-
The image which claimed to be Type-93 mortar on the far right.
-
An image of M2 mortar. Which also has a Chinese variant named Type 31(Later modified Type 63)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I've just rolled back a series of edits sourcing details to some 'equipment of Bangladesh Army' site. Given the unreliability of many of the edits made to this page, it's better to stick with SIPRI and/or IISS. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Some users including Dibosh Chakama (also with his fake accounts) are trying to add wrong information based on their imagination and on false facebook posts. They are also following unreliable online portals like bdmilitary (present name defseca). Defseca provides false information about procurement most of the time. Dibosh Chakama also trying to increase the actual quality of many equipment. He uploaded many stolen images from other websites which is against copyright rules. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AzfarShams:
If the regular contributors here are ever going to break the cycle of: cleanup, new editors trash article, cleanup, new editors trash article, ..., we need to stick to the highest quality sources, carefully summarize what they say without changing their meaning or implication, and not make unnecessary edits that burden watchers. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Worldbruce:, I understand your reasoning. This page has been vandalized multiple times recently (and also more in previous times), which made trusting other editors very difficult. I apologize if any of my edits cause any problem. I was trying to recover the old data before the page was vandalized. I will do my best to avoid unnecessary edits. I do have a question. Can photographic evidence(Not Copyrighted Image of course) work as a citation? For example, about the SLC-2 radar, although no reliable sources cannot be found that described procurement of this thing there are images captured by photographers where we can see that radar along with a banner with a description saying what the thing is, further clearing the confusion. Again I apologize if the question is inappropriate. Thank you.-- AzfarShams ( talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Worldbruce:, hope I didn't bother you. While researching about procurement of a sound ranging system, I came across this page, [5]. Can this article(presumably) be used as a reliable source (especially for SLC-2)? If so, which template should be used? I wanted to clarify before taking further steps. Thank You.-- AzfarShams ( talk) 12:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The image which claimed to be of Type 93(also known as PP93) mortar doesn't match the description of its catalog. [1] Instead of Type 93, the mortar in that image matches the description of M2 mortar. Also, I couldn't find any non-copyrighted image of Type 93 mortar on the internet. For now, I'm removing the image. Thank You. - AzfarShams ( talk) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
References
@ AzfarShams: after I removed them in January, you restored the image of and link to the Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1, piped as "Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50", in this edit. The target article doesn't contain any information about the MO-120 AM-50; it is about a different mortar, the MO-120 RT. [1] The photo and link are thus inaccurate and unhelpful.
The two cited sources say respectively that Bangladesh has 95 "MO-120-AM-50 M67/UBM 52" and "AM-50/UBM 52" 120mm mortars. The UBM 52 is the Hotchkiss-Brandt MO-120-AM50 built under license in Yugoslavia. The sources' use of the slash separator suggests that the exact mix by place of manufacture (France/Yugoslavia) is unknown and irrelevant. (For all the other countries that use one or the other - India, Indonesia, and Pakistan - the source unambiguously specifies which one).
If no one can justify why the Mortier 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1 should be pictured and linked, I will remove them again, leaving a single row for the 95 mortars. For clarity I will pipe the UBM 52 link to say AM-50/UBM 52, like the sources, and describe the origin as France/Yugoslavia. I also will remove the verbose second sentence in the notes section, which doesn't convey anything beyond what will be in the row. The citations are sufficient, there's no reason for inline attribution. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 07:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Please do not add any information which is related to "300 more" Type 59 Durjoy tanks and theoretical "Durjoy MK2" variant. These rumors are spread by web portal "bdmilitary" (present name "defseca") which already flagged as unreliable source. These rumors then spread by Facebook and amateur Youtube channels. There is not a single reliable reference available for them. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 06:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Either one person or a group of people continue to damage this article with misinformation, vandalism and table breaking in web version. I’m tired of fighting them. I urge moderators and experienced editors to maintain accurate information and table format in this article. Thank you in advance. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Eurohunter, Khandaans, Mehedi099, and Nafis Fuad Ayon: It should come as no surprise that অগ্নিশিখা is a block evading sockpuppet of Dibosh Chakma. They have been blocked indefinitely. Of their 27 article space edits outside of List of equipment of the Bangladesh Army and Bangladesh Air Force, all have been reverted except 4-5 which were actually helpful.
