Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29

The following MiGs are missing: MiG-29SMT 9.18 Mig-29SMT 9.19 MiG-29SMT 9.19R ~2025-39090-76 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I recently checked out a few books on MiG aircraft from my university's library for winter break. I'll see what I can do. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems all the books I checked out are too old to have covered the SMT. A quick Google search is bringing up mostly forum posts and sources of questionable reliability. - ZLEA ^TǀC 01:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources I was looking at were either articles or online magazines/journals. The articles I looked at were written by Piotr Butowski, who is in the same field as Yefim Gordon, who is cited on the page, so if Butowski is a valid source, I see no reason why his articles cannot be used. Also Gordon has an updated MiG-29 book from 2019 which is after the SMT upgrades which finished orders in 2016.

Edit: I was able to find images of the book which has a dedicated chapter to the SMT and a YouTube video the shows all the SMT variants I first mentioned and the trainers. https://youtube.com/watch?v=sElBAvkexCY&pp=0gcJCTIBo7VqN5tD Starts at 12:54 ~2025-39090-76 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The articles I read:

https://www.key.aero/article/fulcrum-through-decades

https://www.key.aero/article/fulcrum-final-fling

If these are valid and credible this also means that the MiG-29UBT 9.51T will be renamed 9.52 and the 9.53, 9.53A, 9.53R, and 9.53I should have variants added and the MiG-29UPG UB have a variant added and the MiG-29UPG given (Product 9.20) after its name. ~2025-39090-76 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Rajbarage Magentic Manifestations How about you two discuss your dispute here rather than engaging in an edit war? - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZLEA, Thanks! There has already been a lengthier discussion on the @Rajbarage's talk page. Despite that, I guess the user is interested in throwing tantrums in the edit summary rather than addressing the concerns with the citations. While I am not opposed to adding properly sourced content, I will lay out the reasons for my selective reverts of edits clearly.

a. Iraq: Shoot down of Tornado - The given source is a fan club site (Aviation geek club) with no verifiability, and that too a self-claim interview by the pilot himself. Fails WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY miserably.

b. Iran: The existing verifiable book source (Gordon et.al) clearly states "nine aircraft" flown to Iran for safekeeping. This is being changed to "four aircraft", which is contradicting. The two sources quoted here for the same are again incomplete, inaccessible, and non verifiable. There is a book source (Midland publishing) which does not cite any page numbers, author, publisher etc., but a bare inaccessible link, and the other source is an aero magazine, which again has restricted access and not verifiable.

c. India: On the claims of MiG-29 being downed, again attributed to a fan club site (Aviation geek club). No reliable secondary sources has been given to back up the claim of the involvement of the particular aircraft, its loss or changes to inventory. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not have time to paste a million sources here, as I am short on time and busy with irl stuff. I will be able to on Monday. It's easy to call it a tantrum, its harder for you apparently to give me your reasons before this though. You reversions have been wholesale, not selective and your Talk Page responses are a standard below helpful.

Now, onto your objections. a). The Iraqi pilot is giving an interview, about his experience, and there are other sources that point to the kill claim (again, a claim that is well published). If you wanted more sources, say that. Thats all you needed to do instead of getting into this contest. Aviation Geek Club is not some "Fan Club Website" or whatever your labels are nowadays. It is a publication, with a proper publication process, and one with reputable contributors that covers the subject matter (this will be important for c).

b) The book is wrong on that particular fact. It is generally right about most of its information, but you can cross check with literally any other sources (including at least one that I referenced there if memory serves). Four were flown over, three single seat and one twin seat is the generally agreed upon number, as with Iran initially receiving 18 to 20 single seat and four dual seat (with an inital batch of 14). If all you wanted was a clarification or more sources, you could've said that.

