su-27SKM" explicitly lists the specifications as those of the SK. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out so it can be dealt with accordingly. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Steve7c8 I recommend self-reverting per WP:STATUSQUO until we can come to a consensus. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Lklundin If the source is deemed to be acceptable, then it can be archived. That said, the ideal solution would be to find the original PDF (or whatever) file online if it exists. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Number of serially produced su-57 needs to be updated

Number of serially produced su-57 needs to be updated the number displayed on the article is now contradicted by its own source. Madnow2 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that we can cite for the total number produced/serialized? Even the source we use in the infobox now is lacking in many details or hard numbers (i.e. "a few" delivered in 2023 is not very encyclopedic). - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done... as best I could with the current ref, we still need a better ref though... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox not matching article

@Steve7c8 Hello, since you have restored the infobox parameter "number built", would you mind including this somewhere in the article body text? As it stands right now neither the 32 figure or the 10 figure is anywhere to be found. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." TylerBurden (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is more about the detail of content (e.i. number of fields) that should be included in an infobox than anything else. While I agree that the information should be included in the article body, I don't believe INFOBOXPURPOSE alone is a strong argument for removing sourced information from the infobox. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Military Watch Magazine should be deprecated

This article has several references to Military Watch Magazine, and this source should be deprecated for consistently echoing Russian propaganda and their articles are almost always in line with the Russian government narrative. Furthermore, the site has no transparency regarding their origins and authors. Steve7c8 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that Military Watch Magazine has ever been discussed at WP:RSN. Such a discussion should probably take place there per WP:DEPHOW. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll bring it up there. Another questionable source that needs to be deprecated is Eurasian Times, another pro-Putin and pro-Modi site with similar issues, often having editorialized or narrative-driven pieces posing as news. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)