![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The source ( "Iranian Shahed-136 Kamikaze Drones Already Used By russia (First Photos And Specs) | Defense Express". en.defence-ua.com. Retrieved 2022-09-29.) in the article is full of misinformation
The engine is a reverse engineered Limbach L550E It is a patented design, this engine is reverse engineered by Iranian MADO company made under the designation of M550 and used in many. different other Iranian UAVs. Quick search on google will show
Oleg Katkov "analysis" isn't of a Shahed-136, but a Shahed-131, its predecessor
The drone isn't guided using "civilian GPS" as he says but: Terminal Guidance:
1. Via IR sensor in the nose cap (Also seen in other UAS models)
2. Guided via another Recon UAV via datalink. Recon UAVs such as Mohajer-6 seen in Ukraine can act as commanders and flying relays to guide suicide drones to their targets that are loitering around.
On to the body, alot of "analysts" believe the body is the same as a Harpy or some Harpy-copy. Once again, with very minimal research, one can see the honeycomb RAS design, layered with carbonfiber interior, and fiberglass exterior. This is part of the reason why radars have such trouble catching them from long ranges, the size of the drone is also twice of a Harpy drone and Harop
You simply cannot use commercial GPS to target something slightly thicker than a telephone poll perfectly. Or as they used it to target refinery towers in Abqaiq in 2019. It is simply not possible without accurate terminal guidance.
This analysis have been talked a lot on defense forums, this is a minimal research also using Shahed-131 as a reference
This is what he used as a reference: https://inf.news/en/military/92ce2368d61455bcbd741c5bc15f7874.html It is a Shahed-131 reference, which isn't used neither produced. And this analysis contradicts a lot of things said in his article, he is saying that he refers also to Iranian sources, but yet he manages to claim which guidance method it uses, which GPS, and the materials used
In this same article contains a baseless fake news: ""On September 26, the Ukrainian armed forces fired Haimas rockets at the management and training center of Iranian drone operators in the Kherson region, and about 20 Iranian instructors and 40 Russian military personnel who had gone to Russia were eliminated."
I would be careful using sources from Ukrainian outlets or "The Washington Institute", that are everything but neutral and profesionnal, all of his claims concerns the Shahed-131 drone if he is using the above "analysis" for his claims, because they are factually full of flaws, such as saying "Aliexpress jammers will counter them easily", it is a rushed analysis mostly made to demonize the products after they have been used by Russia, but none of what he says is actually correct, so far no one have spread this misinformation PR piece on something else than Ukraine outlets.
Also "At the same time, the use of this drone filmed by Iran cannot serve as a credible sourse because of possible "additional pyrotechnic effects". Iranian propaganda has been repeatedly caught using them.", this is clearly a non-neutral outlet using no other source at all but his imagination, defending as much as possible his country while demonizing everyone else, with a distorted source not even mentioned in this article
2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 ( talk) 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 19:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
HESA Shahed 136 → Shahed 136 – Recent sources linked on this article seem to prefer the use the named "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" without the HESA prefix, such as:
It seems to me that simply "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" is the common name for this weapons system Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The aircraft is referred to as 'Geranium" in previous paragraphs and I found the use of "Geran" jarring in subsequent paragraphs without previous context. NoelyNoelyNoel ( talk) 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s because Russia labeled them as Geranium 2 but social media users shortened it to Geran 2 so that’s what they call it now Bobisland ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it wise to use sources coming from an Ukrainian outlet and a Saudi-Israeli-funded think tank to speak about things related to Russia/Iran??
[1] This again is full of flaws, they are basing their claims on a Shahed-131 drone, not 136
The Washington Institute claim about being a "cheap chinese copy" is baseless, this isn't because there is a copy available that it is this one, the engine comes from a directly reversed Limbach named into M550, what China has to do with that? they are not citing sources themselves but a non-neutral writer writing what he wants, same for the Ukrainian outlet claiming things such as "Iran propaganda uses pyrotechnical effects" or a fake news "40 Russian and 20 Iranian instructor got eliminated in Kherson", why would Iranian instructor be in the front line teaching Russians how to use a 1000km range drone? Also no source in the article as always but himself, they are writing with their emotions and hatred only
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy This is clearly written at the first line, this is a hardcore pro-Israel lobby and think tank, is it logical to use them as "source" for something concerning Iran and making claims? This is like if a Russian think-tank starts talking crap about Ukraine military, and using it as a source here concerning the invasion...