c) The "Fan Club Website" again, and the article itself if written by Tom Cooper - a very well reputed scholar on the subject of air warfare and backed up by a lot of visual evidence. There is another Swiss report that I can link, and if you ask me nicely I can draft a report for you in detail examining and explaining all the evidence. I find this the most funny since we are both Indians who know about Sindoor and definitely know about the loss of Indian (and Pakistani) Aircraft. Rajbarage (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rajbarage I have to agree with Magentic Manifestations regarding the reliability of The Aviation Geek Club. Their About Us page makes it clear that it is nothing more than a blog run by two people. A very professional-looking blog, but a blog nonetheless. Furthermore, I see no indication that either of them might fall under the subject-matter expert exemption to WP:SPS, nor do I see any evidence of them following a proper publication process. Of course, if you are aware of such, then please feel free to present it. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rajbarage, Foremost, if you are so busy, nobody is forcing you to contribute half-baked edits here, and waste the time of others as well. To clarify, my reverts have been selective and restricted to contentious issues, which is clearly evident from the history, and is there for everyone to see. The onus is on the editor to provide reliable sources, and address the concerns. Rather than the same, you instead blindly reverted them along with a dose of vitriol. So, your tantrums are well documented as well, evident from the edit summaries (which are supposed to describe the edits, rather than doing personal attacks on editors). Now, your answers again consist of your own mixed personal opinions and claims.

a. Pilot interview is exactly is what is called WP:PRIMARY, and anybody can claim what ever he wants. It is the onus of the editor to provide reliable secondary sources. So take time to read through it, rather than blurting out here, trying to justify things.

b. Wikipedia tends to go with a reliable book source rather than your personal opinion of whether the count is right or wrong. Again, your claim of corroborating sources were missing essential details, and unverifiable. Despite being stated so in the summary as well your talk page, you tried to blindly revert them, and if you were concerned, you should have rather reached out for clarification, rather than now trying to play a good game as if you were not aware.

c. Again usual gyan on visual evidence, reputation etc. is not relevant here. Aviation geek club is a personally run blog, and the opinions is from the author. While several blogs/sources have claimed evidence of aircraft losses and to the contrary, no reliable sources have confirmed with certainty as to any loss of aircraft during the India-Pakistan conflict, while each of the parties claimed to have shot down multiple aircraft of others, and debunking the losses of theirs. Say for e.g. The New york Times clearly mentions that it was unable to independently verify the claims of the aircraft being shot down 1. So, unless there is reliable sources corroborating the loss or changes to inventory of the "particular type" of aircraft, it remains unverified. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, watch your tone. Secondly, God forbid a man has irl responsibilities and isn't terminally online. Your comments have also told me you haven't actually read the sources I cited.

a). I will quote for you the edit in question:

"One of those MiG-29s shot down was piloted by Capt. Jameel Sayhood, who claimed a British Panavia Tornado, ZA467, shot down in northwestern Iraq prior to his engagement with the F-15s." Three sources were used here:

One which we cannot access any longer, one is safarikovi's Air to Air Combat claims list (the single most exhaustive list available in English and online), and one is the Aviation Geek Club's interview. If you notice, the language used (in what I wrote and in both sources) is that of a CLAIM. And interviews are - as far as I can see on the WP:Primary - not exlcuded. And this is not a third party interpretation of the event. I have not stated that the kill was confirmed, and it is a part of the history the plane.

b) Really? The delivery numbers of the Iranian AF's MiG-29s are here, (The Cited book - https://archive.org/details/midland-publishing-famous-russian-aircraft-mi-g-29/page/481/mode/2up (page 481)). The passage cannot be copied, but here is what it says:

"a contract for the delivery of MiG-29s (Izdeliye 9.12B Standard) and four MiG-29UBs was signed on 25th November 1989. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force ........... took delivery of the first batch of Fulcrums in 1988 after President Hashemi Rafsanjani had paid a visit to Moscow. The aircraft were declared operational with the 11th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Tehran-Mehrabad Airport, which is also a major airbase (TAB 1) on 7th October 1990. The type is also operated by the 23rd TFS at Tabriz (TAB 2)."

The Iran section (page 481 - 82) also does on to mention two incidents (one during delivery and one post delivery) which resulted in the loss of two airframes, and then mentions an order for 48 planes (40 single seat and 8 dual seat, not the Moldova order) in 1992 from Russia which was cancelled due to American Pressure.

On the topic of Iraqi evacuees, the Iran section mentions the retention of nine MiG-29s from Iraq and apparently this is from RSK MiG themselves. I tried looking for any actual digitized records from MiG confirming this, but did not find anything. The Iraq section (which follows the Iran section, on page 483) details how there is controversy in regards to the number, with the author stating the seven MiG-29s were evacuated to Iran. The author further mentions that some sources state that only four MiG-29s actually made it across to Iran, with three being lost along the way. Thus, the number confirmable is four evacuees, and as detailed in another source I used, this was a 3-1 split MiG-29As and UBs. The Iran section also mentions some of the upgrades made to the MiG-29 that the Iranians themselves made, and the Iraqi section also has information that could be used to better the Wikipedia page. The book is open source on the internet archive, for free, not exactly inaccessible. By that measure, any book used as a reference is inaccessible, for example I have my copy of "The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare" by Chris Bishop out in front of me with the Iran Iraq war section opened, would you consider that OR because you can't look it up online? This source is used multiple times throughout the rest of the page.

