Talk:Sky Sword II

Proposed merge with Sky Sword I
There is not enough on both these systems to justify individual pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree... It would also align the format with the Sky Bow page merlinVtwelve (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sky Sword II article needs to be restored since it is a missile that is different from Sky Sword I
The Sky Sword II missile is a completely different missile from the earlier technology of the Sky Sword II. So why in the world did somebody incorrectly make the ignorant decision to hastily merge the Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II missile systems. Merging the two previously separate articles of Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II would only be warranted if the missile systems were the same. But the reality is that they are two separately developed missile systems with each having different and unique technologies in them, they were only designated as Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II because one was developed earlier than the latter, but they are completely different missile systems, with different technologies and engine systems, as well as a completely different performance characteristics. What is the logic of merging two separate missile systems together into one poorly edited article??? These two missile systems originally had their own separate articles, let's restore these original articles so that each different missile system can be given a higher quality and more informative page than the current hastily merged page. 2600:8801:2E01:16C0:F9C6:7C3E:BA20:67B (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a move - take the existing Sky Sword II description from Sky Sword and put it in a separate article. What is not acceptable is this advertisement. Wikipedia is not trying to sell the missile. That version violates way too many Wikipedia rules about neutrality. --mfb (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No you have not provided enough references which proves that there is sufficient reason to create a separate article. The articles were merged based on a consensus above. You need to provide references and enough content which justifies this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for restoring original separate Sky Sword II article. The two missiles are different, the onus is on you to provide justification since you are the one who merged the articles without consensus. There are no references or sources that say Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II are the "same" missile. Your merger of the two Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II articles is like merging the Sidewinder missile article with the AMRAAM missile article, it's two separate and different missile systems, each missile having different ranges and capabilities. The Sky Sword I is Taiwan's version of a Sidewinder missile while in contrast the Sky Sword II is a completely separate missile system that was designed to fill a similar role that the AMRAAM filled. What is your justification for merging the two different missile systems? You provided no reference sources or any other justification to merge the two separate articles??? The Sky Sword II, according to reference sources, state that it is designed to be a medium range missile reaching 100 km unlike the other separate Sky Sword I which was specifically designed for short close range distances of 30 km and travels a slower speeds compared to the hypersonic Mach 6 speeds of Sky Sword II, multiple references all confirm this. These two missiles are of two completely separate different designs with different radar guidance systems, different propulsion systems, different electronics and most importantly the Sky Sword II flies at Mach 6 and has a range of 100 km while the Sky Sword I flies much slower and can only reach 30 km in distance. It doesn't take a genius to realize these are two separate missile systems that are designed for different capabilities, one weapon for short range and another weapon for longer ranges. You need to provide references sources that specifically state Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II are the same missiles in order to justify your previous merger of the articles of the two separate and different missiles otherwise your previous merger is inaccurate, unjustified and unwarranted and will be rectified. 73.157.185.219 (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have gone over this before where un-referenced claims have been made, the same way you are making them now. The merge as you can see was done via consensus (over a period of about 8 months, so there was no haste), I would recommend you to add content to Sky Sword article with supporting WP:RS. Once we have sufficient content for I and II, a discussion can be initiated on the talk page there to gain consensus of WP:FORK the article. As of now, you are making a lot of claims which have no references. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the logs don't lie, actually the merger was done without any references provided, you can go back and check the logs. No reference sources, none, not one single source were provided by you or any of those individuals who suddenly to decided to merge the two separate articles without justification. You cannot go about suddenly deciding to merge two articles without justification from reference sources. Do not lie about false consensus, there was no consensus, just you and your small group of Wikipedia friends suddenly deciding to merge the articles without giving any references or justification. In order for the pages to be justifiably merged you MUST provide sources showing that both Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II are the same missile, do you have sources for this? If so, please share your sources with us?? Where are your references to justify a merging of two separate articles?76.89.178.32 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We are providing multiple reliable sources to show undeniably the Sky Sword 2 is a separate missile system that travels at hypersonic speeds of Mach 6 at a range of 100km, much faster than Mach 2.5 of the separate and different missile design of the Sky Sword 1 which has a short range of only 30 km.

1.) Taiwan News, specifically states Sky Sword 2 flies above hypersonic Mach 6, 100Km range 2.) Military Watch Magazine specifically states Sky Sword 2 flies above hypersonic Mach 5, 100Km range and is the Taiwanese equivalent of AMRAAM AIM-120B missile 3.) Defense World specifically states Sky Sword 2 flies at hypersonic speeds above Mach 6, effective range 100km, increased precision guidance mechanism 4.) Janes specifically states Sky Sword 2 is a medium range missile unlike the short range Sky Sword I

