Talk:PLZ-45

Incorrect Gun Range?

Is it just me, or does it seem the effective range on this gun seem a bit inflated? I recommend we do further research and try to verify/correct the range listed. Vitae drinker (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh

I have removed Bangladesh from "Users" since the claim that the Bangladesh Army has the PLZ-45 is not supported by any site that is known to be reliable, including not being listed by Armstrade/Sipri, even though other weapons that Bangladesh have bought from China are listed there. And a search on the web lists no other sources than this article and a Pakistani forum that got its information from bdmilitary.com. Meaning that the only source for the claim is bdmilitary.com. And I'm inclined to believe that all information from bdmilitary.com is unreliable since it is not a government site, and doesn't say where its information comes from. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources which clearly say that Bangladesh purchased PLZ-45 howitzers like 1, 2 & 3. And please note that bdmilitary.com is considered a reliable source and each & every arms deal isn't listed on SIPRI. Thanks ... Maxx786 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Two of those links are to forums (and thus not WP:RS) and the third link doesn't mention any numbers. And considered a reliable source by whom? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Global Security & Strategy Page are well known Defense websites and cited on Wikipedia numerous times. Details about numbers are classified but bdmilitary.com had reported that three battalions were ordered in 2009 for Bangladesh Army's Artillery units based in Chittagong, Ghatail and Savar cantonments in the link, which no longer works. However, I found something resembling that here, which states, "155 mm self-propelled howitzers will be delivered in 2011 to equip three new battalions". Maxx786 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That link also goes to bdmilitary.com, a site that I consider to be at best only marginally reliable. So to get more eyes on bdmilitary.com, and try to find out more about them since they're the only source for most claims here on en-WP regarding weapons etc used by the BD military (many of which seem to be questionable), I've posted a question on WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find it in SIPRI. Sinodefence says Kuwait & SA are the only export customers. There's no mention on bdnews24.com or on DiD either. bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That Sinodefence was last updated in October 2008. Besides bdmilitary.com, I provided two sources (GlobalSecurity & Strategy Page) which mention Bangladesh as a user of PLZ-45.But, these were described as "forums" and hence unreliable by Thomas.W .. I don't understand how the material (i.e. PLZ-45 article on Global Security & the news report on Strategy Page) was judged as unreliable. As far as I known, forums are websites where discussions take place and many websites have forums in at least one section. But does that make the entire website a forum and hence unreliable ?? Maxx786 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, my friend, don't try that. I did not describe Global Security as a forum. You provided links to three sites, not two, with the other two being forums. Misrepresenting what others write is not going to win you any friends. And you still haven't answered my question about who it is that considers bdmilitary.com to be reliable, as you claimed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (I can add that there is no need for Sinodefence.com to update the page if there have been no export orders since 2008, so the date of the last uppdate is most definitely not any support for Bangladesh having the PLZ-45...)

I have come across many Wikipedia articles which used bdmilitary.com as a reference. And nobody ever objected. When I tried something similar with MilitaryFactory.com , all users there opposed it and described it as an unreliable source. Besides, what I have seen is its a website,It has its own sources and doesn't copy stuff from other websites as it was suspected. Its quite popular and I never found any incorrect news on it. So, it continued to be used as a web source on Wikipedia. However, Plz tell me how is Strategy Page article a forum ? I judge it s a simple news article and also never found anyone disputing it. There are no threads and posts. How is that a forum ?? Maxx786 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is going on here to decide whether bdmilitary.com is a reliable source or not... Maxx786 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PLZ-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080928201256/http://www.kanwa.com:80/mrdt/showpl.php?id=646 to http://www.kanwa.com/mrdt/showpl.php?id=646

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)