Another source for the four MiG-29s evacuated is here: https://www.twz.com/42905/iranian-mig-29-blasts-target-out-of-sky-in-bonkers-low-level-display Though this source is less reliable. It mentions 18 MiG-29s purchased.

As for the Iranian attempts to buy Moldovan or Romanian MiG-29s, there are a few sources: https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/irans-russian-built-mig-29-fighters-are-mia-against-israel/ is one, there are a few more on the internet and another source cited on the page right now that I cannot access.

I will address the last part later as I have work to get done. Rajbarage (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

C) The article is not by either of the two regular authors but by Tom Cooper, a well known historian on the matter from Austria. He has provided evidence to his points as an analysis, from his professional opinion. Here is another source, from a Swiss Think Thank named the Centre d'Histoire et de Prospective Militaires indicating the loss, which also quotes Cooper's Substack (Which does come under the Subject Matter Expert Label as an exception to what ZLEA pointed out). And, on an unrelated note, there is significant evidence to suggest aircraft losses on both sides in the air, I looked at this for myself for a long time and came to the conclusion of three Pakistani and three to four Indian. I am not trying to put that on Wikipedia, but since it came up, I thought it is something worth mentioning.

https://chpm.ch/wp-content/uploads/Operation-SIndoor-15-January-2026.pdf

I hope you can see that I didn't simply pull the information I was putting on there out of my ass for the edits you have undone, and if you have any more questions/clarificiations/objections, let me know and I will respond. I want this end on semi-civil terms at least, and then want to go back to editing the Fulcrum page itself, I want to create a Cuba section, expand the North Korean section and fix the Eritrean section, of which I had started work on yesterday. Good Day. Rajbarage (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello? Rajbarage (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I ever getting an answer to this? If not I'm going back to editing. You've done enough of a disservice. Rajbarage (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but just tossing in an observation I've made, Rajbarage has also made frequent poorly sourced edits to the MiG-21 article, particularly when it comes to the claim of whether or not the plane shot down a Pakistani F-16. THe chosen sources on the MiG-21 article also tend to be of, at very best, questionable quality, despite multiple warnings on his talk page to stop using sources that have extreme ties to the governments of India, Pakistan, or just outright unreliable ones. Shawtybaespade (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

>"I'm uninvolved"

> "Gets involved"

If you had seen what I had said and why, and what was said to me, you would have also seen that I stopped when what was wrong with my sources was pointed out. The sources I used weren't ever trying to confirm something, but to state that claims were made and counter claims were made. The Pakistani source I used was a government source that simply stated the rejection of a claim, I used a source that I thought was more moderate, and then I used a source that stated there was an Indian claim. If you will also notice, I haven't tried to undo the later revisions to what I had written for that purpose. I hope that satisfies your curiosity. Rajbarage (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rajbarage, You have literally parroted the same points without addressing any of the concerns raised by multiple editors, and gone ahead and reintroduced the same with the same set of sources while there was no consensus here. Please stop re-adding the same thing without credible sources. a. You are repeatedly quoting a pilot interview on a blog as a claim of shooting down an aircraft rather than any reliable secondary sources. This is exactly what is called primary source, your own interpretations aside. b. Regarding your Iraq claims, there are lot of this states that, that states this, but "I cannot access". The source given states what is currently in the text. If you have credible sources which can be verified, and provides additional information, you can go ahead and include them. c. Regarding the shooting down of MiG-29, again there is conflicting claims by both India and Pakistan, and there is no confirmation or reliable source for the same. There are multiple sources which claim there is no evidence. So, again, leaving your own research aside, unless there is confirmation of a loss from credible sources and no contradictions, it should stay as is. Finally, regarding your comment on the tone, remember this "the pot is calling the kettle black", suggest to go back and read your own comments and edit summaries. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wrong comment to put this under for starters. I reintroduced them because you just didn't respond for two weeks (Where I can see that you were still making edits), didn't provide anything against what I said and I had to put a number of comments asking if you were going to respond, especially after you got mad at me for not having time to respond to everything at once when I was travelling for half a day. How long am I supposed to wait your precious consent?

