Talk:EE-T1 Osório

Needs referencing
"The EE-T1 was considered for service with the Saudi Arabian Army. It was evaluated against the French AMX 40, the American M1 Abrams, and the British Challenger 1 and emerged as the winner"

sorry not buying it, unless it is referenced of course (Fdsdh1 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/osorio.htm here is a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.207.182.218 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * military-today.com is a user contributed website, where anyone can write, and is thus not a reliable source. So it can't be used as a reference. Thomas.W   talk to me  11:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Excellent brief account. But needs Neutral Point of View. For instance, as it stands, the final paragraph equates nonaligned nations with dictatorial regimes. Also it seems to be saying that the Osorio was flatly superior to all other tanks in the world, a highly debatable and even contentious position. Also a couple more dates in the article, such as when development began, when trials were held, and when Engesa went under, would be very helpful additions. Still, the article is helpful.

I agree with the above commentary. It's a great article, but I have misgivings with the "dictatorial regimes" and "the world gained a lot" comments. I would suggest deleting that final paragraph.

--Agurza 19:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's firing system at the time was considered state of the art, and with it's numerous sensors onboard, it would have been a step up from tanks such as the T-72 (or w/e Russian tank you want to compare for Middle Eastern nations, which were watered down versions). The tank, however; is fairly small. Most western tanks are around 60+ tons, sometimes barely exceeding 70 tons. That in mind, the recoil of the British rifled 120mm L11 was too strenuous for the turret. Considering how powerful 120mm guns are today, limiting it to a 105mm gun made this tank a really light weight. I can't imagine it performing all too well. It's an interesting tank though. It was a large step for South American engineering, tank wise and simply in military terms. SA armies don't have a lot to boast about. --Hellogoodsir 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other MBTs
After looking for any verification of the information, i've removed the un-sourced information regarding the EE-T1 being evaluated for service with Saudi Arabia against other MBTs and being found superior. A search for scholarly sources regarding this claim turned up nothing, and one source contemporaneous to the purported sale does not mention the EE-T1 being offered to Saudi Arabia, while the same source specifically notes Libya had considered acquiring the tank. There is some discussion of the EE-T1 being compared against other MBTs online, but all either lack sources or cite this September 2008 blog post, which also lacks citations. This may be a case of citogenesis, as this Wikipedia page's claim about the tank actually predates the blog post, and no sources are used to back the same information on br.wiki's iteration of this article. As such, I am removing the claim and replacing it with the verifiable Libyan claim until it can actually be verified with a WP:RS. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've refined by search, found more scholarly sources, and have subsequently updated the article. I have reinstated the information about the Saudis being interested in the tank and added Algerian and Iraqi interest. I have also found one source that describes the EE-T1 as being "apparently in a league" with American and European tanks, but no still no mentions of the tank being superior to American and European tanks. I've updated the article accordingly. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

American bias
Wikipedia articles related to American culture, history, and politics receive more detailed coverage compared to their counterparts from other regions. This discrepancy can lead to an imbalance in the representation of global perspectives. English is the primary language of Wikipedia, which can limit the availability of non-English sources and perspectives. Consequently, this linguistic barrier may lead to an underrepresentation of alternative viewpoints from non-English-speaking countries. Wikipedia's volunteer-based editing system allows for the inclusion of diverse perspectives. However, it also introduces the potential for systemic bias, where a majority of editors may unconsciously favor topics related to their own cultural background or areas of interest, further reinforcing American-centrism.

Wikipedia's policies emphasize the use of reliable sources. However, determining the reliability and neutrality of sources can be subjective, as biases can exist within academic literature and mainstream media. The volunteer nature of Wikipedia editing means that biases can be inadvertently perpetuated by editors who may not be aware of their own cultural biases. This makes it challenging to ensure a balanced representation of perspectives.

The lack of acceptance of the Brazilian-made research and studies posted in this article as sources just proves that some editors lack the notion that there are different views and perspectives regarding the same topic. The Portuguese version of the article is more comprehensive and has a lot of sources that provide reliable information about the topics presented in this article.

While Wikipedia aims to be a neutral and comprehensive source of information, the presence of American-centrism and biases within its content cannot be ignored. By encouraging diversity among editors and promoting reliable non-English sources, Wikipedia could move closer to its goal of providing a multi-perspective resource for users worldwide. Hesteriana (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)