Talk:KH-2002/Archives/2023/October

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:KH-2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks superficially similar to the Bushy M-17, any clue what the internals are like? Article says somewhat similar to M-16, would it be more like the 18? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.53.4 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Assaultkh2002.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to unfairly suggest that rifle being named after the Battle of Khaybar has to do with the fact that Khaybar was a Jewish settlement. This promotes the stereotype that Muslims (or Iran or the Iranian government) are anti-Jewish, which is not the reason why the Battle of Khaybar is significant or why Iranians would think to name a rifle after it. The reason the name Khaybar is chosen is because in the Shia Muslim tradition there is a legend regarding the battle in which Ali ibn Abi Talib (the first Shia Imam) performed a superhuman feat of strength with power granted to him by God and successfully stemmed the tide of what would have otherwise been a losing battle. Shias to this day continue to be inspired by the legend of their Imam in the Battle of Khaybar, and they do not attach any significance to the religious affiliation of the people of Khaybar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.79.191 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to change it if you could provide a source ~ Zirguezi 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. The link providing 'support' for the explanation of the name given here doesn’t mention the assault rifle at all, is an article slandering Muslims as rabid anti-Semitic jihadists, and is written by someone who authored a book called “The Islamization of America”. It's anti-Muslim hate-speech, and at the very least is NPOV. Worse, from Wikipedia’s perspective, it doesn’t give any evidence the Iranians named their rifle after a massacre OR the above referenced story of heroism.

The article currently supports the unsupportable notion that the Iranians intended their rifle name to be interpreted as “Jew Massacre” rather than “Heroism”. There is no evidence that the ethnicity of the people of Khaybar in AD629 has any bearing on the name of the rifle, and factoids about that don’t belong here – its inflammatory and borderline Original Research. There’s not even any support for the position that the name even refers to a historical battle, as opposed to simply referencing the name of a place.

As to how Shia might view the battle? From the Wikipedia page on Battle of Khaybar:

According to a Shia tradition, Muhammad called for Ali, who killed a Jewish chieftain with a sword-stroke, which split in two the helmet, the head and the body of the victim. Having lost his shield, Ali is said to have lifted both of the doors of the fortress from its hinges, climbed into the moat and held them up to make a bridge whereby the attackers gained access to the redoubt. The door was so heavy that forty men were required to put it back in place. This story is the basis for the Shia view of Ali as the prototype of heroes.

So yes, Jews were killed (it was a battle), but is that considered more important than a feat of mythic strength? And, most importantly, where is the evidence the Iranian weapons developers were inspired by one aspect as opposed to the other, or even by this story in particular? Not here, not anywhere linked - it doesn't belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I removed this section, as discussed on the NPOV Noticeboard, where consensus found no reliable evidence for the claim that the rifle is even known as Khaybar, let alone why. If you want to revert the changes, the removed text was:

===Basis of name===

[[Khaybar]] is an oasis approximately 95 miles east of Medina, which was once the largest Jewish settlement 
in Arabia. The name was chosen as a reminder of the [[Battle of Khaybar]], a battle that took place in 629 
between Muhammed and his followers against the Jews who inhabited the settlement.
<ref>http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=895</ref>

Although I'd suggest not doing so unless a reliable/official source using the title/nickname can be found. (Ie, check out the two links to Iranian Defence Industries Organisation and MODLEX (official Iranian Arms Exporter) - neither use the nickname 'Khabar/Khaybar'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.171 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It has no hyphen, as it is commonly and officially known. Thank you. 75.167.5.217 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Plus, the body text and all sources indicate "KH2002", making the title pointlessly contradictory. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Design section states unequivocally in the first paragraph that, "The weapon is not ambidextrous." Two paragraphs later, is contradicts itself and states that it is "presumably designed to facilitate ambidextrous firing". Both cannot be true. Plus, "presumably" is a weasel word and must be immediately sourced or removed. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KH-2002. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927075705/http://www.diomil.ir/en/aig.aspx?search_id=askh2002 to http://www.diomil.ir/en/aig.aspx?search_id=askh2002

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ominae: Mostly looking good, but a couple of issues:

"According to the article, all 18,000 rifles and 15,000 Iranian-made 5.56 NATO were confiscated." It looks as if a word is missing after "NATO".

The ambidexterity issue identified above is still outstanding. The article has sourced statements that it both is and is not designed for ambidextrous firing. This needs to be resolved if the article is to be classed as B.

"Appears" is not a good word. If this is the case, say so and reference it. If it is not known for sure, say so, ideally citing opinions. I have put a tag in.

I have made a couple of minor copy edit changes. Revert anything you don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the stuff's taken care of. But the others like the presence of "appears" is long gone now. Ominae (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)