Talk:Zulfiqar (tank)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zulfiqar (tank) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Land vehicles / 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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Bias

The last section of the article cites an openly biased source of information. As the information (10km effective cannon rage) is not verifiable by any reputable sources of info on the matter (Jane's, FAS, OnWar), I'm tossing it. (USMA2010 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea

This article is a joke right? Icelandic Intelligence? Derived from M1A2s from Iraq? Nevermind that Iraq and Iran didn't get along (maybe because of the Iran-Iraq war), the US Army didn't field M1A2s in Desert Storm, they only had M1A1s. And don't tell me that Iran has secretly taken M1A2s from Iraq now. I'm not doubting the existance of an Iranian derivative of the T-72/M48/M60, but this article is ridiculous. A 10 km effective cannon range? Thats 2.5 times what the US army claims an M1A2 can hit. Dx87 09:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Abrams destroyed and counted as hard kill in Iraq (as in they can't even operate anymore), are removed from the field and sent back to the united states to be "recycled", where the tank hulls are either melted down or restored to make a brand new tank. There is no possible way Iranian or Iraqi military personel could have run off with a 70 ton wreck that easily considering neither had the manpower to do so. AloDuranium (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have stolen them from the ISF Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar who?

Can somebody translate it into English? (I presume it stands for something else...) Trekphiler 13:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for Zulfiqar. Raoulduke47 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename to Zolfaghar

Where is the proof that Zolfaghar conforms to WP:COMMONNAME better than Zulfiqar? A google search on "Zulfiqar tank" gives ~2,500 results as opposed to ~180 for "Zolfaghar tank", while a google book search gives 6 to 1. Also, Jane's, an authoritative English source, calls it the Zulfiqar. Hohum (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say move this page to Zulfiqar (tank). I just did some work on the Zulfiqar disambiguation page, so in anticipation of your title change, I used the aforementioned spelling on that page.—DMCer™ 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This tank is an Iranian tank. Right? So the name has to be Persian. There is no such things as Zulfiqar, Zolfikar ... in Persian. The correct name is Zolfaghar and that's the name which also the Iranian Army uses. The other names and specially Zulfiqar are really stupid in Persian. If you want the people to laugh when they see this article and make jokes about it, then change its name to Zulfiqar! The other names are nothing but mispronunciation of Zolfaghar by non-Persians and specially English speaking people.--Professional Assassin (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Assassin, please acquaint yourself with WP:COMMONNAME. The English wikipedia prefers to use the most common English name, which may not be your preferred transliteration from Persian, even if the Iranian Army has a favoured transliteration to English. As such, please move the page back as it was. Hohum (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names are copyrighted. You can not change a Tank's name only because you think it SOUNDS better in English. The only eligible organization to define this tank's name is the Iranian Army who owns and has designed this tank. I won't let you move the page back to Zulfiqar because it is a gross violation of Iranian Army's copyright.--Professional Assassin (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. Adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. It's not because it sounds one way or the other, it's because it's the common English name for it, which I have provided ample proof of. Copyright isn't even an issue. Hohum (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Copyright isnt even an issue is truly a complete nonsense as you said. You are not allowed here to change the copyrighted and well established names by owners. However you can make a sub-topic in the article and describe common English, Polish, Spanish, Arabic ... names in it if you want.--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names and brands cannot be copyrighted, Prof. You may be confusing copyright and trademark; but the idea that a combat vehicle name is trademarked comes across rather oddly (not saying it's impossible, but ^{[citation needed]}). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved this article back to Zulfiqar (tank) per WP:COMMONNAME - this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we need to use the common English name for things. The tank's name in the body of the article needs to be updated through. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move back, and to Hohum, for requesting the assistance.—DMCer™ 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the three available images (that appear in this article as well) on Commons according to the conclusion of this discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In T-72 section?

Just a quick question. Is there any real need for this tank to be located in the T72 section of tanks? If there's a section for T-72's, there needs to be one for the Patton series of tanks, considering there are so many variants of them as well. Might as well add one for the T-55 too. AloDuranium (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zulfiqar (tank). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]