Talk:Panzer-Abteilung 40

additional info, properly cited

Why in the world are you resistant to more useful information being added to this article?

1.) This information is particularly germane to a unit whose useful combat period was so brief but somewhat important in the scheme of the campaign in Norway. Why not add this info, it tells users exactly what type of tank unit was created, what vehicles it was composed of, and roughly how it was used. This is SO useful!

2.) It is not like the article is way too long and composed of fluff. This extra research adds flesh to the bones that are already there.

3.) The english translation of the full German terminology and full German title is important because wikipedia is ... ENGLISH!

4.) How many times do I have to cite this stuff? If this was a university paper the citation would absolutely fine thank you very much. I cite a simple paragraph in 2 instances that are backed up with 2 other citations of common knowledge info that is the public domain. This isn't original research, it is World War Two.

5.) It seems pretty clear to me that the guy that is reverting my edits, and is rather rude, thinks he OWNS this article because he created it. THIS IS WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea if you are a troll or not. You are building multiple strawmen and seem to refuse what is wrong with your edits. Please read the following carefully:

• You are introducing spelling errors left and right. The word "Vervendung" does not exist in German, it is "Verwendung". I am glad after like 15 tries you finally realized your error. However, in your latest edit furry you again introduced spelling errors. For the umpteenth time, this unit is called Panzer-Abteilung zur besonderen Verwendung 40. No "Vervendung" no "besonderer" and not the other errors you added into the article.
• If you use internet forums or webpages like →"achtungpanzer.com" or "feldgrau.com" in an univsersity thesis everybody would laugh at you. Like seriously, wtf?. Those are random internet websites not reliable sources. We need published literature by experienced and acknowledged authors and experts, not some internet blogs. Please read WP:RELIABLE to identify what is a reliable source and what not.
• Copying from other webpages word by word is illegal. I already told to to read WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia has to delete stuff like that.
• Please stop your ridicolous accusations and personal attacks on me. WP is a team effort, but you must understand the guidelines and check your own edits.

I told you numerous times what is wrong with your edits but seem to refuse to understand. This is not an internet forum, there is no need to start a feud. Dead Mary (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Corrected the spelling, and you Sir are a jerk of the first and highest order, mocking me and pretending to be superior, only because you seem to think this article is YOURS, and it is not.

I have added information about the etymology of the unit, the composition of the unit, the tanks it used and their fate and usage. What is wrong with that, you philistine? You have to realize that you do not know everything about this topic, and it is not yours to police.

And your English language writing is, let us say, charitably, pedestrian at best. Live with it. And learn.

Oh, and you may question the websites "achtungpanzer.com" or "feldgrau.com", which may or may NOT be valid (your questioning, I mean,) but the information I have found on them is better than 98% of all commonly and widely available sources of these subjects. Unless you want editors to go out and buy or try to find access to $250+ specialized OoBs or Official Histories. Indeed, show me where these websites are wrong, pal? It seems to me, and my appreciation of things military history and historiography, that this is GOOD information. And if so, given the world of sh*t on the internet (which wiki leans HEAVILY upon for its very justification) this stuff ain't bad, AT ALL!

Recent edit

I undid these additions diff, as achtungpazer.com, feldrau.com, etc are not reliable sources. Please see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:IRS for help with identifying reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I undid the revisions again; please also note edit warring may lead to being blocked. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My dear me, do you know what we are writing about here? This is purely descriptive almost technical information about the composition of a tank unit. There is no interpretation or subjectivity at all here, and for the life of me I could not imagine, on ***'* good green earth how or why there would be any controversy regarding this information. You point me to this instruction on WP:MILMOS#SOURCES:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal.

Well, tho it is certainly not a wide canvass and survey of all of the literature in the Norway campaign, and that stuff isn't bursting off the shelf, this information certainly, at least, meets "a minimal condition." Which is certainly better than nothing.

Seriously, I mean really, what is wrong with the info? It is good stuff and gives much needed context to an otherwise poorly written little article. It ain't controversial, but certainly explains to the casual reader just what type of tanks faught in Norway in World War Two. For the life of me, honestly, this is good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the info, but it needs to be correctly sourced. Internet webblogs are not reliable. We cant verify if those information are true. Everybody can make a page like achtungpanzer.com and invent things. And yes, that has happened before, there have been entire articles written on battles which never happened. Thats why we need published literature or other reliable sources which can be checked. Dead Mary (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This info is pretty black and white, no grey here. These facts are essentially numbers and dates, about a unit so unique and in many ways inconsequential that it defies reasoning to conclude that there was anything amiss with the data. The sites which have posted this information, regardless of their wikipedia branded legitimacy, have done, in my opinion, a service providing this info the the online world.

And I started to google the sources that these sites used to provide the info, and by and large they are either general survey texts (like an Osprey history that makes passing but insignificant mention of just about everything) or a honking detailed, expensive and somewhat specialized text which 99.9% of people interested in military history have not seen let alone owned.

But these sites used them! Hey, don't we owe them a big thank you ... no?

It seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, but I don't work here. It is your site, not mine. I just like editing things for fun, but ... I will admit to learning some new stuff, which is cool. I'll never play my copy of GDW's Narvik the same way again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)