Skip to main content

Talk:Tank

Talk:Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tank:

  • Improve citations as appropriate
Former featured articleTank is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 3, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Milestones[edit]

It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected. Wikipedia imagines that it is an encyclopaedia, and some people look things up in it and believe what they read. I wonder how many people will now be declaring that the first use of tanks was at the Third Battle of Ypres, thanks to Wikipedia. While Monroe's ill-conceived, badly researched, and, in my view, unnecessary section is in the article, it is misleading people. It is preferable to do what real encyclopaedias do, which is to get the facts right and then publish them.

To judge from his contributions elsewhere, Monroe believes himself to be in a position to make pronouncements on this topic and closely related ones. Therefore, for him to be ignorant of the date and place of the first deployment of tanks does little for his authority. It doesn't seem that any research was done at all. Those facts are freely available - they're on Wikipedia - so where this misinformation came from is baffling.

The second attempt is a little better in that respect, but is still lamentable. No attempt seems to have been made to find out the number of tanks deployed, and while Sheffield's book is technically acceptable as a source, it is a simple matter to link to the battle of Flers-Courcelette on Wikipedia, which is a much more detailed account. The citation is, I believe, improperly used here, and lacks a page number.

Cambrai needs a fuller explanation than this table allows. It was an initial success, and the biggest deployment of tanks so far, but it is not regarded by authoritative sources as a tank battle. Indeed, the title of Monroe's source indicates that the notion is a myth. Hammond's whole argument is that Cambrai was an all-arms battle in which the tanks played a partThat's why his book is calledCambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle. It can't be offered as a reference simply because it contains the words "Cambrai" and "First Great Tank Battle".

As for the rest of it - I'm not in a position to comment in detail on interwar and WWII, but it seems to me that this is a hostage to fortune and will lead to endless arguments about what constitutes a "milestone". This is already evident in Monroe's argument that French and German developments are of no interest to anyone but the French and Germans. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that it is not widely known that France developed tanks at the same time as the British and was the second nation to use them. And people do tend to associate tanks with Germany, but might be unaware that the first "panzers" appeared during WWI.

So I suggest that a poorly researched, factually incorrect, incomplete and anglocentric piece of work such as this can't be left on Wikipedia to mislead people, and propose to remove it accordingly. If Monroe wishes to undertake some elementary research and apprise himself, for example, of the number of tanks deployed at Flers-Courcelette, accurately reflect the significance of Cambrai, and so on, some might think it worthwhile to reintroduce the section. I would not be one of them. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that it is easy to insert dreadful stuff such as this, but a monumental, time wasting job to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.139.78 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has said the section can't be improved. All of WP is a work in progress. We don't just delete sections with a long history just because they need improvement. If the section has long-standing problems that appear intrinsic to the subject, then it should be deleted. So far, no such problem has been stated, much less supported by any evidence. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Another needlessly obnoxious comment. I wonder if this IP user is the same as the last critic who showed up here. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear 85.75.139.78. "It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected." This is a common misconception - publishing information that stands a risk of being corrected is exactly what we should do. If Wikipedia exists, it can be improved upon. If it does not exist, we return to the millenium in which the few held the keys to all of the knowledge. Since nothing in science can be proved correct, only proven incorrect, your preference is effectively nihilism. I have no problem with that viewpoint in principle, it's just not useful in this context. Given the success of science and engineering in general it may be societally wise to cut ourselves a little slack. All content on Wikipedia exists, will continue to be disseminated (if we continue to pay the collective costs) and it is our obligation to the future that it must be improved upon. If you cannot see the mind-altering genius in that concept (including the imperfections) then I suggest we end our conversation cordially right now.
If a viewpoint is presented that can be turned into article content, then it is constructive criticism and we welcome it. "Delete X" is a nihilist suggestion that is treated with the same weight as an anonymous post (quite frankly, none). In case that was unclear, your post regardless of how educated it was, was treated with confidencence level 0.00^2. This is not a reflection on you, simply on societal self-preservation mechanics.
That said, I have seen many articles with POV bias and wanted them to be more inclusive - but it takes real specialist knowledge to do that. If you are one of those specialists - and your comments suggest this - then please elaborate in a way that can be turned into content. This is not a 'waste of time', this is our legacy and we care about it. Doug (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want a 'milestone' then try the Vickers Medium Mark I or possibly the Vickers Medium Mark II. IIRC, it was the first tank to have tracks with a life of up to 500 miles, due to use of IIRC of manganese in the links. This made it possible to use the tank as a normal road vehicle, whereas before the very limited track life of other vehicles prevented their extended use on anything other than wet, muddy, terrain. IIRC, this was stated in one of the Bovington handbooks on inter-war tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose merge of some history from Tank#History to to History of the tank[edit]

