Talk:Sejjil

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Middle East

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Operational Range Contradiction?[edit]

I realize the operational range of a ballistic missile can vary and depends on several factors, but why report the maximum operational range is 2,000 km in the body of the article, then claim it's operational range is 2,000 - 2,500 km in the parameter table?? -jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.97.32.36 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Quoute from Janes defense: Sejjil is a part of a missile family that includes the Samen MRBM, the Sejjil 2,000 - 2510 km range missile and the Advanced Ashura 2,500-3,000 km range three solid propellant ballistic missile. Sarmadys (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name correction[edit]

Sijjeel or Sijjel is the corect name, the word is origially in Arabic and it's one of Hell names in Arabic, also mentioned in Muslims holy book, Holy Quran.. Sajjel is not correct by this mean and persian peoples can spell a lot of Arabic words correctly and this is one of them for sure, only some words in arabic that include special letters they can't say it correctly if they didn't study very well... but Sijjel or Sijjeel they can say it correctly for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xajel (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went with "Sejil" because that's how Al-Jazeera spells it. Recognizing that there are many possible spellings, I went with the most widely-recognized source spelling. Nightmote (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design Information[edit]

The information in the design section as it stands is drawn essentially from the citation at the end of the paragraph. Should the citation be at a different point? Martin Blank (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

According to Jane's report "Intelligence sources consider the Sajil to be a new name for Iran's Ashura MRBM."[1]

I've seen this as well, and a merger may be appropriate. However, it's still fairly early with little detail available. On top of that, if the two are the same, and production continues under the name Sajjil, it may be more appropriate to merge the Ashoura article with this one instead. Martin Blank (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images[edit]

Currently there are 2 non-free images in this article, but WP:FAIR says at only one non-free image can be used at maximum. And that only if free images aren't available. This article already has 1 free image, so the non-free ones should be removed. Offliner (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't say that - go back and re-read. It's much more specific.

These images each depict different aspects of the program. One image for the first launch (was already here), one for the second (new), one for the vehicle itself (new). You cannot see the vehicle details in either launch image. Both launches are significant events in the missile's development program.

Looking at the policy:

1. There is no free equivalent, and can't bee for the launches, as they happened and were only filmed by Iranian government sources.

2. FARS and the Iranian government freely released the images on the web and TV and print media. There is no damage to commercial use by them - they're publicity photos, and they're trying to get publicity.

3.a. The three images each display different information, the two launches and the visual characteristics of the rocket up close in its carriage. They aren't duplicates and meet the minimal test.

3.b. Minimal use is less relevant for intentionally released publicity photos, where full resolution is fine.

4. Already published by FARS and the Iranian government.

5. Images meet content standards and are encylopedic.

6. Images meet the image use policy.

7. The images are used in at least one article - this one.

8. The images of the launches illustrate those events. The image of the vehicle on its carriage illustrates the vehicle details in a way that the article text and launch images can't - up close, details visible, scale evident from the room, etc.

9. Images are on an article page, not a secondary page.

10. Image description pages have all the required labels, tags, notices.

Usage here is entirely compliant... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like I was wrong and remembered the policy incorrectly. However, I still have concerns. You said:

FARS and the Iranian government freely released the images on the web and TV and print media. There is no damage to commercial use by them - they're publicity photos, and they're trying to get publicity.

Do you mean they released them to public domain? If yes, is there proof that they did so? We should remember this [2]:

(Unacceptable use:) 6. A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos.

Personally, I think one image should be enough. Offliner (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are based on Pakistani missiles?[edit]

There is no citation for this claim and besides I have seen very long discussions on the major differences of Sajjil with mentioned Pakistani missiles. An Israeli's claim (mentioned in presstv) cannot be taken as a fact.

I remember discussions on Geofry forden's weblog and also different defense forums.

I am adding a citation needed for this claim. If it is not provided, we need to remove that part. Sarmadys (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up a number of unsourced or poorly/unreliably sourced claims in the article. It should be in pretty good shape now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]