Jump to content

Talk:Bavar-373

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bavar 373. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bavar 373. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bavar 373. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bavar-373 has been unveiled in an official ceremony but my edit was rejected without a reason

[edit]

As it has been released in news outlets, Bavar 373 was unveiled in an official ceremony today (August 22nd, 2019). It's extremely easy to verify that it's a valid edit, yet for unknown reasons my edit was rejected without leaving a comment about why my edit was rejected. Could someone please enlighten me about why a valid edit adding new relevant information to the topic should be rejected?

Persian mathemagician (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need reference for "design date" (2010–2019) and "service" (2019-ongoing). Without reference, we cannot accept your edit. BTW, do not revert when your edit rejected and refer WP:3RR. --AntanO 02:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When something has been unveiled during an official ceremony and it has been publicly tested with video footage of the test released in the media, it means that the designing stage has been completed. And the first system has been delivered to the army which means that it is operational as of now.[1]. Also, the Persian Wikipedia too says exactly the same thing and I do not understand why the English Wikipedia should claim something different when a simple Google search would reveal tens of sources from local or foreign newspapers verifying the content of my edit. Persian mathemagician (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Refer WP:NOT--AntanO 02:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.mehrnews.com/news/149156/VIDEO-Iran-unveils-Bavar-373-air-defense-system

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bavar in Russia invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

[1] [2]

These are not sources to make claim directly that Russia is using the system, they are quoting "anonymous sources from the Hashd", the articles also have flaws and says B-373 is similar to the S-300 when they are not but in capabilities only, the whole claim and article is nonsensical but it is not the question there since they are considered as "acceptable outlets", this article does not permit to claim directly that Russia is using it or that Iran sent one to Russia, not even intelligence claims, photos or any source which could make claim Russia is using it, but only an anonymous source who told TheGuardian.

The missiles used by B-373 are not S-300 missiles, this is not an "analogue to the S-300", Iran only talked about capabilities, the claim is supported by no fact or sources by anonymous sources from the Hashd quoting they are "happy to kill Americans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I missed that. - ZLEA T\C 16:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30740-iran-gives-s-300s-back-to-russia-to-use-in-ukraine-reports
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/russia-using-weapons-smuggled-by-iran-from-iraq-against-ukraine

Proposition to remove "Russia" in operator section

[edit]

I think we should just mention the Russia thing in the "History" section of the article like it is and remove Russia from "operators" section, Russia in operators is a little misleading, the sources are very vague and are based on anonymous sources only, i do not want to judge but it seems like a propaganda piece with many errors in it such as the missiles and the system, even TheGuardian is a respectable outlet and accepted here as a source, when it comes to Iran or Russia/China they've did many articles like this one before, but that's not the question here.

This is not a "source", but very vague reporting with speculation and based only from an Iraqi militia anonymous source.

Or at least making a subsection "Reported operators" so it gets less misleading. Russia should be in the operator section only if we get a direct, credible source or photos/usage in Ukraine, this is just reporting and speculation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunet (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies solely on western sources and not producer/Iranian sources

[edit]

The range and the AESA radar are not fakes, 3rd Khordad uses an AESA radar that has been tested, not pulse dopplers, Bavar uses a variant of it

The problem with this article is that we 100% need western sources to tell us what Iran made instead of adding "claimed by Iran" and not removing the sources or citing them as "unreliable" because they are from Iran, this is bad faith and hypocrisy 2A04:CEC0:100E:81F5:9A31:CB06:1B7:BE36 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how our sourcing policy works. Those sources have been declared by community consensus to be generally unreliable or deprecated due to their inherent source bias. Additionally in the cases that they are used, we absolutely need to attribute claims (e.g. "claimed by X"). If you're unfamiliar with our reliable sourcing policy, I suggest you spend some time now to familiarize yourself with it before continuing to disrupt the article.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it has to rely solely on foreign sources, simply make the article with "claimed by Iran" or "Iran claims" "Its producers claims" instead of putting the dubious template, it makes it terrible to read
They are not dubious, but simply claims from its manufacturer, just like if Russia unveils something new, its specs are Russian/its manufacturer claims and not 100% reliable specs
The "non deprecated" ones just reports the specs from the same Iranian outlets, they don't make up the specs
Letting people edit it to claim Iran doesn't made any AESA is ridiculous as it was proven and even battle tested multiple times 2A04:CEC0:100E:81F5:9A31:CB06:1B7:BE36 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not how it works. This isn't about foreign sources vs. domestic ones; it's about reliable sources vs. unreliable ones. Iranian state media sources like Tasmin News Agency and Press.tv have been discussed by the community, and determined to be deprecated. They're inappropriate for inclusion in the article, particularly when better sources exist, due to extensive evidence of bias, dishonesty, and propagandizing on behalf of the IRGC. The {{dubious}} template is specifically for scenarios where a claim exists and is sourced, but nevertheless the veracity or accuracy of the source is doubtful. Specifically, to point out uncertainty over conflicting sources; to question the veracity, accuracy, or methodology employed by a given source; to express concerns that the source may have been misinterpreted; and to alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain the statement's validity. This is extremely common with state media claims (not even just with Russia). Simply saying "it's producers claim" is insufficient in cases where the claim itself is dubious; this is particularly the case when it comes to manufacturer's claims. This article is not the place to fight propaganda wars. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the radar

[edit]

"One of the radars used in Bavar-373 is Meraj-4 (Ascension), a phased array radar with range of 450 km"

Please note this is the range of detection and not acquisition or fire range, this quote can be confusing, 450km is normal for most radars, acquisition should be 100-300km maximum as it is already mentionned


Instead

"One of the radars used in Bavar-373 is Meraj-4 (Ascension), a phased array radar with a claimed detection range of 450km"

And the dubious template could be removed with it, it is more confusing than dubious 2A01:CB04:60D:EA00:2538:53D2:154B:20C6 (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bavar-373&oldid=1224040867"