Talk:103rd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion

Military history: European / German / World War II

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name Change

propose a change of name to SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 102 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen your suggestion, but the article is entitled "103rd" SS Heavy Panzer Battalion - not 102. RASAM (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources

Hohum, I'm responding to your note on my talk page. I've obtained feedback from several editors that Axishistory.com and similar sites are not WP:RS and should be removed. Please see:

It is good that you are deleting citations from unreliable bloggy sources like axishistory and feldgrau (from PeaceMaker)
I would say that http://www.axishistory.com should not be used as it is mainly a "forum" and it is "maintained" by one man so it has no editorial oversight. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to restore my edit given the above consensus. I also believe that the content that was removed is potentially "unverifiable." Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the source doesn't mean removing the content, unless you think it is actually wrong. Additionally, I think each of the sources used on this article list their own sources at the bottom of each page, so they are verifiable. It would be better to use those sources directly, but only if you have them to look at. As I have already said, using {{unreliable source?}} tags might be more relevant - it keeps the source listed so it can be used to find better ones, rather than leaving the information completely without a source. (Hohum ^@) 14:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is really small potatoes compared to the rest of Waffen-SS content in general. I've been compiling a list -- mostly for fun -- but it left me quite disturbed: Dubious unsourced claims and non-NPOV language. Have you been noticing the same? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

This is a copy/paste of the discussion on the Talk page of Hohum:

Hi, I would like to go ahead and clean up this article: none of the sources listed are reliable; in addition, the credited vehicles are not cited. I know you've disagreed once, so I wanted to give you heads up to see if you wanted to improve the article before I proceed.

Per WP:MILMOS:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians.

The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited. At a minimum, the following all require direct citation:

Numerical quantities or statistics

Please let me know! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly; thank you for taking an interest in improving the articles that you have been working on. It is welcome.

The web sources currently in use have bibliographies at the bottom of their pages, so they are tertiary, and the text they support is probably factual. I agree that it should more properly be cited directly to those sources, if you have them. If you don't have them, I advise against removing the text in the article just because of poor referencing. You should only remove information if you think it is *wrong*, not just because the sourcing is weak.

Short version - I suggest improving the referencing, rather than tearing out information because it has tertiary sourcing. (Hohum ^@) 15:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree. Per WP:MILMOS & WP:RS, these are unreliable and, secondly, tertiary sources. I find these numbers to be dubious – they could have been simply exaggerated in the heat of the battle or by the unit commander to mask mistakes, or could have been factually incorrect, whereas the unit reports destroying 'heavy tanks' while in fact these were T-34s. Without reliable sources, we simply do not know. If the articles do not have citations, then per various tags "the material may be challenged or removed." It does not say that it cannot or should not be removed. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) None of the sources used can be considered RS. They need to be replaced by citations from Schneider's Tigers in Combat, Tessin's Truppen und Verbände der Wehrmacht and Sledgehammers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, improve the sourcing. The numbers are likely supported by the reliable sources (Jentz, Schneider, etc.) at the bottom of the web pages currently used. (Hohum ^@) 14:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to these sources; I'd rather interested editors improve the article once it's been cleaned up.

Would you guys mind if I copy paste this to the article's talk page, before I proceed? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- I will go ahead and clean up this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy Grammar

"the battalion was converted back to THE Tanks" - should be "back to tanks"! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "non-notable - no article; unneeded See also; dubious ext link". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]