There is no trustworthy outlets talking about this but Ukrainian ones or a well known IsraeliSaudi funded think-tank 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 ( talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Ya there’s a lot of political bias users editing but if it doesn’t break a technical rule then not much would happen unless you go against it yourself using facts, you should create a account so your I.P doesn’t show Bobisland ( talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Shahed-136 is used by the IRGC Aerospace Force only for Iran, Artesh have their own drones such as Omid for loitering ammunition
This one is reserved for IRGC missile forces (Aerospace Force), if someone could change Islamic Republic of Iran Army to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, i do not know how to edit that Tsunet ( talk) 14:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok Bobisland ( talk) 13:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Despite the previous discussion on moving the page agreeing to keep the page title as "HESA Shahed 136", someone has proceeded to move it anyways, citing the fact that the other Shahed series aircraft do not use HESA in their page titles. Can we reach a consensus on this? 36.65.242.246 ( talk) 07:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
" The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, D.C., focused on the foreign policy of the United States in the Near East.
it was established in 1985 with the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the funding of many AIPAC donors, in order to provide higher quality research than AIPAC's publications. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt described WINEP as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States."
DO NOT USE THIS AS A SOURCE FOR MAKING CLAIMS as well as Chinese components and aliexpress claims, you can't claim that the drone is chinese based on a google search of the engine showing up an aliexpress page of something that resembles to it and imply that it has been bought here in mass, there are already documents showing that it is the Limbach from the company bought using a fake company in the UAE and reversed from here and used in other drones, this isn't a source but themselves thinking it was bought on aliexpress because of their political bias and hatred
DO NOT LET POLITICAL BIAS USERS WRITE WHAT THEY WANT LOCK THE PAGE Tsunet ( talk) 22:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a military drone, we should put everything about U.S sanctions, claims of every parties into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article or Iran–United States relations, and Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine articles, this isn't the place to put everything that is politic-related into. also [1] indicate Iran said that it approved sales of missiles and drones Tsunet ( talk) 11:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes I added the accused violations of a U.N sanctions but someone deleted it Bobisland ( talk) 10:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes but the U.N resolution accusation mentions the shahed drones so I feel as if it’s relevant Bobisland ( talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
References
I think they use reliable sources which is why I think they should stay up and be added to combat history, there are also several media links that show the bombings of the barracks themselves and the Ukrainian government confirmations that these barracks were hit and their statement about them Bobisland ( talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Due to its great similarity to the 136 i propose that information on both drones be hosted on this page. There is precedent for separating two related Kamikaze drone developments ( IAI Harpy and Harop) but i feel like the fact that Iran does not advertise its weapons' specifications (as of October 2022) and maintains its secrecy in weapons development it is unlikely that we would be able to make a proper page for the 131 due to the severe lack of information. Therefore i suggest a single page for both drone models. 36.65.251.205 ( talk) 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone has recently created a page for it
shahed 131 <— Bobisland ( talk) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Luzin says NOT AT ALL that this is a loitering ammunition. The source says in the contrary: it has NO communication. Source Nowaya Gazeta. Anidaat ( talk) 09:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In fact the Luzin sentence is with no context here - it is just an additional fact that would become relevant just in case (if it really was commandable - but it isnt't) - like all these other additional informations about (other) ammo mentioned in the sentences before. PLEASE don't mix up all these false sentences in all sources - one could actually produce a complete fake article by combining all mistakes - agree? -- Anidaat ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Also the expert on drones in the Center for Security Studies says: NOT MANOUVERABLE. Again, this could be mistaken - it does manouver but not on external command.-- Anidaat ( talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The removal of the specialist is against all rules of Wikipedia
-- Anidaat ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
-The removal of its statement isn’t against all rules
-stating a countries weapons are designed to target civilians in a war is inherently political let alone to be based on it being a gps Precision-guided munition is itself a biased merit as HESA does not state they’re meant to target civilians
-If this was added it shouldn’t be added to the overview of its design it should be added into the Ukraine reactions tab which contains political news as the source uses the Ukraine war but I’m against adding this political commentary as it doesn’t add any new information (the civilian deaths are already listed in its combat history) and placing formats for bias political commentary to be in military weapon wiki pages seems like a bad/bias idea as this criticism will most likely not be placed on other gps guided munitions Bobisland ( talk) 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kleinpecan My reason for removing them was because it was bias that didn’t reach consensus not just bias itself? Your the one who’s edit warred as you reverted 3 times while my reverts were based on not reaching consensus, you’ve also reverted previous edits for false reasons on multiple occasions, all of which were politically related, even the edit you have up right now is still breaking rules based on consensus wp:EDITCON Bobisland ( talk) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
"Russia has inflicted serious damage on Ukrainian forces with recently introduced Iranian drones, in its first wide-scale deployment of a foreign weapons system since the war began, Ukrainian commanders say.".( https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-use-of-iranian-kamikaze-drones-creates-new-dangers-for-ukrainian-troops-11663415140) I don't know what the expert of the Center for Security Studies says in the original German audio, but we cannot say the drone is military useless. Hosortyr ( talk) 11:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think CNN mentioned terror bombing why not just use that as a source instead in the reactions tab, if someone adds a source which gives a terror bombing Wikipedia link then I’d support it but not others including the WSJ one above as I think it’s a slippery slope that’ll lead the page to become full of back and fourth political commentary that won’t contribute much information Bobisland ( talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I support adding a claim using a terror bombing link as it’s informative military criticism which the reader can read into relating to its use in Ukraine Bobisland ( talk) 14:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The Russian ministry of defense published multiple footage of its bombings against military targets including convoys can someone just post their clips in its operational history to debunk that they aren’t used solely for civilian targets or are all rights reserved? Bobisland ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The concept is - absolutely obvious by the way it is released in groups - that "one will get through and get close to the spot".
