User talk:2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A

On your MIM-104 patriot edit

You said: "The format complaint was due to grammar mistakes and a lack of capitalization. The contentious complaint is due to the ISW and other sources declining to confirm the kill, especially in light of the poor quality of the footage and the initial claim being that an S-300 was killed. "ISW has not yet observed evidence confirming that Russian forces destroyed a Patriot air defense system." The added Pravda and Unian sources also do not confirm the kill"

First of all, ISW is a non-credible source, they've been wrong or made controversial statements numerous times and have a clear bias

The footage is unideal quality wise, but we can still tell from it that a convoy containing vehicles on a MAN chassis was struck at night, the convoy contained high-value assets judging by it's automobile escort, and one of the MAN trucks had a slewing ring indicating it was either a TEL or a guntruck, but the first option is more likely because other OSINT guys claim to have made out outriggers among the wreckage AND the explosion shown in the footage indicates presence of rocket fuel. What other evidence would you even need to be satisfied beyond something ridicolous like footage from the ground or UA MoD confirmation?

And the initial S-300 claim can simply be explained by the original editor of the Russian MoD video doing a poor job at vehicle identification, it's not uncommon and i saw it happen multiple times, i see AS-90s mistaken for krabs and whice-versa all the time, i once saw a cargo truck get mistaken for an S-350 launcher, i once saw someone mistake maxxpros for kozak IMVs and etc D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Did this address your concerns? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I stated as much in the talk page.

"What other evidence would you even need to be satisfied beyond something ridicolous like footage from the ground or UA MoD confirmation?"

An appreciable number of reliable sources confirming the kill in published material. Not just one Forbes blog that declined to hedge their claim. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, by friday i expect oryx blog to update their Ukranian losses list so we will see if they support the claim that it was a PAC-2 launcher, the person who is currently the main guy running that website (after the founder kinda retired) retweeted a tweet in support of the theory that it was a PAC-2 battery a few hours ago. That makes me 85% confident that oryx blog will indeed become a reliable source support the claim that it was a PAC-2 in their next few updates D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Then change the article when such an update does happen.

I'm not confident Oryx will. The update to UKRDailyUpdate by Andrew Perpetua declined to confirm the kill, although I'm unsure of its reliability status. https://map.ukrdailyupdate.com/?lat=48.297652&lng=36.958694&z=17&d=19791&c=1&l=0 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but until that change happens it shouldn't imply it could have been a cargo truck either, it should just keep it short and state that a convoy was destroyed and some sources claim it was a PAC-2 convoy

Also can personal discussions be had on this talk page or not? D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The two sources that talk about the truck model mention its dual use as a logistics carrier. All other sources, including the Forbes one, do not talk about the truck.

I don't particularly care about personal discussions. My IP will change eventually anyway. 2601:647:6880:7070:2dc4:823:2f1c:34e9 are edits I made on my phone for example.

If you want to know why I care about this in particular. Its because "Raiyan141", the original paragraph writer, created a fresh account and edited the page, then posted the results on social media to back up his own argument. It annoys me when Wikipedia is abused as such. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

> The two sources that talk about the truck model mention its dual use as a logistics carrier

Ukraine also uses the MAN KAT1 chassis for a guntruck, and probably other things too, if those sources intended to list other options besides TELs they did a fairly bad job D1d2d3d29 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Find a source talking about the myriad uses for the MAN KAT1 truck if it pleases you. Gun truck, IRIS-T, Cranes, LARS, bridge layer, radar, Roland, GLCM, artillery tractor, etc etc. I doubt its really relevant, I believe "common cargo truck" should cover most cases. 2601:647:6880:7070:5981:F262:9F2C:BA0A (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

---