We have provided reliable reference sources that back up everything that was in the previous undeleted version of the Sky Sword 2 article, now please show us your references that justify a merging of two separate missile systems??? 76.89.178.32 (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have gone over these sources before. The Taiwan news report is based on a Liberty Times report which is a WP:TABLOID and the the defenseworld.net is then based on the Taiwan news report (all of them explicitly state so). Same for militarywatchmagazine which seems to be not WP:RS. The only WP:RS you have indeed provided is the Janes source which does indeed state the range is different and that is reflected in the article. Even if, and I say "even if", we were to take these references at face value, there is little reason to have separate pages since they are part of the same missile system. This is standard practice across many other Wikipedia pages, where Mk1 and Mk2 versions of the missile are mentioned in the same article with insufficient content on each one individually. As I said before, you need to add more content to the Sky Sword article based on WP:RS before we it can be WP:FORK. Also, what do you mean by we? Are you claiming that all these IPs are different editors? Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon further inspection of the past entries, only one source from Taiwan News was quoted by the other IP. The others like Janes and Military watch magazine are new and not seen in any past entries by the other IP user. We would like to see what references you have supporting a merger?118.16.244.168 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read my explanation correctly and the sources provided. The WP:BURDEN lies on you to start a discussion to WP:FORK this article after it was merged with consensus. Currently, all that you are doing is disrupting the page and have added no content based on WP:RS. Also, are you still claiming that all these IPs are different editors? Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you are the one who initiated the merger for no justified reason, no references provided, none whatsoever. Since you initiated this change and merger of the two separate articles the burden of proof lies upon you to justify you actions as to why you merged the previously two separate articles. Either you provide reliable references sources showing that Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II are the same missile system or the page will be reverted to the original. We can go for a very long time on this, so show us your references sources that say these two are the same missile?

Do not talk nonsense, semantic distractions don't work, sorry, everyone wants to see your reference sources that justifies merging these two separate missiles, show them to us?? 68.199.247.184 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The page merger had no objections for months. It was according to the guidelines. Stop wasting everyone's time arguing about it please. A split now is a new action that needs a new consensus. And it doesn't look like you'll get that, but you can still try, with the procedures outlines above. --mfb (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop wasting our time mfb (talk), besides your negativity do have something positive to contribute? Do you have any reference sources that show that Sky Sword 1 and Sky Sword 2 are the "same" missile? If you do then please show us because the onus and burden of proof is on the people who first initiated the unwarranted merger of two different missiles. Show us the reference sources or leave! 210.140.10.87 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read how Wikipedia operates. The pages were merged with consensus over a long period of time. The onus is on you now to add WP:RS content and create a case for a WP:FORK. The very fact that are Mk1 and Mk2 versions of each other is enough to keep them in the same page. No sources need to be provided for this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Adamgerber80 (talk), you are the one who initiated the merger without justifying it. You are the one making false claims that Sky Sword i and Sky Sword II are the same missile, so the burden of proof lies upon you to provide reliable reference sources to support your merger otherwise, without sources, your merger is invalid. All the public sources state very clearly that Sky Sword 2 is Taiwean's equivalent of the U.S AMRAAM missile while the Sky Sword 1 is Taiwan's equivalent of the U.S. Sidewinder missile. These are indisputably two completetly different missile systems, each with their own unique ranges and capabilities, so stop trying to distract people and show us the sources backing up your claim that "Sky Sword I and Sky Sword 2 are the same missile"....if you want a valid case then show us your sources???50.81.6.202 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have gone over this umpteen times now. I won't be replying to this anymore if you continue to argue in the same vein. Add WP:RS content to justify WP:FORK a page. Until then the the single page is fine. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Adamgerber80 (talk) you have gone over nothing except avoiding giving us any references and trying weasel your way out of this, Do not try to avoid the subject! You wanted a discussion, we are trying to discuss, but you are being very stubborn by not providing any references that back your merger. What justification do you have to merge the articles? The only thing you did was talk to your buddies on the talk page and say "the two missiles are the same" WITHOUT providing any valid evidence for this false statement. And all of your Wiki friends who like to support your merger based on a lack of references should be ashamed of yourself because you know very well that Adamgerber80 (talk) does not have any valid references that back up his false claim. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should be accurate and updated constantly with the newest information and you guys are not helping to improve this articles with your unjustified mergers and being completed uneducated about the missile systems themselves, aka. not understanding the simple concept that Sky Sword I is Taiwanese version of a Sidewinder missile and the Sky Sword II is the Taiwanese version of an AMRAAM missile. The only reason they were both given the name "Sky Sword" is simply a matter of convenience and also possibly deception against the rival communist People's Republic of China (PRC). You are avoiding giving us any reference sources because apparently you have NONE to warrant your merger! The single page is not and it WILL be reverted back to the original whether you like it or not because have provided any references to back up your false statements about Sky Sword I and Sky Sword 2 being the so-called "same" missile. We challenge you to find any reference sources that back your false statements?? We would very much like to see your sources and if they do indeed turn out to be correct we would willing modify our edits on the basis of the new information from your reference sources, but until you can provide valid reference sources stating that they are both the same missile system, your merger is invalid and will be changed regardless. We can go a long time if you want but we are waiting for you show us your reference sources, so please don't beat around the bushes anymore and show us your reference sources! Please provide us with your sources !180.71.142.30 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, enough is enough. Citations/references are not required for a merger. They are required for a separate article.  has explained how the scant references you supplied do not rise to the level warranting a separate article. Please review the links they provided. If you have valid, in-depth sourcing, from reliable, independent sourcing backing up your claims, then please provide them. If not, then please drop the stick and back away from this discussion. It's not rocket science, either the sources back up your viewpoint, or they don't.  So far, they don't.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, where does it say "citations/references are not required for a merger?" The one who initated the merger must justify his actions, period. Please provide reference sources that specifically state that both missiles are the same. 126.29.60.146 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done talking to someone with such a lack of knowledge of WP guidelines/procedures. Read WP:MERGE.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your negative behavior is not helping to solve this dispute. Lack of knowledge? That's very funny coming from you! LOL, you should understand that the one who initiates a merger must first justify his actions with proper reason and good sources. Additionally, don't you think asking us for references while you and your friend Adamgerber80 (talk) is both hypocritical and a double standard? Try to conduct yourself in a more civilized manner please! You should compromise with us and work together with us to find a consensus instead of avoiding the problem. Everyone here on Wikipedia can see that you and your Wikipedia friend Adamgerber80 (talk) are avoiding providing any reference sources justifying the merger of two different missile articles, so quit playing edit war games and try to work together with us to improve the article for real. All the articles specifically state Sky Sword 2 travels at Mach 6, do you have any sources that say it doesn't? How can you deny this when reliable multiple sources all state it travels at Mach 6? And where exactly does it say "citations/references are not required for a merger?" Where does it say this, we would like to know, please show us?? Providing sources backing up your point that two missiles are the "same" would be a good start, we are open to good proposals but the two different missiles absolutely cannot be on the same page together, they must and will be separated. The current one page article for the two different missiles is unacceptable, but meet us in the middle and let us come to a possible compromise or consensus?

