Talk:Bob Semple tank

Fair use rationale for Image:Sempl 2.jpg

Image:Sempl 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes?

OK, this is the second editor (at least) to add in scare quotes -- using the name Bob Semple 'tank' in the body of the article.

I get why, but we don't really use scare quotes as a general rule. If we want to say "The Bob Semple tank was called that but wasn't really a proper tank", that'd be the usual procedure I think. We'd need to source that tho.

It's a pretty poor machine altogether, but it does have treads and armor and a turret with a gun in it. That kind of makes it a tank pretty much. An ignorant tank, true. (If it had wheels it'd be an armored car; if it had no turret it'd maybe be just an armored fighting vehicle, altho a few tanks don't have turrets. Conversely the American M10 had treads and a turret, but wasn't a tank -- it was a tank destroyer.)

It isn't a tankette... not an armored personnel carrier... not an armored car, that article begins with "A military armored (or armoured) car is a lightweight wheeled armored fighting vehicle..." (emphasis added). Not an armored tractor, as those don't have guns. So it has to be either a tank or an armored fighting vehicle.

Let's go to the sources.

• here it is just called the Bob Semple. (They do use scare quotes at one point, but this not our way.)
• [1] here it is Bob Semple tank.*
• this has various. the ‘Semple tank’, as it was now commonly known it says, also calls it the Bob Semple Tank (proper noun). Title is The ‘Semple’ Tractor Tank.
• this is in Russian, uses Bob Semple tank.

It doesn't really matter what people call it. If they called it an interpretive dance, that wouldn't make it an interpretive dance. It's a data point tho. None of the sources call it anything but a tank. One source says the common name was "Semple tank", but... that's not enough IMO. I would go with "Bob Semple tank"

It's got treads. It's got a turret with a gun in it. It is armored, if not well. It's too big to be a tankette. All the sources call it a tank. It's a tank.

It's a bad tank, but we don't really want to force that opinion on the reader. Mac And Me was a terrible movie, but we don't go "Mac And Me was a 'movie' about a boy...". We are not reviewers, of movies or tanks, here. Herostratus (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• The name is the "Bob Semple tank". This is how it was named. Not in two components (where we might then quote one of those terms or place a [sic] after it), but as one term.

The description is either as a "tank" or "AFV". It's reasonable to annotate tank in such a case (i.e. scare quotes). I would favour AFV instead - by the standards already established by that time, it fails to meet the definition for "tank". Mostly for not having a 'turret', i.e. main gun armament in a rotating enclosure, suited for the engagement of other tanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mnmh... WP:SCAREQUOTES talks about scarequotes... Using "Bob Semple 'tank'" is equivilant to writing "Bob Semple (so-called) tank". This is not prohibited but its an editorial judgement. So, if it is not a tank, I would go with "The Bob Semple tank -- called that, although it was not a true tank -- was an armored fighting vehicle which..."

Yes, you have a point about not having a main gun... I looked it up, and the only tank I could find right off with just a machine gun in the turret was the Panzer I, and you could really call that a tankette. The female tank had only machine guns, but no turret, and this was really before the modern tank was figured out... Several tankettes had turrets with just machine guns, but they weigh like 3 - 5 tons; the Semple weighs 25 and is definitely not a tankette. So OK.

The problem with saying it is not a tank is that we don't have a source for that; it's just our opinion. But we have to tell the reader something, and it is an armored fighting vehicle (it might also be a tank, depending on who you talk to). So OK.

So I'm not comfortable with saying flat out that wasn't a true tank. Not unless sources say that. So unfortunately IMO we have to get a little bit wordy, so... let's say say something like "The Bob Semple tank -- called that, although it differed substantially from most vehicles considered to be tanks -- was an armored fighting vehicle which..." in the lead, and refer it to by "vehicle" in the rest of the article. Yeah? Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

re MG-armed tanks, I was thinking of the Matilda I as much as the Panzer 1. However the point is that these were obsolete after the invasion of Poland (why Germany had to wait to re-arm, or up-armour, before invading France). Neither of these were tankettes, but nor were they any longer regarded as viable tanks. What had been a workable definition for "tank" had changed by the time of the Bob Semple.

As to sourcing, then should I rename it as a hovercraft? After all, you have no sources which say that it wasn't. See the problem there? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well no, you can't prove a negative in that sense. I'm saying that every single ref that I have found calls it a tank. It's not up to me to prove its not a one-eyed dyslexic octopus. It'd be up to you to prove it is a one-eyed dyslexic octopus, or anything else except a tank, which is what the refs call it.

Yeah and the Matilda was used in France and was in production until 1940. Panzer I's were also used in France, and saw service in North Africa, the Balkans, and Russia in 1941; Hungarian Panzer I's fought in 1942. And the Renault FT from World War I which saw service everywhere was used by some Arab forces in the Arab-Israeli war... in 1948. So the Semple is chronologically right in there with those, only slightly later.

"Armored fighting vehicle" is a superclass which includes tanks as well as armored cars, tank destroyers, and so on -- and the Semple also. So I'd be fine with calling it an "armored fighting vehicle" since it self evidently is a member of that superclass, if that's preferred. Herostratus (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)