-- Anidaat ( talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
in short (not my assessment): The Shahed-136 is a superbly successful and super-efficient design in its class — a class of terrorist weapons industrially built for the deliberate purpose of attacking civilians.
Of course it is possible to write alternative facts instead - just use chinese twitter posts as it is being done in this Wikipedia article.-- Anidaat ( talk) 08:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention these claims? They are obviously propagandic lies for morale but i feel like we should mention some of it for context and reference. I feel like a lot of you will reject it but i will float the idea regardless. 180.244.128.130 ( talk) 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The source Economist ( no60) does not say a single word about military targets. This is a fake, to use it for a sentence that was used in mid-september by WSJ. Not only Economist is silent about military targets, but also says: Russian strikes often simply aim to sow terror. But they do not appear to have affected Ukraine’s ability to fight. This is actually the contrary to what it has been used.-- Anidaat ( talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Source 62 says: Russia is mainly using the Shahed loitering munitions to attack civilian targets and power infrastructure. Strikes on military objectives, including artillery and headquarters, have been the exception rather than the rule and is therefore misleading as a source for the claim as well
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding 400px to the picture of operators. Mahan122 ( talk) 15:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The sentece "Others said it can be used to carried out devastating strikes to Ukrainian forces but are unlikely to be a game-changer for the war.[62]" is wrong, as it cannot be in plural if there is a singular source. The characteristic of this source is beeing the only early one in September, where a general statement could not be made at all.-- Anidaat ( talk) 13:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, in reading the following CNN article I see that it appears a TI processor has been found in the wreckage of a downed drone. [1] However, when consulting the Wiki article, unless I'm mistake, I don't see TI listed? In fact the Defense Express article: [2] used for the citation in the first sentence of the Electronics section also includes a mention of Texas Instruments. Also the Dallas News is also carrying the story here: [3] Thanks for updating this article, if the information is deemed worthy. Taostlt ( talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcVXcpBhGnM - in which it is claimed that this is a disassembly of the engine of Geran-2 (Shahed-136) drone downed in Ukraine (it can be verified by asking the authors at their telegram channel teoria_dvs about origin of engine). At the moment 10:30 in the video an aluminum part with a marking starting with MD. This is the mark of the Chinese manufacturer of L550E clones, which they respectively call MD550. Manufacturer name: Beijing Micropilot Uav Control System Ltd. The official website uavstar.com (can be found by searching the name on Google) The official store on Alibaba is respectively uavstar.en.alibaba.com (can also be found by searching there on Google) On Alibaba (there are even pictures #1 #2 #3 of a complete assembly with a nut with a slot as in 4:50 in video, a detail as in 10:30, same isolation of a sensor as in 14:15 and same plastic carburetor parts as in the video), prices are 15K USD per motor when ordering more than 100 sets.
PS: The official website has a lot of interesting stuff, including even a similar drone model called TD2000 High -Speed Target Drone (costs about 100K USD on Alibaba). 2A00:A041:22E1:1B00:F159:A239:FD50:50BE ( talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wikilink callsign "Karaya" to the pilot's biography article.
Please change
“ | The Ukrainian pilot called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week. | ” |
to
The Ukrainian pilot Vadym Voroshylov called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week.
The name is already supported by the references attached to the current paragraph. (ref #62)
-- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Please change language usage" "The first public footage of the drone were released in December 2021" to: "The first public footage of the drone was released in December 2021" Eholcroft ( talk) 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please change the drone image description "A Shahed 136 drone at an exhibition" to "A miniature mockup of Shahed 136 at an exhibition".