If there is no objection within the next 48 hours, I will begin cleaning up the mess that অগ্নিশিখা made here. The work will take several hours. It may involve temporarily reverting edits you've made during অগ্নিশিখা's sockpuppetry, but when I'm done my intention is that all your contributions unrelated to the sockpuppetry will be preserved. I would ask that you not edit the article while the cleanup is in progress. If you aren't willing for the article to be in flux for a few hours, or don't trust me to get your edits right in the end, then we'll need to attack the cleanup in a different way. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed Mehedi099 ( talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I added some photos of some armaments used by Bangladesh army,Can you check them and tell if they are acceptable.And if there are any casualty with any photo please let me know,i will update them according to the rules and regulations Mehedi099 ( talk) 08:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Because of the extensive and persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material, an editnotice has been added to this article. It reminds all editors to cite reliable sources, and cautions them of the dangers of self-published sources and primary sources. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 04:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Worldbruce: You jsut removed many equipment used by bd army which are actually correct.Like the army uses kriss vector gen 2 and pt pindad and styerr aug.Please re add the correct equipment Mehedi099 ( talk) 07:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please add the gears used by the army in the soldier gear and equipment section Mehedi099 ( talk) 11:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Edit summaries are good for explaining edits, but are poorly suited to discussion and reaching consensus. Khandaans' summaries from these edits raise points that are worth discussing, so I've copied them here:
A large number of equipment BA uses were removed and under-quantified in last few edits due to lack of reliable sources. It must be understood the BA is not as transparent or many other countries when it comes to defense purchase, so it is not necessary that there will be media disclosure for everything Army uses. Also, something not listed on SIPRI doesn't necessarily mean BA doesn't operate the equipment. Many of Army equipment are purchased through government to government deal.
For example, Bangladesh Army displayed Dongfeng vehicles as its command vehicle during last year's military parade. There are photographic evidence of many other equipment such as BTR-70 operated by BA UN peacekeeping force. What can be better source than Bangladesh Army itself displaying the equipment at its own parade? While it is understandable that a standard for Wikipedia publishing must be maintained, at the same time, in the process, the accurate picture is being neglected.
SIPRI includes government to government deals. The Al-Yamamah arms deal is an example. [9] (Choose supplier United Kingdom, recipient Saudi Arabia, year range 1985-2020, and weapon systems Aircraft) SIPRI may not identify them as G2G deals, and it's always possible that they miss some, but I've seen nothing in their sources and methods, [10] or in third-party analysis of their work, to suggest that SIPRI ever intentionally excludes any deals because they are G2G.
It's true that not being on SIPRI doesn't necessarily mean BA doesn't operate the equipment. SIPRI intentionally excludes some systems, such as small arms and light weapons, captured weapons, vehicles with very light armor, weapons supplied for evaluation purposes, and weapons on short term loan (I don't know of any examples involving BA, but vehicles for UN Missions or joint exercises are occasionally lent). If SIPRI and other secondary and tertiary sources intentionally exclude something, Wikipedia should too, that's what it means to give due weight to different aspects of a topic.