Sky Sword I is Taiwan's version of the American Sidewinder missile while the different Sky Sword II is Taiwan's version of the American AMRAAM missile. Here is another source that specifically states the Sky Sword I uses a "Sidewinder missile airframe", providing further proof that this is Taiwan's version of the American Sidewinder missile:

1.) Deagel, Defensive Weapons, Sky Sword I missile uses a "Sidewinder missile airframe" 126.29.60.146 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

2.) Strategy Page, Sky Sword II source specifically states "The air-to-air version of Sky Sword II entered service in 1999 and was developed because the United States would not supply Taiwan with AMRAAM (missile)"

3.) Sky Sword 2 travels at Mach 6, six times the speed of sound, anything speed Mach 5 and above is considered by aerospace definition HYPERSONIC Article specifically states "An upgraded version of the Taiwanese missile has expanded its range from 60 kilometers to 100 km, the Liberty Times reported. Its maximum speed amounted to Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound, sufficient to counter the Mach 2 speeds of the Su-35" and the very fact that Defense-Aerospace is quoting this information is further proof that is it reliable and valid!

4.) Even the Wikipedia page on the American Sidewinder missile specifically states that the Tien Chien I ("Sky Sword I") is based on the American Sidewinder missile system and completely different from the Sky Sword II which is influenced by the AMRAAM missile which has entirely different performance capabilities. Read this: Direct from Wikipedia American AIM-9 Sidewinder missile:

"CSIST Sky Sword I(TC-1) is a Taiwanese development of the AIM-9L (aka. "Sidewinder missile") originally meant to arm the ROCAF's indigenous F-CK-1 fighter. A ground-launched version was since developed as part of the Antelope air defence system, being carried on a Humvee-based launcher vehicle. The Pelican-Hardigg Technical Packaging division of Pelican Products Inc. has designed, qualified, and now manufactures a single missile AUR (All Up Round) Container for this missile. The Pelican-Hardigg Missile Container has been designed to be light enough for the loaded container to be physically handled by 6 men."

As you can see, Sky Sword 1 is an indigenous Taiwanese version of the Sidewinder style of missile with a short range of 30km for close in engagements at slower speeds of Mach 2.5, like the American AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, while the Sky Sword 2 is an indigenous Taiwanese medium range missile that can travel 100km at speeds of at least Mach 6. The guidance systems, propulsion systems (aka. Engine), aerodynamics, fuel load, fin stabilization, warhead type and size are all completely different due to their two different air frames. It was built because the USA refused to sell the American AMRAAM missile to Taiwan, so the Taiwanese just basically designed and built their own missile that would fulfill the capabilities of the AMRAAM missile. Now, we have provided numerous reliable sources showing that the Sky Sword I is Taiwan's indigenously developed missile that even uses the American "Sidewinder missile airframe" while the completely different missile system of the Sky Sword 2 is Taiwan's indigenously designed and built equivalent of the American AMRAAM missile that was only independently built by Taiwan because the USA refused to sell the technology to Taiwan. Now please show us your reference source that state the Sky Sword I and Sky Sword 2 are the "same missile system"??? And please tell us where exactly does it say "citations/references are not required for a merger?" Thanks! 126.29.60.146 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement
There is material in the lead which is not in the body. The lead should be a summary of the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)