This is clearly in contradiction with the wingspan, size of the drone in the specs which is way larger when seen near an human. Tsunet ( talk) 00:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I still see no source in this article which tells us why the 136 should be classified as "loitering munition". The quoted Guardian (9/22) [1] and European Council (10/22) [2] authors don´t really seem to understand what they are writing about and fail to define it anyway. Neither the Defense Intelligence Agency [3] nor the Institute for the Study of War [4] call the 136 "loitering munition". The 136 doesn´t seem to be more than a propeller driven V1 + Sat.nav.: Fly from "A" to "B" and crash nose first at the programmed coordinates. This article should be changed accordingly and the 136 should no longer be mentioned in the Loitering munition article. Alexpl ( talk) 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Researchers of the University of Southern Denmark and the University of London [8] May 2023 stated: "(...) As the Shaheds are not designed to loiter, we do not classify them as loitering munitions but as a “direct attack munition”" (page 60). They write, that there are suggestions, the 136 could be able to receive updated GNSS coordinates inflight. Even that (if prooven) still would not make 136 "loitering munitions". Now at least the dreadful "loitering" claim from the intro of this article should be removed. Alexpl ( talk) 09:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
What was that about? The presence of GNSS receivers on all 136 drones is a fact. It has not been disputed in any source in this article. Not even in the obviously stupid ones. Alexpl ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
User:ZLEA You claim Twitter-guy is one of two cited, and therefor apparently "citeable", sources? Whatever. At least the earlier, better, because sourced, mil.in.ua-article [9] (20 November) should be used for in-article citation instead of it´s inferior "armyrecognition"-clone [10] (22 November), which has basically the same text, but doesn´t give us the link to the iranian source material. Alexpl ( talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
In the Geran-2 section, it says: "seven transceivers for input and a FPGA and three microcontrollers to analyse". I think that should say an FPGA, not a FPGA. Feel free to delete or archive this comment once done. — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The 3D model is made as a game asset, and its wing shapes and proportions seem to significantly deviate from the photos in the article. (notice wing depth, rigid single steering wings at the back end, curvy many body "cigar" …)
As such it is misleading to contain it in an encyclopedia as anything as a work of art on the subject; it doesn't serve very well as visualization of how the aircraft actually looks.
It should thus be labeled as very artistry, not as technical drawing. (I'd actually recommend removal, it's better to not show a model, than a model that intentionally shows something else than what the article is about…) MüllerMarcus ( talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Iranian Shahed drones were actually designed in South Africa by Kentron (Today Denel dynamics) In the late 1980s, Kentron sold the designs for its ARD-10 loitering drone to IAI. IAI then used those designs to develop the Harpy which was first tested in 1989.[2] "South African heritage". Air Forces Monthly. December 2022. p. 23. so The site should include Iran and South Africa as place of origin. Golem made of Pierogi ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That figure is the cost per unit to Russia in gold bullion along with all associated tech transfer, facility construction etc. The same leaks cited give a production cost of ~$49k. It's not totally wrong to mention the higher $193k figure but it's extremely misleading to an unfamiliar reader at first glance without the unit cost also being listed. That production cost is also for early stage production which is always more expensive, so it's not really understating the cost to use the $49k figure in isolation either. I've been picking apart these leaks with other people and we more or less share the conclusions of this article: https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost LowRhoUfo ( talk) 22:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
What would y'all think about breaking it out like this:
I'm kind of ambivalent on putting in the production cost because what it's reflecting is essentially cost of materials. It seems to me it would be significantly more misleading to a reader to present a theoretical cost of materials on paper, that doesn't actually represent the dollar (ruble) value anyone actually paid -- Iranian, or Russian. And that's not something we typically have included on other ordnance articles. But if we did include it, it would go below the other two like this:
Thoughts? ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information."
— WP:V
"The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."
— WP:NOR
"Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth...Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."
— WP:TRUTH
"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."
As a potential compromise, since I was unable to find any mainstream media source using the phrase "unverified" in regards to the leaks, I've adjusted the wording to "the provenance of which is not clear", which is a quote from The War Zone, (and also readded the ref, which seems to have disappeared at some point in one of the edits.) Again, I want to reiterate -- that is not us making a claim, that is us reporting on a reliable source making the claim. Does that work for you Bobisland? ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 'Export' section states "According to leaked documents, the Russian military in 2022 reportedly imported 6000 units for a $1 billion ($190000 per unit) in gold backed Russian crypto-currency.[105]"
The cited source 105 does not corroborate this and in fact explicitly states that gold bullion was physically shipped as payment, with no mention of cryptocurrency being used at any point. 81.145.142.37 ( talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The Geran is not identical to the Shaheed. It's very blatantly manufactured in a factory in Tatarstan that Ukraine has attempted to destroy TWICE. The Geran is literally a remake with Russian parts BASED on the Shaheed blueprints that Russia DID purchase from Iran. But it's 100% made in Russia and even designed in Russia as it was a complete overhaul of the original. Iran is NOT exporting any drones to Russia(they possibly sold a batch of a few hundred together with the blueprints, but that's it). The only claims about that, are not only completely unsupported, but comes from people in the west eager for more sanctions or war with Iran. It's embarasing to see such blatant proclamation of propaganda on wikipedia. Again, we KNOW exactly which factory in Tatarstan makes the Geran. It's not even a secret. If you put a Shaheed and a Geran next to each other, the small differences are instantly visible and obvious. So please do explain exactly how you can keep up the faerytale about Geran being Shaheeds made by Iran? 178.174.137.13 ( talk) 12:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit number of produced from “Unknown” to “Atleast 5,000” 2A02:214C:8829:4700:5178:9EFB:2266:14F0 ( talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The source ( "Iranian Shahed-136 Kamikaze Drones Already Used By russia (First Photos And Specs) | Defense Express". en.defence-ua.com. Retrieved 2022-09-29.) in the article is full of misinformation
The engine is a reverse engineered Limbach L550E It is a patented design, this engine is reverse engineered by Iranian MADO company made under the designation of M550 and used in many. different other Iranian UAVs. Quick search on google will show
Oleg Katkov "analysis" isn't of a Shahed-136, but a Shahed-131, its predecessor
The drone isn't guided using "civilian GPS" as he says but: Terminal Guidance:
1. Via IR sensor in the nose cap (Also seen in other UAS models)
2. Guided via another Recon UAV via datalink. Recon UAVs such as Mohajer-6 seen in Ukraine can act as commanders and flying relays to guide suicide drones to their targets that are loitering around.