"What can be a better source than Bangladesh Army itself displaying the equipment at its own parade?" The answer, of course, is a reliable, secondary source. Photographs and videos of a parade are primary sources. The bulk of any article is supposed to be based on secondary sources. There are numerous difficulties with primary sources. Eric H. Larson, the editor of Camopedia, notes some of the problems:
In conducting research one must always apply careful principles of discrimination to verify that the particular caption or identifying text is accurate ... even military news agencies have been known to make mistakes, and one should always examine the details of a photograph to ensure they do not contradict the identification provided for it. In cases where the national or unit affiliation of combatants in a photograph cannot be verified, the photograph should not be relied upon as a piece of documentation simply based on inexpert hearsay. ... photographs taken of a unit on parade on the same day indicate only that this unit wore a particular style of camouflage on that specific day; they give no indication whether usage continued before or afterwards with any degree of consistency. [11]
SIPRI, which also uses primary sources, notes that "Sources often provide only partial information, and substantial disagreement between them is common ... Exercising judgement and making informed cautious estimates are therefore important elements in compiling the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. "
Wikipedians should evaluate the reliability of sources, and should use common sense. We may use primary sources to make straightforward statements that don't require specialist knowledge, but are not allowed to do the sort of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis that secondary sources like SIPRI do, because that would be original research, which is not allowed here.
Accuracy is a desirable property, but verifiability is mandatory. It is essential that Wikipedia accurately reflect reliable sources (there has to be source-text integrity). Our readers must be able to check that all information in our article is based on reliable published source and not just made up. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Many equipments have been removed by some stupids. Tanvir Ahmed Siddiqi ( talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Mehedi 99 is using copyright violated photo. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 04:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The photos I am using are official and they have better resolution. Some might say why do you need to put soldiers on the phone, well my answer is people are not stupid. They can clearly see the difference.
Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 04:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
So what do you suggest??? Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 04:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I have provided all the informations with proper references. References explain everything which is why I have not said anything. Besides there are some other defence freaks who know nothing about proper information Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 04:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Reverting to the previous position might not be a good idea. Because all of the informations added in the page are provided with relevant official references. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 05:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Mehedi Hasan Israr Which official sources for all information?Most of the sources are old and not official.Most of your information are biased. And what about deleting others edit without any debate and adding videos in image table? Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa ( talk) 06:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't comment like a stupid. Weapons are not groceries that army will buy them everyday. Bangladesh Army's most of the artillery weapons are old. It's a bitter truth. That's why reference are old but official. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 06:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa, Who said that videos can't be added on the page. There are no rules that state, videos can't be added. Besides, most of the information is removed for some useless editors like you. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 06:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Mehedi Hasan IsrarWhat are you talking about?"Don't comment like a sstupid"! Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm taking about facts. You are the ones who's been disturbing me. Why don't you just focus on your battleships and let me complete my work peacefully. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 06:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Mehedi Hasan IsrarWhy are you talking me like this?How can you tell me useless and stupid! Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa ( talk) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Mehedi Hasan Israr Because I am also a Bangladeshi. Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa ( talk) 07:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
We are both editors, we are not here to make love with others. So we must work together to take this page to a better place. I joined couple of days ago and you joined months ago. If you had done your job properly then I wouldn't have joined. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of the valuable informations of this page were removed due to some lack of of proper references. And I am reading those references with proper information. Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa, Let me clarify something about unknown large calibre artillery. If you look at my references you will clearly see that in 1998 Bangladesh army received 108 units of unknown large calibre artillery from North Macedonia.
Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk) 07:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Worldbruce: I have no opinion here. I have spent a lot of time in this article and I am tired. I am currently working on articles related to Bangladesh Navy and Turkish weaponry. Nafis Fuad Ayon ( talk) 08:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Mehedi Hasan Israr ( talk · contribs)No citation available for Wing Loong II from SIPRI,Flight Global,Bangladesh Army or any other source.Citation is the EurAsian Times Desk,this report is likely to be inaccurate.EurAsian Times also not providing any details about this.Provide us more citation that Bangladesh Army operates CAIG Wing Loong II.Or I will remove Wing Loong II from the list.I hope you all agree with me Worldbruce ( talk · contribs), Mehedi099 ( talk · contribs). Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa ( talk) 13:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think Bangladesh should have snipers 103.120.160.54 ( talk) 04:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)