Talk:M8 armored gun system/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of name 'Buford'

This name only appears in the title of the Globalsecurity article, but not in the body of the article, and not at all in the Jane's article. It's believed to have actually been coined by Tom Clancy in his book Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment and picked up on by others. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Heard it mentioned in new A-Team movie dealing with a tank that fits the bill of this Xiahou (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought 'Buford' was a Mike Sparks invention. Lots of Mike Sparks sympathizers at global security. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Change of manufacture of XM-35 identity from Rheinmetall to Watervliet Arsenal

The Xm-35 was developed and constructed by the Benet Lab of the Watervliet Arsenal from 1983 to meet the requirements of the mobile protected gun system.reference- http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/105-mm-M35-low-recoil-gun-United-States.html And; http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA397903 page 21. It was the first cannon developed in the United states since WW1 but I cannot find the documentation at work. I will post it when I locate it. 19K5MPA8K8 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC) 19K5MPA8K8 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

This article has parts which are very closely paraphrased. This can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following: The source says:

Because of the budget crunch and a relatively tight deadline of 24 months, the Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market.

Kmiecik says the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10 vehicles. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a “requirements document” that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. The article says:

The Army will not spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market. Due to budget constraints, the selection process has a relatively tight deadline of 24 months. Up to 140 candidates are being considered, and the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a requirements document that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors.

I've bolded to make it more clear where language follows precisely on its source - some language has been rearranged, some words have been omitted and a few words changed.

This is an example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely, and other sources may also be involved.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Closely paraphrased section rewritten America789 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the example, but I'm afraid that the problem is not addressed. As I noted, there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely, and these remain untouched. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Ultra Light Combat Vehicle section

As far as I can tell the ULCV is not related to the M8 in anyway - its a separate program that is for a wheeled vehicle. So I believe the ULCV section should be turned into its own article or joined with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle article - not this article. --DB Explorer (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)