On to the body, alot of "analysts" believe the body is the same as a Harpy or some Harpy-copy. Once again, with very minimal research, one can see the honeycomb RAS design, layered with carbonfiber interior, and fiberglass exterior. This is part of the reason why radars have such trouble catching them from long ranges, the size of the drone is also twice of a Harpy drone and Harop
You simply cannot use commercial GPS to target something slightly thicker than a telephone poll perfectly. Or as they used it to target refinery towers in Abqaiq in 2019. It is simply not possible without accurate terminal guidance.
This analysis have been talked a lot on defense forums, this is a minimal research also using Shahed-131 as a reference
This is what he used as a reference: https://inf.news/en/military/92ce2368d61455bcbd741c5bc15f7874.html It is a Shahed-131 reference, which isn't used neither produced. And this analysis contradicts a lot of things said in his article, he is saying that he refers also to Iranian sources, but yet he manages to claim which guidance method it uses, which GPS, and the materials used
In this same article contains a baseless fake news: ""On September 26, the Ukrainian armed forces fired Haimas rockets at the management and training center of Iranian drone operators in the Kherson region, and about 20 Iranian instructors and 40 Russian military personnel who had gone to Russia were eliminated."
I would be careful using sources from Ukrainian outlets or "The Washington Institute", that are everything but neutral and profesionnal, all of his claims concerns the Shahed-131 drone if he is using the above "analysis" for his claims, because they are factually full of flaws, such as saying "Aliexpress jammers will counter them easily", it is a rushed analysis mostly made to demonize the products after they have been used by Russia, but none of what he says is actually correct, so far no one have spread this misinformation PR piece on something else than Ukraine outlets.
Also "At the same time, the use of this drone filmed by Iran cannot serve as a credible sourse because of possible "additional pyrotechnic effects". Iranian propaganda has been repeatedly caught using them.", this is clearly a non-neutral outlet using no other source at all but his imagination, defending as much as possible his country while demonizing everyone else, with a distorted source not even mentioned in this article
2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 ( talk) 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 19:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
HESA Shahed 136 → Shahed 136 – Recent sources linked on this article seem to prefer the use the named "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" without the HESA prefix, such as:
It seems to me that simply "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" is the common name for this weapons system Serafart ( talk) ( contributions) 06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The aircraft is referred to as 'Geranium" in previous paragraphs and I found the use of "Geran" jarring in subsequent paragraphs without previous context. NoelyNoelyNoel ( talk) 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s because Russia labeled them as Geranium 2 but social media users shortened it to Geran 2 so that’s what they call it now Bobisland ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it wise to use sources coming from an Ukrainian outlet and a Saudi-Israeli-funded think tank to speak about things related to Russia/Iran??
[1] This again is full of flaws, they are basing their claims on a Shahed-131 drone, not 136
The Washington Institute claim about being a "cheap chinese copy" is baseless, this isn't because there is a copy available that it is this one, the engine comes from a directly reversed Limbach named into M550, what China has to do with that? they are not citing sources themselves but a non-neutral writer writing what he wants, same for the Ukrainian outlet claiming things such as "Iran propaganda uses pyrotechnical effects" or a fake news "40 Russian and 20 Iranian instructor got eliminated in Kherson", why would Iranian instructor be in the front line teaching Russians how to use a 1000km range drone? Also no source in the article as always but himself, they are writing with their emotions and hatred only
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy This is clearly written at the first line, this is a hardcore pro-Israel lobby and think tank, is it logical to use them as "source" for something concerning Iran and making claims? This is like if a Russian think-tank starts talking crap about Ukraine military, and using it as a source here concerning the invasion...
