User talk:Akira Takizawa

Revisions
I have read the pages you revised. The sources I referred to are reliable. The pages should be revised according to these sources. It is not good to state two different opinions. P.S. 国本戦車塾 is based on IJA document about the plan of development of Ka-To(試製十糎砲車台（カト車）研究実施計画). "日本の戦車" is the most authentic book on Japanese tanks and Tomio Hara is the father of Japanese tanks. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8E%9F%E4%B9%99%E6%9C%AA%E7%94%9F

Akira Takizawa (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. You have to understand the way Wikipedia works. It is based on WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:V (verifiability). WP:V, states in part: "...verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."


 * So if there are, for example, two reliable sources, which do not state the same information, as we have for the Ka-To or Ka-To Sha 105 mm SP AT Gun, then you have to state both, pe WP:V. And frankly, websites in general are not considered reliable sources in and of themselves. You are using "Warbirds.jp" as a cite; if it was someone else, but you, I would have removed it and stated why on the talkpage as it has not been proven to be a reliable source. Websites, in general, do not have editorial oversight and tend to have WP:OR or non-RS references. Also, you must realize that what is acceptable as a cite on Wikipedia.jp is not necessarily acceptable on English Wikipedia; the cite standards are quite a bit higher and more strict on English Wikipedia.


 * If you provide a book cite from Tomio Hara, who I am well aware of, then I will move the info on the Ka-To onto the Type 4 Chi-To page, but I will still need to state where Tomczyk differs in opinion, therein. It is no different then where Zaloga stated 144 Type 3 Chi-Nu tanks were produced (see: p. 22 of "Japanese Tanks 1939–45") and you stated, 166 on your website. Both are listed and cited accordingly therein. Your website is considered RS by Zaloga (see his book noted above, on p. 43) and you are the author of several well regarded books are the subject of Japanese tanks and tactics. As for the Type 5 To-Ku, the same applies, per WP:V, both reliable sources must be presented. Anyway, I hope this clarifies why I kept the different points of information. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)