a) lol, see above. Can't help you anymore Ig, this should be pretty straightforward, not counted on WP:PRIMARY, and it isn't an interpretation of anything. b). This source - cited over a dozen times throughout the page - is a reliable source, and the fact that you can't access the free online full book isn't my problem. Even if you couldn't access it, not my problem. That is up to you. It isn't region blocked, it is on an archive site, and I have typed (not copy-pasted as that isn't possible on Library Archives), the relevant section. What do you want? Me to send you screenshots? Me to buy the physical book and mail it to you? Really this is ridiculous. c) The IAF does not deny losses, they do not deny this loss, they have accepted losses, and serious sources have examined the evidence (experts in the field) and come to the conclusion that a MiG-29 was lost to undeterminable causes. There is not reliable source that denies that. What "Multiple sources which claim there is no evidence" are you referring to? Give me a couple of serious, up to date sources that can back that up if you are so vehement about it. Rajbarage (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rajbarage, For starters, I don't think it is my job to check for your highness to revert back and comment, unless it is tagged to be specifically. Next, as you have simply been reintroducing the same things again and again, without addressing any of the issues, which have in fact been raised by multiple editors in the thread. You have literally parroted the same thing repeatedly, only with sarcasm and ridicule added to that. Simple, as per WP:ONUS, the onus is on the editor adding it to achieve a consensus, which you neither seem to be interested in nor want to address the shortcomings. To keep it simple, a. it is a primary source that too from a blog, it is a primary and non-reliable source whether you like it or not. b. You have said that "there are a few more on the internet and another source cited on the page right now that I cannot access." and I did not state that. So, get your facts right, and instead of blabbering something, read you own comments before reading. Don't give some random crap here just for the sake of it. c. Did IAF accept the losses in person to yourself, that the world is not aware of? Again, take your time to go back to the previous comments, where the NYT link is clearly given, which has clearly stated it as "unable to independently verify the claims". So, this discussion is going nowhere unless you really have something worthwhile to be added, and it stays as status quo, unless there is a consensus. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you obviously aren't arguing in good faith or with a good head on your shoulders. I have provided you with more than enough evidence and substance. a) Addressed already, you are simply parroting the same thing. b) I did you idiot, and I went to a book, typed all relevant passages out for your lazy ass. It is not my fault if you can't access a free source online or use your computer properly or whatever, especially for an authoritative source that is cited on this page multiple times. You said you couldn't access it. This is a case of you not reading your own comment. c). The IAF did acknowledge losses, and I did not use the NYT as a source neither do I care for what they could verify in that article within a day or two of the incident. Later detailed analysis available from expert sources state otherwise, IAF has officially acknowledged losses, the wreck it there and the IAF does not contradict it.

It is obvious you are simply denying it for the sake for denying it at this point. I have followed everything that is reasonable in this case. If you do not give me good sources to contradict the information here, don't bother reverting it. Rajbarage (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Discounting the blatant assumption of bad faith and the personal attacks (for which I have given you a formal warning), it has already been explained to you how the sources you provided do not meet Wikipedias criteria for reliable sources. Your failure to get the point has become beyond disruptive, so unless you have better sources, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. - ZLEA ^TǀC 19:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice formal warning, does the book not meet the criteria? The book that is published and cited multiple times throughout this article (including the very pages and facts that I am trying to cite)? Does the two sources (one from a neutral and reputed think thank publication on the matter and one by a respected author in the field) not meet the criteria for reliable sources? I have explained it and gotten no proper response. I have asked countless times for reliable sources contradicting what I have edited, or a problem with the sources that I have provided, and have been met with this wall of mockery and other things, and told to get consensus when no one is being reasonable in regards to those sources. When can I assume bad faith then? What time? What criteria for sources that isn't on the wiki? Do tell. "Get the point", nice, the repeated unbacked reversions and objectively untrue information wasn't enough right? Rajbarage (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