There is no trustworthy outlets talking about this but Ukrainian ones or a well known IsraeliSaudi funded think-tank 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 ( talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Ya there’s a lot of political bias users editing but if it doesn’t break a technical rule then not much would happen unless you go against it yourself using facts, you should create a account so your I.P doesn’t show Bobisland ( talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Shahed-136 is used by the IRGC Aerospace Force only for Iran, Artesh have their own drones such as Omid for loitering ammunition
This one is reserved for IRGC missile forces (Aerospace Force), if someone could change Islamic Republic of Iran Army to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, i do not know how to edit that Tsunet ( talk) 14:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok Bobisland ( talk) 13:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Despite the previous discussion on moving the page agreeing to keep the page title as "HESA Shahed 136", someone has proceeded to move it anyways, citing the fact that the other Shahed series aircraft do not use HESA in their page titles. Can we reach a consensus on this? 36.65.242.246 ( talk) 07:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
" The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, D.C., focused on the foreign policy of the United States in the Near East.
it was established in 1985 with the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the funding of many AIPAC donors, in order to provide higher quality research than AIPAC's publications. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt described WINEP as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States."
DO NOT USE THIS AS A SOURCE FOR MAKING CLAIMS as well as Chinese components and aliexpress claims, you can't claim that the drone is chinese based on a google search of the engine showing up an aliexpress page of something that resembles to it and imply that it has been bought here in mass, there are already documents showing that it is the Limbach from the company bought using a fake company in the UAE and reversed from here and used in other drones, this isn't a source but themselves thinking it was bought on aliexpress because of their political bias and hatred
DO NOT LET POLITICAL BIAS USERS WRITE WHAT THEY WANT LOCK THE PAGE Tsunet ( talk) 22:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a military drone, we should put everything about U.S sanctions, claims of every parties into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article or Iran–United States relations, and Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine articles, this isn't the place to put everything that is politic-related into. also [1] indicate Iran said that it approved sales of missiles and drones Tsunet ( talk) 11:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes I added the accused violations of a U.N sanctions but someone deleted it Bobisland ( talk) 10:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes but the U.N resolution accusation mentions the shahed drones so I feel as if it’s relevant Bobisland ( talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
References
I think they use reliable sources which is why I think they should stay up and be added to combat history, there are also several media links that show the bombings of the barracks themselves and the Ukrainian government confirmations that these barracks were hit and their statement about them Bobisland ( talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Due to its great similarity to the 136 i propose that information on both drones be hosted on this page. There is precedent for separating two related Kamikaze drone developments ( IAI Harpy and Harop) but i feel like the fact that Iran does not advertise its weapons' specifications (as of October 2022) and maintains its secrecy in weapons development it is unlikely that we would be able to make a proper page for the 131 due to the severe lack of information. Therefore i suggest a single page for both drone models. 36.65.251.205 ( talk) 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone has recently created a page for it
shahed 131 <— Bobisland ( talk) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Luzin says NOT AT ALL that this is a loitering ammunition. The source says in the contrary: it has NO communication. Source Nowaya Gazeta. Anidaat ( talk) 09:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In fact the Luzin sentence is with no context here - it is just an additional fact that would become relevant just in case (if it really was commandable - but it isnt't) - like all these other additional informations about (other) ammo mentioned in the sentences before. PLEASE don't mix up all these false sentences in all sources - one could actually produce a complete fake article by combining all mistakes - agree? -- Anidaat ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Also the expert on drones in the Center for Security Studies says: NOT MANOUVERABLE. Again, this could be mistaken - it does manouver but not on external command.-- Anidaat ( talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The removal of the specialist is against all rules of Wikipedia
-- Anidaat ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
-The removal of its statement isn’t against all rules
-stating a countries weapons are designed to target civilians in a war is inherently political let alone to be based on it being a gps Precision-guided munition is itself a biased merit as HESA does not state they’re meant to target civilians
-If this was added it shouldn’t be added to the overview of its design it should be added into the Ukraine reactions tab which contains political news as the source uses the Ukraine war but I’m against adding this political commentary as it doesn’t add any new information (the civilian deaths are already listed in its combat history) and placing formats for bias political commentary to be in military weapon wiki pages seems like a bad/bias idea as this criticism will most likely not be placed on other gps guided munitions Bobisland ( talk) 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kleinpecan My reason for removing them was because it was bias that didn’t reach consensus not just bias itself? Your the one who’s edit warred as you reverted 3 times while my reverts were based on not reaching consensus, you’ve also reverted previous edits for false reasons on multiple occasions, all of which were politically related, even the edit you have up right now is still breaking rules based on consensus wp:EDITCON Bobisland ( talk) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
"Russia has inflicted serious damage on Ukrainian forces with recently introduced Iranian drones, in its first wide-scale deployment of a foreign weapons system since the war began, Ukrainian commanders say.".( https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-use-of-iranian-kamikaze-drones-creates-new-dangers-for-ukrainian-troops-11663415140) I don't know what the expert of the Center for Security Studies says in the original German audio, but we cannot say the drone is military useless. Hosortyr ( talk) 11:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think CNN mentioned terror bombing why not just use that as a source instead in the reactions tab, if someone adds a source which gives a terror bombing Wikipedia link then I’d support it but not others including the WSJ one above as I think it’s a slippery slope that’ll lead the page to become full of back and fourth political commentary that won’t contribute much information Bobisland ( talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I support adding a claim using a terror bombing link as it’s informative military criticism which the reader can read into relating to its use in Ukraine Bobisland ( talk) 14:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The Russian ministry of defense published multiple footage of its bombings against military targets including convoys can someone just post their clips in its operational history to debunk that they aren’t used solely for civilian targets or are all rights reserved? Bobisland ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The concept is - absolutely obvious by the way it is released in groups - that "one will get through and get close to the spot".
