GOOD LAD haha
1 Like
Cambridge Rah Rah
1 Like
Even though article writers send in their manuscripts, the editorial team (in this case, Janes) is ultimately responsible for editing them.
The developers have decided not to use Janes due to the many errors in the Janes Yearbook and etc, so there will be no further discussion.
This also applies to other books of a similar kind. Books like encyclopedias are not considered valid secondary sources
You’re overlooking the fact that my time zone is different, it’s dawn here.
I was being annoying. sorry :)
As someone who regularly publishes scientific articles in journals… I can tell you that under no circumstances would the journal/editor be making changes/amendments to the manuscript and then publishing it without getting consent from the author. (I wish journal editors made any changes at all - I’m lucky if they send me back good reasoning for their suggestions). If that’s what Jane’s were doing, they would go out of business. Yet we know they continued publishing and growing for three decades, and are now the global leader. As I said previously…the same authors continued to write articles before and after the publisher change. Do you think if Jane’s was editing falsehoods into articles, that the authors would keep happily writing for them? Do you have any idea what kind of legal case would ensue?
Jane’s yearbook is one of Jane’s publications. Imagine writing off all of Penguin books because they published one bad one.
In 120 years of publishing, mistakes happen and some errors are unavoidable. I’d have thought a company like GJN would appreciate this, seeing as they are only a decade old and make blunders on a regular basis. The fact they feel brazen enough to throw libel at an international defence intelligence agency, whilst simultaneously having the track record/reputation that GJN have earned themselves, is pantomime levels of comedy.
Jane’s International Defence Review is not an encyclopaedia.
To be fair to @Freddie2706, GJN’s usual approach when they’ve dug themselves into an untenable position is to go silent and pretend it never happened. e.g: The MANPADS devblog and subsequent threads dispelling their claims.
Why is it that:
a) A publication good enough to be a general reference for Royal Navy ships in 2020 is not a good enough secondary source for GJN?
b) They think the credibility of IDR tanked overnight when Jane’s became the publisher, despite me showing that the same authors continued to write articles for them, in some cases for decades.
Personally, I would have thought the credibility of IDR would increase when they stopped filling most of the journal with adverts, but as mentioned - that’s the type of greedy savvy marketing that GJN loves. Fortunately we have the benefit of hindsight, and we know that Jane’s 30 years later is still one of, if not the most respected intelligence distributors in the world.
9 Likes
My childish yet tasteful post was hidden. not joking .lol
2 Likes
As with most eastern countries, they don’t like being told their wrong and refuse to go back on their word (Apart from when it conflicts with what they want to do, aka not having top tier premiums). It is a shame as reading through Jane’s it is filled with quite useful information they will flat out refuse to use because of a couple mistakes. Even if they don’t want to use some of their sources I think it’s a bit of a joke they refuse to use any of them for a couple mistakes on some foreign designs which, at the time, probably didn’t have many sources to go off.
2 Likes
as my grandad would say. “It’s like the pot calling the kettle black” (Basically gaijjin’s a hypocrite)
1 Like
Well, if i were to give my take on it, i would rather see what articles were wrong (maybe during the time they were made whatever was written there was considered correct, but time and for example declassification of certain thing proved it wrong?) and be suspicous about articles written by that person, rather than the whole thing.
Now see, that’s far too logical. Gaijin works in black and white and doesn’t even acknowledge grey. They refuse to meet half way or even any way tbh. Best example is Russian era as the stats in game are for when it’s at specific angles, most of which being the 68 or so degrees of the upper front plate of Russian tanks. This then causes them to be horrendously over stated as era becomes better at higher angles so now we’re stuck with little plates that provide 120mm and 450mm of ke/ce protection flat on where as it’s more like 30mm and 300mm ke/ce protection. But with ours gaijin uses the flat pen of the era meaning we’re stuck with much worse protection levels due to the inconsistency of gaijin.
1 Like
Ignoring the potential ramifications, that’s a terrible policy decision
Does that mean that any large, voluminous book is now prohibited?
Better still, let’s just bin off any source of academic and literary value and just take Gaijin’s word for it. Challenger 2 TES backplate is actually cardboard folks.
Do they mean to say “due to the many places Janes disagrees with what we think we will no longer accept Janes as a valid source”?
Because regardless of what the reasoning actually is, Gaijin using it to bug report a vehicle and then stating that no one else in the playerbase is permitted to use Janes as a source is going to invite that sort of opinion and criticism.
3 Likes
Has the source that states that the TES backplate is Aluminum instead of steel been found?
12 Likes
No
I think its in Ba Sing Se along with peace…
The 1 Primary 2 Second document rule should apply to Gaijin as well. If your going to deny a bug report and list that “your sources” state otherwise, then those sources should be provided in the bug report so the community can see them.
It would be far more transparent and less frustrating.
3 Likes
They started providing sources recently. Maybe we can request them to give us name of the source
1 Like
They will not as it would emphasise the already obvious double standard.
Doesn’t hurt to try.
Just being able to see the sources that Gajin has, would allow the community to push suggestions/bug reports on vehicles. To be able to easily reference Gaijin’s sources and see that there is very little information about said bug and more easily get it acknowledged.