Talk:8th Armored Division (United States)

Article

I'v done some fairly substantial updates and would love any feedback on what else is needed to get this out of the 'start' category.--Lepeu1999 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good B-Class now. One point that stands out, though: the citations really ought to have page numbers, not just book titles. Kirill Lokshin 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll work on that.--Lepeu1999 01:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

deleted citation

Made a case for the reinclusion of the deleted citation on the admin who deleted it's talk page.--Lepeu1999 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reincluded the citation as I believe it was deleted in error. I made a case for the reinclusion on the editor's talk page. The site is a legitimate veterans association and as such counts as a primary source. Since it's been coupled with a reliable secondary source its use is fully in keeping with WP. The editor in question agree over a week ago that he/she may have been hasty but has done nothing since so I'm adding it back.--Lepeu1999 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Below is the discussion cut from the user's talk page:

You removed a source citation on the above claiming WP:RS. Reading the page cited, it states that it is a guideline, not policy. Further, the page cited was maintained by the unit's veteran's organization. AFIK, that makes it a primary source.--Lepeu1999 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, and what we need is reliable secondary sources, not Geocities sites that say they are maintained by primary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood - which is why I have the additional citation of the Leach book - a published secondary source. Given the WP - as quoted here "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Given that Leach is a reputable secondary source (it's the official Division History sanctioned by the US Army) and given that the primary source in question is the actual veterans association for the field arty regiment - and it is, discounting it because they use Geocities to host seems to me unfair - then the amalgamation of the 2 seems to be an example of the encouraged standard rather then a violation of it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just discussing. I'm making an issue of it only because the peer review from the Mil Hist project recommended a wider range of source material - and there are less out there then you'd think at this level of granularity. I'd like to be able to keep it in.--Lepeu1999 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, the intersection of Geocities sites and reliable sources is pretty damn small. I'll look into it more though. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it!--Lepeu1999 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo: US Armored Infantrymen advance past an M4A3 Sherman tank in Central Germany, April 1945

Obviously that photo was taken with the 11th AD and shows a scene in Wernberg, Bavaria - so Central Germany does not fit here ! --129.187.244.28 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)