does the book not meet the criteria? If you're referring to Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-29 (2005) by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davison, then yes, the book does meets our reliability criteria as both Gordon and Davison are subject matter experts and Specialty Press is a reputable publisher. And yes, sometimes reliable sources can be wrong, but you need at least equally reliable sources to challenge them. A self-published fan club site claiming to have interviewed a pilot is not enough to challenge the book. As for the think tank, I'd say that does appear to be reliable and probably could be used if it indeed contradicts the book, though may I ask why you chose to use a source that was already demonstrated to be unreliable when you had that one? When can I assume bad faith then? What time? Please read WP:GFISNOT. Reverting the addition of unreliable sources absolutely does not constitute bad faith. Quite the opposite, in fact. What criteria for sources that isn't on the wiki? WP:SELFPUB is the main issue with the fan club site, and you have yet to demonstrate that it is verifiably written by subject matter experts or that it falls under some other exemption. ...the repeated unbacked reversions and objectively untrue information wasn't enough right? For one, reversions of content sourced from unreliable sources isn't "unbacked". Second, I suggest reading WP:TRUTH. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not claiming that the other sources contradict the book. The book itself gives different numbers for the number of Iraqi defections to Iran. The lowest number that anyone can agree upon (in the book or otherwise) is four (three MiG-29As, one MiG-29UB). My point was that we should use that minimum number as that is the only number we can be sure of. We can mention the other numbers (7 and 9). The Book is for the Iranian section primarily, where it gives great detail about the deliveries to Iran, some of the background, and early crashes amongst other things. That edit is one of three edits that keeps getting reverted. The interview is for the Iraqi pilot, a different edit from that, but I was just using it to get the pilots name (as it is a direct interview of him claiming (and not a confirmation) of the Tornado flown by Weeks. The last edit (the lost Indian MiG-29) is supported by the Tom Cooper article (who is a very well known expert in this field) and the Swiss Think Thank. Both are third party credible sources. When Magnetic was reverting my edits, he reverted all of them and pointed them out above. I have responded to all three separately. These sources are not contradicting each other and I struggle to under why especially the Iranian claim and the Indian claim are disputed here. I have tried explaining this in good faith countless times. I have typed out sections of the book on here (I can't copy paste) with a finger injury to try to get my point across. I addressed it earlier but as far as I can tell, an interview with a first hand source is an exception, and I have not added any more interpretation to it. The others are from third party expert sources. I hope with that background, the cause of my confusion and frustrations become a bit clearer. I am only trying to improve the page of one of my favourite aircraft. Regards, Raj. Rajbarage (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The book, passages, and other important information are in the last large response to the original comment in this thread. There is also a link to the book online. Rajbarage (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The book itself gives different numbers for the number of Iraqi defections to Iran. In that case, we have grounds to call the source unreliable for that specific fact. The last edit (the lost Indian MiG-29) is supported by the Tom Cooper article (who is a very well known expert in this field) and the Swiss Think Thank. Looking at the source a bit closer, it's only confusing me more. Yes, Tom Cooper does appear to be a subject matter expert, but he is not listed as a contributor to the site in its About Us page. Furthermore, all his articles appear to be sponsored by the publishing company he writes for. I don't believe I've ever seen such an arrangement on a fan blog. I'm slightly more convinced that this specific blog post might be reliable, but I still think we should avoid using it unless absolutely necessary. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the book is not entirely reliable for that fact, which is why I don't think that the 9 figure should be used (it is taken from the book and used on the page right now in the Operators section). We should use the minimum number if anything and mention that there may have been more, to the books credit, it says that (in the Iraq section on page 482-3) that seven were sent over, only four made it (In the Iran section, it says that nine were taken).

Tom Cooper is not a member of the site, but rather an occasional contributor. I did not cite anything written by the regular two authors alone (unless there was a reasonable exception under Wikipedia's rules, see way above). This article is likely sponsored as Tom (who also spoke of this before in his other self pubs and elsewhere) has recently released a book on it. That being said, while I do get that it may be sus at first, I do not believe it affects the factuality of the matter (I do not have a copy of book unfortunately, very expensive. Did try looking for it on Scribd to perhaps use here but it isn't uploaded.) the information stated there is probably the same as his book. The Swiss report remains.

I hope this makes things more clear.

Raj Rajbarage (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that the main point of contention was not the four MiG-29s transferred but rather the original deliveries by the Soviet Union, where the reliable sources I could find all concur, and I have quoted the Gordon book for it (20 MIG-29As [9.12B] and 4 MiG-29UBs). Rajbarage (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rajbarage, Call others by "cuss words" and later claim yourself to be a saint "who is trying to improve the article" + acting in "good faith". Yes, people believed you and your intentions.

"Idiot" is a person whose bulbous brain does not get the same point despite being repeated multiple times over and over, by various editors. Yes, you can definitely look yourself in the mirror and call yourselves that, while I would repeat the point of contentions in detail you Poppycock.

a. On the "Iraqi claim of shooting down", you literally passed on the same edit after being repeatedly being told that the source is primary and unreliable source, by the pilot based on the same interview. This is what is exactly called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

b. Regarding the Iran section, you had added two statements.

Statement one reads: "Iran acquired a total of 24 MiG-29s from Russia, 20 MiG-29 As (9.12) and 4 MiG-29UB trainers (9.51), delivered in two batches with the first composed of 14 aircraft." While the existing content states an unknown number with at least 14 MiG-29 (9.12B) as per the same Gordon book source. There is no sourcing provided for the changes made. The paragraph you had copied and pasted here, claiming to be from the source (which is not accessible), a contract for the delivery of MiG-29s (Izdeliye 9.12B Standard) and four MiG-29UBs was signed on 25th November 1989. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force ...took delivery of the first batch of Fulcrums in 1988 after President Hashemi Rafsanjani had paid a visit to Moscow... This does not give this claimed count of 24 or the first delivery of 14 aircraft either.

The second statement pertains to the Gulf war, which has been discussed in detail. The quoted number is sourced from the 1999 book, where nine is the only number mentioned in page 139 and the book itself has a print length of <300 pages. However, you claim an iraq section on page 400+. You had mentioned another partially accessible source (here) when the same was repeatedly edited, which you had not quoted here as attesting to the fact. You pasted another source TWI, which you yourselves discredited as non reliable. If indeed a different book from Gordon etal. claims different numbers, you have never indeed pointed specifically to the 2005 book

If the existing number of "nine" is contentious and using a different book as a source, it has not been mentioned so by you clearly. If the 2005 book (quoted by the other editor) have been used, and if it mentions various numbers at different places, then the sensible thing would be to not use a specific number, rather than your presumed number of four. You were repeatedly trying to quote a number, which you believed was fine, without the underlying logic.

c. On the IAF claim, the point is that the loss is heavily disputed. You had quoted two sources: Source one CHPM which again speculates the loss as Sukhoi or MiG-29 (despite claiming confirmed photographs), and does not confirm a MiG-29 loss. Source two is the Tom Cooper one, where Cooper claims that the aircraft was shot down without providing any proof of the claim in the article (he has linked some photos for the others, again on the same blog!), a personal opinion blog (though sponsored by the company, which happened to release his book on the same subject, that might be still fine) does not sound like a reliable one. The NYT, RUSI by Royal United Services Institute claim there is no verification or proof of the claim. So, unless there are reliable and non-contradicting sources attesting to the fact of a MiG-29 lost, it should not find a place here. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Never claimed to be a saint. My faith is good, and at first I believed yours was too. And calling me an idiot doesn't absolve you of creating this mess, if anything, you are conceding.

I was not adding the claim, I don't think you understand that. I was adding the name of the pilot to whom the claim is attached, the claim section was there from before this Edit War (with a source). Did you not see that? Was that not clear? If it wasn't, why didn't you say so?

The link to the 2006 Gordon Book is right there. It is a newer source form the same author that backs up the Iran numbers. I have it there. Your inability to access is frankly a you problem, again, and no it isn't just a copy paste, I typed it out. I have done frankly more than I need to in order to get you to see the thing. You can't copy paste on Library Archives, and I did offer to send you screenshots of the thing which you did not respond to. DO you want them? Of the entire Iran and Iraq sections? Never specifically pointed it out really? And you wonder why I am upset with you? I have laid this out multiple times and do not enjoy going in circles or arguing with strange people online. The 24 figure by the way, is literally on the same page in the Operators section with the same book that I cited and it is on the Iranian Airforce's Inventory Page through an article I cannot access. Thus, I used the book only.

