Talk:Panter howitzer
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removal of referenced information about involvement of ST Kinetics edit
I disagree with @Panter28: repeatedly removing this information per these edits [1][2][3][4]. It is referenced to a reliable source (i.e. Janes Armour and Artillery 2007-2008) and as such at the very least any objections to this material should be discussed here and a consensus established before / if it is to be removed again per Bold, Revert, Discuss. I note Panter28's previous edit summaries which state either "Source doesn't exist" (which is clearly incorrect as I have verified its existence from a hardcopy from the library several days ago), and "Official Turkish sources like MKEK explain that as it was developed by themselves and there is no any source for it to be proven if helped by oversea companies, so those are just claims and wikipedia isn't the place of claims". In my opinion if other sources exist which contradict the Janes source they should be added (assuming they meet WP:RS) and contrasted, rather than simply deleting what appears to be relevant information from a reliable publication. Continued removal of this content without establishing a consensus first seems disruptive to me at the very least. Anotherclown (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've added in-text attribution for the information from Janes for now given that it seems to be disputed. If other editors have opinions on a different way of doing this I'm happy to discuss though of cse, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, AC, I agree with this approach. The conflicting (or different) information from the (as yet unclear, to me at least) official Turkish source could then just be added beside what is already there. For instance, something like this might work, "...meet the requirements of the Singapore Armed Forces. Official Turkish sources such as [INSERT TITLE OF SOURCE], however, state that the project was completely indigenous and that no overseas assistance was received.[CITATION TO SOURCE]" (Or something along those lines). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes that approach sounds fine to me as long as the source provided meets the requirements of WP:RS and can be verified to actually say what is being claimed, because I'm concerned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given Panter28's previous edits on other articles. Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- G'day, AC, I agree with this approach. The conflicting (or different) information from the (as yet unclear, to me at least) official Turkish source could then just be added beside what is already there. For instance, something like this might work, "...meet the requirements of the Singapore Armed Forces. Official Turkish sources such as [INSERT TITLE OF SOURCE], however, state that the project was completely indigenous and that no overseas assistance was received.[CITATION TO SOURCE]" (Or something along those lines). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Other sources re involvement of ST Kinetics edit
In addition to the entry in Janes Armour and Artillery there appear to be a few websites at least that also report the involvement of ST Kinetics in the design phase (although I haven't looked closely at whether they meet WP:RS). A few were blogs so obviously are not reliable, but this one might be ok:
- 155mm Panter (Panther) Towed Howitzer (2002) - www.militaryfactory.com.
Regardless, unless others feel that additional referencing is req'd, at this stage I do not see the need to add to the source that is already provided. Anotherclown (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)