Currently, we have some history details in this article that are missing from the main article. See discussion at Talk:History of the tank#Propose merge of some history from Tank#History to here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank#Classification[edit]

This section was recently added. It's unreferenced, fairly unencyclopedic, and inaccurate when compared to the main article Tank classification. Although L/M/H tanks are noted in the main article, they are also noted as only one way of classification and mostly obsolete.

A classification section would be good to have, but I don't see anything to salvage from the current one. If no one objects, I'll scrap this and replace it with a short summary of the main article. (A short version will end up kind of saying "it's complicated", so less entertaining, but more accurate, and can then be thoughtfully expanded and improved by others.)

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Do it. I made a quick stab at cleaning it up but it was a quick patch rather than a proper fix. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've boldly replaced the section. I tried to summarize the summary from Tank classification, and it ended up close to "there were some classifications, they varied, and now we just have MBTs". I then inserted a list of notable tank classifications held loosely together with some prose.
At least I can say it now isn't blatantly at odds with the main article.
I didn't get to sources, so the rewrite is still just as bad in that respect. The problem I'm finding is that tank classifications aren't well defined by RSs, even though they make ample use of tank class terms. The main article itself is tagged as "possible OR". Given that, it may be a long uphill battle for sources. We'll see.
As always, others are free to further improve, refactor, or replace. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well done, it reads well. The only thing I'm not sure on is the Tank Destroyer being up-armoured. I see them more as highly mobile SP artillery pieces to ambush tanks on the move (think Hellcat and Achilles, both of which had relatively light armour). Lkchild (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that TDs (like most classifications) aren't that uniform. Assault-guns and SP anti-tank guns employed in the TD role were probably more effective (and cost less) that specially-designed TDs -- the ones that might have better armor. So, yeah, let's go with the more demonstrable effective TDs rather than the "full" concept. I'll remove "up-armoured". --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 07:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Comma second sentence[edit]

The second sentence of the article has an out of place comma but I don't see a way to edit the opening section. Maybe someone with higher clearance can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:211F:F474:D0D:28CE (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now removed it - thanks for bringing this up. Entranced98 (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sentence with definition of a tank[edit]

We've been having repeated conflicting edits on the second sentence recently. This has the definition of a tank. AFAIK, this is big gun, heavy armor, tracks and battlefield mobility. If it doesn't have all of these, it's not a tank. Right?

For reference, it's currently this: They have heavy firepower, strong armour, with tracks and a powerful engine providing good battlefield manoeuvrability.

If there's something to improve in the wording, let's fix that, but let's not break the definition of a tank in the process.

Suggestions? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, most definitions of a tank I've seen also include having a turret, but maybe we should set that aside until the gun/armor/track/engine definition wording is settled. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: Something just seems off in the sentence.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
When I first read the sentence the "and" towards the end made me take it for a list with these items:
  1. heavy firepower
  2. strong armour, with tracks
  3. a powerful engine.
I had to read it again and use my prior knowledge of tanks to understand how to parse it. I had no intention to change the definition, but the sentence could be clearer. I suggest: "They have heavy firepower and strong armour. Tracks and a powerful engine provide good battlefield manoeuvrability."Sjö (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Splitting the definition into multiple sentences tends make just a series of unconnected comments rather than a clear definition. The comma before "with" should separate armor from tracks, but so it goes. I suggest:
Tanks have heavy firepower, strong armour, and good battlefield manoeuvrability provided by tracks and a powerful engine.
--A D Monroe III(talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"Tanks have heavy firepower, strong armour, and good battlefield manoeuvrability provided by tracks and a powerful engine" sounds good.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 04:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, all. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tank&oldid=895195215"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more