![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The text says that the Corps was equipped with Minerva armoured cars. The infobox says that the vehicles were Minerva and Lanchester. The caption to the photograph says it's a Mors. One of the references says that the armoured cars were Mors and Peugeot. Can anyone introduce some consistency from some credible sources?
The force sent to Russia comprised five each of Peugeot and Mors armoured cars mounting machine guns or cannon, and two armoured but unarmed command vehicles. Whilst it is possible to find references that use the term "Mors-Minerva", I find that they are very much outnumbered by those that say simply "Mors". And in a difference of view such as this, where neither view is demonstrably wrong, the majority should carry the day. A source that supports one's contention does not "trump" a larger number of sources that oppose it. As I see it, "Mors" is greatly in the majority. I note that the museum website says "Mors-Minerva", but believe me, museums can be wrong.
Does the story of the replica in fact belong here rather than in the Minerva article? It's about the vehicle rather than the Expeditionary Force. I should have thought that a link to the Minerva site from here would be more appropriate, especially since the illustration in the museum seems to show a Minerva taking on a German Kuirassier, which places it in Belgium in 1914, not Russia in 1916.
I should be happier if this article were more reliant for its information on military historians than on a stamp collector. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how was it possible that by late 1915 Belgium was still a neutral country, since she had been declared upon and invaded by Germany in 1914? Was she not a member of the Triple Entente? Greetings, -- Abulmiskafur ( talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The text says that the Corps was equipped with Minerva armoured cars. The infobox says that the vehicles were Minerva and Lanchester. The caption to the photograph says it's a Mors. One of the references says that the armoured cars were Mors and Peugeot. Can anyone introduce some consistency from some credible sources?
The force sent to Russia comprised five each of Peugeot and Mors armoured cars mounting machine guns or cannon, and two armoured but unarmed command vehicles. