Talk:RS-28 Sarmat

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

yields other info

speculative things in talk or also is ok all right in article ?! --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) s & r[reply]

Compares poorly to other wikipedias

The Russian-language Wikipedia entry is much more extensive and much more enlightening, even when simply translated using Google Translate.Pandapod1 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC) The russian article is a lof of speculations, and not really hard fact, and alot of things that Isnt relative or even realistic.[reply]

useful to the current WP article:

RS-28 Sarmat missile (SS-X-30 Satan 2 according to the NATO nomenclature) capable of carrying between the 10 and the 24 tested and, apparently, equipped with "system of fractional orbital bombardment
— [1]

this statement needs to be verified by additional sources.

Satan 2

Would be good to have info on where this name "Satan 2" comes from. 129.78.56.143 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Its just the medias namn on it. NATO´s ASIC that put designation on stuff havn´t put any name on this missile due its not in service fully. And NATO don´t do own codenames anymore due they use the official russian names, due russian put names on them nowdays. Even if RT-2PM2 Topol-M have a NATO name "Sickle B", they almost only use "Topol-M". Pandapod1 (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, you'd think they'd hide their bias a little better.Historian932 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) As a general principle, for topics well covered in the news media, WP usually follows the naming conventions used by the mainstream media. In other words, if the mainstream media commonly uses a particular name, then that name should normally be listed as a known name for the topic (even if it is unofficial). "Satan 2" are well represented in the media coverage:

"Snowflake" is also used, though not as much.

Can somebody state a reason for the controversy on the edits? All I'm hearing is personal bias, which is not really part of the WP standards.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as stated from the Russian version of this article, the name SATAN 2 is not used at all in Russia. It is a name only used in Western media and Western politicians. 87.178.174.37 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least it should be clearly marked that this name is a Western media word. Otherwise someone might believe that this name is somehow official or is used throughout the world, which is not the case. 87.178.174.37 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@141.131.2.3 When you speak of mainstream media you are insinuating media of Western countries comprise approx a mere 17% of the world's population. To conclude. The facts provided offer a finer example of personal bias. GQGeorge (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

Facebook has labelled apost containing information from this page " partly false". 112.134.174.239 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missile test citation does not support

Currently link (11), the article from state media organ TASS only references a future test date, and nothing to do with an actual test. Cursory internet searches yield only sources repeating official Russian statements on the supposed test. Given Russia's history of obfuscation and outright fabrication on military matters, it remains an open question as to whether any successful Sarmat flights have occured without 3rd party verification. This throws the article's credibility into question and should be redressed. Wikipedia is not an organ for uncritical dissemination of state propaganda. 74.104.130.145 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]