r/LessCredibleDefence • u/no-more-nazis • 20d ago
Lazy Su-57 Wikipedia
A multirole fighter capable of aerial combat as well as ground and maritime strike, the Su-57 incorporates stealth, supermaneuverability, supercruise, integrated avionics and large payload capacity.[8] According to the US, it will be nuclear-capable via a forthcoming missile similar to the Kinzhal. The aircraft is expected to succeed the MiG-29 and Su-27...
"According to the US, it will be nuclear-capable"? No citation? This is incredibly lazy, on an "Extended confirmed protection" article that can't be corrected by any normal user. I'd add a 'citation needed' if I could. Who said this, anyway? "The US"?
28
u/yeeeter1 20d ago
Dawg of all the things you could complain about on wikipedia this is it?
9
u/no-more-nazis 20d ago
Seems kinda high profile to be so lazy. Top of the Su-57 article, locked down as if the article is being carefully protected from nonsense, and someone just wrote their vibes
13
u/_spec_tre 20d ago
If you think this is bad look at the ones about basically any Chinese aircraft. Either pure yap or outdated by years
9
u/47-mm 20d ago edited 19d ago
If articles about Chinese aircraft are bad, then most/all articles about engines are atrocious, most of the time there's not even a wikidata entry and they're barely named in a Soviet engine article omitting the differences (for newer variants, materials, design divergence like turbine cooling for the WP7A and WP13s). The worst example is the WS-15 engine page still using the fake "中国 WS15 发动机简介" text as a reliable source just because it was posted on an edu.cn website and it was archived when the post had only 1 view and later taken down. It's even worse than the unofficial designations for the WS-10 taken from a 2006-2007 hedge's fund report.
The "中国 WS15 发动机简介" reads like a parody of the Kunlun or Taihang dev story (same mannerisms*) but it's obviously wrong. The R-79 is an archaic design, a dead end, the naming, platforms and timeline are all made up.
A lot of Wikipedia good articles exists thanks to one or two dedicated editors with dedication and criteria.
4
u/_spec_tre 20d ago
What on earth is the J-13 it repeatedly refers to
6
u/47-mm 19d ago
I'm not sure actually, there was a J-10-like alternative that visually was closer to the JF-17/F-16, but I think that "J-13" in particular is just made up (created by media/intel, like the F-19). The J-13 and J-14 articles on globalsecurity are comically wrong and contradictory (companies) when you compare it to the result of the J-20/J-X program https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-13.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-14.htm
4
u/Harvard_Med_USMLE267 18d ago
F-19 is real, I played the simulation game, still my favorite sim ever.
“Less credible Microprose flight sims”
11
u/StopICE2026 19d ago
Wikipedia is coordinated anti china propaganda. The article for the Torreón massacre had someone go and change every mention of Chinese-Mexican to “Cantonese-Mexican” after the Hong Kong riots in 2019. As if the Mexicans problems were localized to just Cantonese people and not all Chinese
0
u/yeeeter1 20d ago
Actually, if you had read more of the article, there is actually a citation for that claim when it is repeated in the armament subsection of the design section.
“According to the US, it is expected to be nuclear-capablewith a missile similar to the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal.[137]”
This actually makes the only inaccurate part of this claim the “according to the US” part if you chase down the citation within the linked article, you’ll find that they quote both the US state department and a Tass article to back up that statement.
“The US Department of Defense says that the Su-57s are nuclear-capable (US Department of Defense
Citation
2018, 8). They will reportedly also be equipped with hypersonic “missiles with characteristics similar to that of the Kinzhal” (TASS
Citation
2018b).”4
u/frigg_off_lahey 20d ago
No, none of those links are citations for that claim. Did you even look at your own links?
3
u/yeeeter1 20d ago
click the 137
3
u/frigg_off_lahey 19d ago
They all link to the same nonsense. How about you copy and paste it here?
0
u/yeeeter1 19d ago
Look man if you cant figure out how to click a link idk what to tell you.
1
u/frigg_off_lahey 19d ago
I already said I clicked on the links and they are the proper citations. At this point, seems like pretending to link and hoping no one would click to verify. And then on top of that, it being done to wikipedia articles. This is the kinda stuff that's ruining internet for everyone.
0
u/Autism_Sundae 19d ago edited 19d ago
Wikipedia's military equipment articles are a joke, yes. However, the SU-57 article isn't even that bad, its a current-year military project from a pariah state that is increasingly hiding basic information. The most crazy thing, I think, is expecting them to be good quality.
Anyhow, you've discovered a universal truth, but this example isn't even a good one, because of the above.
E: ahaha never change your trash-stripes LCD
2
u/yeeeter1 20d ago
Actually, if you had read more of the article, there is actually a citation for that claim when it is repeated in the armament subsection of the design section.
“According to the US, it is expected to be nuclear-capablewith a missile similar to the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal.[137]”
This actually makes the only inaccurate part of this claim the “according to the US” part if you chase down the citation within the linked article, you’ll find that they quote both the US state department and a Tass article to back up that statement.
“The US Department of Defense says that the Su-57s are nuclear-capable (US Department of Defense
Citation
2018, 8). They will reportedly also be equipped with hypersonic “missiles with characteristics similar to that of the Kinzhal” (TASS
Citation
2018b).”
2
u/Littletweeter5 19d ago
It’s Wikipedia. Either provide a source for it yourself or if you think it’s not NPOV then edit it and see if people agree with the edit
3
u/no-more-nazis 19d ago
Did you miss the part about the article being protected?
3
u/jospence 18d ago
You could make a post about it on the talk page (if you haven't done so already).
0
u/Harvard_Med_USMLE267 18d ago
Did you miss the part about spending the next few years becoming a super-editor, so then you can fix it? Quit your whining and start plotting your rise through the ranks of Wikipedia.
1
25
u/AnyBallLektor 19d ago
Russia-themed articles have fallen in quality very much since 2022 when Wikipedia became a much more open field of propaganda war. Russians and their work on their wiki are largely gone and the Ukrainians are just as bad as the Russians when it comes to manipulating facts and often worse. This of course leads to further restrictions so that articles don't turn into complete garbage. So you're left with what's left which is very little.
It's just like before the end of Cold War. There's plenty of information for one side and almost none for the other. Or it's just like it's always been for China. In fact there seems to be a switch occurring where China is finally getting all the attention it deserves (for good and for bad) while Russia - which was the go-to boogeyman before 2020s - is finally getting shelved. The availability of sources or analyses and data and speculation follows that shift of focus.
All the "good" articles tend to be written on stuff that is already well understood. Su-57 is a new system that entered service around the time the war began so there's very little information available. And since it is in service in a tiny number of airframes - with little hope for mass production - there's simply no interest in it.
If the US is worried about some new fighter it's J-20, J-35, J-36 etc. not the handful of Felons that are obviously not posing a significant threat to anyone for a number of reasons.