Talk:Samad (UAV)

unreliable sources
Blogs and tweets are not reliable sources These are not reliable sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-oryx-handbook-of-iranian-drones.html
 * https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148255599731384320
 * https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148968924056367104
 * you have removed reliable sources and added blogs and tweets as reliable sources?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jeremy Binnie wrote an article for Janes on the Samad, and then published some additional commentary on twitter. He is obviously an expert and can be used per WP:SPS.


 * Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans are cited extensively on Wikipedia and also in the specialist military press. They also constitute an expert source, and can likewise be used per WP:SPS. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The articles I removed just mentioned the Samad in passing and did not contain the information you used them to cite (specifically, that the Houthis operate all three variants of the Samad). The sources were reliable, but you cannot use them to cite things that they do not say. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You are saying in Wikivoice that these drones were given by Iran using a blog source? Search for high quality sources and stop the original research in Wikipedia. This is not a blog. You need to write what the reliable sources explicitly say and use attribution for point of views.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't remove material from a page just because you disagree with it, and describing a source as original research does not make a reliable source unreliable. In any case, I have no idea what you're talking about, since the article mentions nothing about the drones coming from Iran (perhaps read it before reverting?).


 * Also, stop reverting the page in whole. You are reverting a number of content-neutral, clearly good edits. If you dislike something, excise that specifically. Please stop degrading the quality of the article. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

original research
you added this A Samad UAV, either a Samad-1 or a Samad-2, was spotted over Syria in 2014. Several Samad UAVs have crashed in Islamic State-held territory. Where does the source mention Sammad and thats a twitter post.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this constitutes a reliable source as the UAV at the Hezbollah museum has been identified as a Samad-1. We can also cite pictures directly, which is done on some military articles. But I agree that this citation is lower quality than the others and I will self-revert it to be polite. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Due weight to bloggers claim
In the infobox you can only add info that are verified not just claims. Please discuss and stop editwarring.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Houthis, Iran all dispute these claims and yet we put the opinion of two blogs in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * please comment here instead of editwarring.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * SharabSalam, please cease from committing 3RR violations as you just did. You may be blocked from editing if you continue edit waring in violkation of WP policy. Best, Streamline8988 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)