-- Anidaat ( talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
in short (not my assessment): The Shahed-136 is a superbly successful and super-efficient design in its class — a class of terrorist weapons industrially built for the deliberate purpose of attacking civilians.
Of course it is possible to write alternative facts instead - just use chinese twitter posts as it is being done in this Wikipedia article.-- Anidaat ( talk) 08:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention these claims? They are obviously propagandic lies for morale but i feel like we should mention some of it for context and reference. I feel like a lot of you will reject it but i will float the idea regardless. 180.244.128.130 ( talk) 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The source Economist ( no60) does not say a single word about military targets. This is a fake, to use it for a sentence that was used in mid-september by WSJ. Not only Economist is silent about military targets, but also says: Russian strikes often simply aim to sow terror. But they do not appear to have affected Ukraine’s ability to fight. This is actually the contrary to what it has been used.-- Anidaat ( talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Source 62 says: Russia is mainly using the Shahed loitering munitions to attack civilian targets and power infrastructure. Strikes on military objectives, including artillery and headquarters, have been the exception rather than the rule and is therefore misleading as a source for the claim as well
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding 400px to the picture of operators. Mahan122 ( talk) 15:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The sentece "Others said it can be used to carried out devastating strikes to Ukrainian forces but are unlikely to be a game-changer for the war.[62]" is wrong, as it cannot be in plural if there is a singular source. The characteristic of this source is beeing the only early one in September, where a general statement could not be made at all.-- Anidaat ( talk) 13:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, in reading the following CNN article I see that it appears a TI processor has been found in the wreckage of a downed drone. [1] However, when consulting the Wiki article, unless I'm mistake, I don't see TI listed? In fact the Defense Express article: [2] used for the citation in the first sentence of the Electronics section also includes a mention of Texas Instruments. Also the Dallas News is also carrying the story here: [3] Thanks for updating this article, if the information is deemed worthy. Taostlt ( talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcVXcpBhGnM - in which it is claimed that this is a disassembly of the engine of Geran-2 (Shahed-136) drone downed in Ukraine (it can be verified by asking the authors at their telegram channel teoria_dvs about origin of engine). At the moment 10:30 in the video an aluminum part with a marking starting with MD. This is the mark of the Chinese manufacturer of L550E clones, which they respectively call MD550. Manufacturer name: Beijing Micropilot Uav Control System Ltd. The official website uavstar.com (can be found by searching the name on Google) The official store on Alibaba is respectively uavstar.en.alibaba.com (can also be found by searching there on Google) On Alibaba (there are even pictures #1 #2 #3 of a complete assembly with a nut with a slot as in 4:50 in video, a detail as in 10:30, same isolation of a sensor as in 14:15 and same plastic carburetor parts as in the video), prices are 15K USD per motor when ordering more than 100 sets.
PS: The official website has a lot of interesting stuff, including even a similar drone model called TD2000 High -Speed Target Drone (costs about 100K USD on Alibaba). 2A00:A041:22E1:1B00:F159:A239:FD50:50BE ( talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please wikilink callsign "Karaya" to the pilot's biography article.
Please change
“ | The Ukrainian pilot called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week. | ” |
to
The Ukrainian pilot Vadym Voroshylov called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week.
The name is already supported by the references attached to the current paragraph. (ref #62)
-- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 11:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Please change language usage" "The first public footage of the drone were released in December 2021" to: "The first public footage of the drone was released in December 2021" Eholcroft ( talk) 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please change the drone image description "A Shahed 136 drone at an exhibition" to "A miniature mockup of Shahed 136 at an exhibition".
