Talk:Police armored vehicle
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2007 comments
[edit]Is Nashville the only city in the world to have SWAT teams? Then why is their link here? Replacing the link to the SWAT article.-Uagehry456talk 08:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Copy / Paste?
[edit]The entire 'Popular Culture' part seems to be a copy paste from a specs website. Especially with this "available to qualified end users Small, Medium and Large Wheel Base versions available for 10 to 16 passengers, and custom applications and versions can be designed for specific needs and missions Additional options available by request" can we fix this? Knippschild 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename Page
[edit]Do we want to rename the page? SWAT is a mainly North American term and the page is of international police vehicles. We could rename the page to something along the lines of 'Armoured Police Vehicles'. Although the page does refer to non armoured vehicles, so maybe something along the lines of 'Tactical Police Vehicles'. Dmattez (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
By Country
[edit]This section has information that 1) is not sourced 2) relies on weak sources which 3) can be replaced by a superior source. If editors have thoughts about these issues, they can discuss them here. Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is no objection that all description should be sourced and weak sources should be replaced by superior sources. It should be noted, however, that sources should not be considered “weak sources” just because they are not in English. According to WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred only when quality and relevance are equal. Panda 51 (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Panda 51 Could you offer your thoughts on the China section? There are two versions mine [1] and the version it replaced [2]. Although I should have been more specific in my edit summary, I changed the old one because the sources in addition to being in non-English were also state-controlled and had yet to be verified as a reliable source while the source that I used was already verified as reliable and contained all the information that could be found in the sources it had replaced. Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Nghtcmdr Cross-checking with other sources is highly desirable, but being state-controlled does not imply being unreliable sources, in my opinion. WP:SSFN includes "state-sponsored fake news sites" as unreliable sources, but this appears to be an issue of being fake news sites rather than being state-sponsored. Panda 51 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Panda 51 that does not change how 1) they have yet to be verified as reliable 2) the source I had used had already been verified as reliable and 3) contained all the information that could be found in the sources it had replaced. In such a situation, policies indicate the sourcing in my version is superior, so do you have any objections if I switched the current version of the section for the one in mine? Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly, the source you present in the “China” section is worth replacing the existing one, not because it is verified as a reliable source, but because it is English source which quality and relevance seems equal. I believe that simply because a source is not verified as being reliable is not a sufficient basis for removing the source: as stated in WP:RSPMISSING, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Panda 51 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have adhered to your recommendation and returned that section to my version of it. Nghtcmdr (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly, the source you present in the “China” section is worth replacing the existing one, not because it is verified as a reliable source, but because it is English source which quality and relevance seems equal. I believe that simply because a source is not verified as being reliable is not a sufficient basis for removing the source: as stated in WP:RSPMISSING, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Panda 51 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Panda 51 that does not change how 1) they have yet to be verified as reliable 2) the source I had used had already been verified as reliable and 3) contained all the information that could be found in the sources it had replaced. In such a situation, policies indicate the sourcing in my version is superior, so do you have any objections if I switched the current version of the section for the one in mine? Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Nghtcmdr Cross-checking with other sources is highly desirable, but being state-controlled does not imply being unreliable sources, in my opinion. WP:SSFN includes "state-sponsored fake news sites" as unreliable sources, but this appears to be an issue of being fake news sites rather than being state-sponsored. Panda 51 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Panda 51 Could you offer your thoughts on the China section? There are two versions mine [1] and the version it replaced [2]. Although I should have been more specific in my edit summary, I changed the old one because the sources in addition to being in non-English were also state-controlled and had yet to be verified as a reliable source while the source that I used was already verified as reliable and contained all the information that could be found in the sources it had replaced. Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)