Talk:149th Armored Regiment

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg

GA-Class review
As the page has been moved as requested at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/149th Armor Regiment I am transcluding the GA review here.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 02:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review
As the link in the wikiproject header is incorrect I am transcending the review here.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 02:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move
G'day or. This page has been moved during the ACR and now the links to it and the GAN are broken. I know I should know what we do in this situation, but my mind has gone blank. Something to do with redirects? Help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, PM, I've implemented the Article history template, which should fix the link to the GAN. The ACR page could be redirected to the new name, but I'd suggest just page moving the ACR to the new name without leaving a redirect as it is probably a more tidy approach. But that might make Milhistbot misunderstand when it comes time to close. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First combat

 * Hunnicutt's book - Stuart: A History of the American Light Tank, Voume 1 and Pg. 395 clearly mentions that the 192nd Tank Battalion became the first American troops to engage in tank to tank combat. The 192nd and 194th Tank battalions were combined with the 17th Ordnance Company to form the Provisional Tank Group (149th), but, it was specifically 5 M3 tanks of the B-company of the 192nd Battalion, which, engaged with the 4th Tank Regiment of Japanese. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This happened on 22 December 1941.
 * In contrast, the five Japanese Type 89A tanks were destroyed on 1 January 1942. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily restored the content. I am not seeing on google books a clearly readable version of this book mentioned above.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can safely assume that I am not making up stuff and that I'm literate enough. If you need a copy of the scanned page, wikimail me. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hunnicutt writes:-
 * writes:-
 * You might further wish to read:-
 * (I too need to read this). &#x222F; WBG converse 12:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely, the soldiers of both units want to make the claims of being the first of this, or the the last of that. For instance the claim of the 192nd being the last to go across the bridge contradicts claims by other reliable sources which states it was parts of the 194th that were the last to cross.
 * The 192nd can continue its claim, and the differing claims can be acknowledged.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 12:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources used by you are all less reliable than my ones. Please learn to assess quality of military scholarship. There is not an iota of doubt that your claims (and the hook) were factually incorrect. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely subjective argument. As the source removed is to Armor, and a reprint of an article from that journal. Therefore, if there is doubt, it's because a reliable source was relied on for its accuracy. And as historians don't always agree, there is a reason why there is contradiction from the sources utilized by WBG and at Tanks of the United States. Again the sources at Tanks of the United States are not clearly accessible for verification and thus one must WP:AGF. Thus the argument made at User talk:The Rambling Man is subject to scrutiny; whereas sources removed are clearly readable to all who would want to access them.
 * Additionally the reversion of a reversion of the content removal contradicts WP:BRD, and is movement towards WP:EW. Moreover, please see WP:AVOIDYOU, as it can be construed that WBG is not discussing a difference of what reliable sources state, but about myself. WBG can say there is "not one iota an iota of doubt", but when different reliable sources state different things, then there is doubt. Thus why we are having this discussion.
 * I acknowledge that there are claims that the 192nd are what they are. But in removing the content WBG removed what is verified to reliable source. And it's OK for different reliable sources to state different things.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 00:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally the reversion of a reversion of the content removal contradicts WP:BRD, and is movement towards WP:EW. Moreover, please see WP:AVOIDYOU, as it can be construed that WBG is not discussing a difference of what reliable sources state, but about myself. WBG can say there is "not one iota an iota of doubt", but when different reliable sources state different things, then there is doubt. Thus why we are having this discussion.
 * I acknowledge that there are claims that the 192nd are what they are. But in removing the content WBG removed what is verified to reliable source. And it's OK for different reliable sources to state different things.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 00:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)