This is clearly in contradiction with the wingspan, size of the drone in the specs which is way larger when seen near an human. Tsunet ( talk) 00:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I still see no source in this article which tells us why the 136 should be classified as "loitering munition". The quoted Guardian (9/22) [1] and European Council (10/22) [2] authors don´t really seem to understand what they are writing about and fail to define it anyway. Neither the Defense Intelligence Agency [3] nor the Institute for the Study of War [4] call the 136 "loitering munition". The 136 doesn´t seem to be more than a propeller driven V1 + Sat.nav.: Fly from "A" to "B" and crash nose first at the programmed coordinates. This article should be changed accordingly and the 136 should no longer be mentioned in the Loitering munition article. Alexpl ( talk) 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Researchers of the University of Southern Denmark and the University of London [8] May 2023 stated: "(...) As the Shaheds are not designed to loiter, we do not classify them as loitering munitions but as a “direct attack munition”" (page 60). They write, that there are suggestions, the 136 could be able to receive updated GNSS coordinates inflight. Even that (if prooven) still would not make 136 "loitering munitions". Now at least the dreadful "loitering" claim from the intro of this article should be removed. Alexpl ( talk) 09:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
What was that about? The presence of GNSS receivers on all 136 drones is a fact. It has not been disputed in any source in this article. Not even in the obviously stupid ones. Alexpl ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
User:ZLEA You claim Twitter-guy is one of two cited, and therefor apparently "citeable", sources? Whatever. At least the earlier, better, because sourced, mil.in.ua-article [9] (20 November) should be used for in-article citation instead of it´s inferior "armyrecognition"-clone [10] (22 November), which has basically the same text, but doesn´t give us the link to the iranian source material. Alexpl ( talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
In the Geran-2 section, it says: "seven transceivers for input and a FPGA and three microcontrollers to analyse". I think that should say an FPGA, not a FPGA. Feel free to delete or archive this comment once done. — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The 3D model is made as a game asset, and its wing shapes and proportions seem to significantly deviate from the photos in the article. (notice wing depth, rigid single steering wings at the back end, curvy many body "cigar" …)
As such it is misleading to contain it in an encyclopedia as anything as a work of art on the subject; it doesn't serve very well as visualization of how the aircraft actually looks.
It should thus be labeled as very artistry, not as technical drawing. (I'd actually recommend removal, it's better to not show a model, than a model that intentionally shows something else than what the article is about…) MüllerMarcus ( talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Iranian Shahed drones were actually designed in South Africa by Kentron (Today Denel dynamics) In the late 1980s, Kentron sold the designs for its ARD-10 loitering drone to IAI. IAI then used those designs to develop the Harpy which was first tested in 1989.[2] "South African heritage". Air Forces Monthly. December 2022. p. 23. so The site should include Iran and South Africa as place of origin. Golem made of Pierogi ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That figure is the cost per unit to Russia in gold bullion along with all associated tech transfer, facility construction etc. The same leaks cited give a production cost of ~$49k. It's not totally wrong to mention the higher $193k figure but it's extremely misleading to an unfamiliar reader at first glance without the unit cost also being listed. That production cost is also for early stage production which is always more expensive, so it's not really understating the cost to use the $49k figure in isolation either. I've been picking apart these leaks with other people and we more or less share the conclusions of this article: https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost LowRhoUfo ( talk) 22:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
What would y'all think about breaking it out like this:
I'm kind of ambivalent on putting in the production cost because what it's reflecting is essentially cost of materials. It seems to me it would be significantly more misleading to a reader to present a theoretical cost of materials on paper, that doesn't actually represent the dollar (ruble) value anyone actually paid -- Iranian, or Russian. And that's not something we typically have included on other ordnance articles. But if we did include it, it would go below the other two like this:
Thoughts? ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information."
— WP:V
"The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."
— WP:NOR
"Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth...Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."
— WP:TRUTH
"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."
As a potential compromise, since I was unable to find any mainstream media source using the phrase "unverified" in regards to the leaks, I've adjusted the wording to "the provenance of which is not clear", which is a quote from The War Zone, (and also readded the ref, which seems to have disappeared at some point in one of the edits.) Again, I want to reiterate -- that is not us making a claim, that is us reporting on a reliable source making the claim. Does that work for you Bobisland? ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 'Export' section states "According to leaked documents, the Russian military in 2022 reportedly imported 6000 units for a $1 billion ($190000 per unit) in gold backed Russian crypto-currency.[105]"
The cited source 105 does not corroborate this and in fact explicitly states that gold bullion was physically shipped as payment, with no mention of cryptocurrency being used at any point. 81.145.142.37 ( talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The Geran is not identical to the Shaheed. It's very blatantly manufactured in a factory in Tatarstan that Ukraine has attempted to destroy TWICE. The Geran is literally a remake with Russian parts BASED on the Shaheed blueprints that Russia DID purchase from Iran. But it's 100% made in Russia and even designed in Russia as it was a complete overhaul of the original. Iran is NOT exporting any drones to Russia(they possibly sold a batch of a few hundred together with the blueprints, but that's it). The only claims about that, are not only completely unsupported, but comes from people in the west eager for more sanctions or war with Iran. It's embarasing to see such blatant proclamation of propaganda on wikipedia. Again, we KNOW exactly which factory in Tatarstan makes the Geran. It's not even a secret. If you put a Shaheed and a Geran next to each other, the small differences are instantly visible and obvious. So please do explain exactly how you can keep up the faerytale about Geran being Shaheeds made by Iran? 178.174.137.13 ( talk) 12:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit number of produced from “Unknown” to “Atleast 5,000” 2A02:214C:8829:4700:5178:9EFB:2266:14F0 ( talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)