NYT and RUSI both published those pieces very soon after the war. NYT did it during the first day itself. Of course they aren't going to claim something that early. " Doesn't sound like a reliable one" - it falls under the exceptions that is spoke of above and from a respected expert in the field. There is no reason it cannot be used by Wikipedia's rules. Rajbarage (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, you complain about being unable to access a free source while linking me to a source that is behind a paywall. What's up with that dawg? Rajbarage (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rajbarage, You seem to be selectively picking and choosing to respond. Regarding the first point, the claim is not the question here, merely the repeated mention of the pilot here backed by his own personal interview. Not sure whether you are not getting the point or feigning ignorance here.

Regarding the deliveries to Iran, it is exactly as you copy pasted "claiming to be from the source", which does not give the numbers you had stated. Now, if I raise an objection, you rather deflect and claim that it is a "me problem". Now, when the existing source points to the 1999 book, your revert seems to indicate that I should presume and be mind reading that you are talking about the 2006 book.

An opinion from a "so-called expert" in the field in a blog, who provides no proof definitely cannot become a reliable source especially when you have quoted no other sources which back up the claim and there are reliable sources contrary to the same. The CHPM source (which you have only quoted) also fails to ascertain it specifically, still you quoted it, so I presume that it was done in "bad faith" that this shall also pass.

If the source is not accessible (which you had failed to mention as registration required or so while quoting it as well), it cannot be verified and given your history of repeatedly editing/reverting to unsourced claims with respect to the issues at hand, it is the right thing to do and the onus is on the editor to substantiate the same. I had been acting in good faith correcting minor errors or fixable issues of your edits while raising objections to specific additions. However, you seems to be hell bent on your own version, which does not seems to be working towards a consensus. But, the mistake was that I had also let myself to be dragged further into this mud slinging, which is neither befitting of me nor a better use of my time. So, at this juncture, now that I have made my points exceedingly clear over again, I will take a back seat, let a third person have a view on this and let the discussion take its course. I will consider intervening only if necessary. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice of you to lob allegations, ignore my attempts at mediation and then claim the high ground. I will make this short and hopefully will not have to respond after this.

I have not put any unsourced material on here. You say that I have, but you can see my sources. All of my edits have not been perfect, but your accusations do not hold water in that regard. As for sources, when you (correctly) pointed out that the Eurasian times article cannot be used, I removed it. I did not fight you on it, and fixed my error and acted in good faith, and do not appreciate your allegations of unchangeability. It may surprise you, but if you just gave me your sources and acted towards me in a civil manner, I would not have been upset at you in the slightest. I did not go on a reversion spree, you did without explanation, and without looking at my sources. I have offered you screenshots of the book multiple times (I think this is #4), have already addressed your concerns, and when I was asked for a subject matter expert backing for the self pub, gave it to you. You have given me very little in the way of sources. For the Indian MiG-29, Cooper states on his sub stack that it is because of the K-36 ejection seat. We do not know the reason.

If you still want the sources or the screenshots, email me. I can give you screenshots of the Iran and Iraq section. And the next time you criticize someone for giving you an open source free reference, don't send them something that is behind a paywall.

As for the 1999 book, that is not what I was referring to. I have access to it, and have read it. I can tell you that after the "14" number, the author clarifies that RSK MiG stated unofficially the delivery of several dozen. I suspect the number quoted there is for the first batch in 1990 (which is also the number that is thrown around online).

Take this as you will. I don't like you, but do wish you the best.

Raj. Rajbarage (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am proposing the creation of a Test / Evaluation only Users section in the MiG-29 page (similar to the Soviet Union Section, Export Section and Failed Bids section). Evaluation only users (Israel, USA and China) never used the MiG-29 in an operational setting and I think their use is different to a degree. Just thought I would get opinions on it here, and hopefully make it later.

Cheers!

Raj Rajbarage (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'm not sure it fits with the existing structure of the section, which is split into current and former users. There are also cases like the US, where the military itself only used the aircraft for evaluation while private defense contractors currently use it for training. - ZLEA ^TǀC 23:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I meant like, under the Operational History Section. I should have been more clear about that. Rajbarage (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. At the same time, we can probably give civilian contractors their own section. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

A number of them are with private individuals are they not? How would that work. Rajbarage (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Privately-owned aircraft are currently covered in the "Airworthy" subsection of the article. Unless there's more information worth noting about their operational history under private ownership, I'm not sure it's worth noting in the "Operational history" section. - ZLEA ^TǀC 23:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it, let us wait for one more aye before I start. Rajbarage (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it doesn't look like anybody else is responding, should I go ahead? Rajbarage (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)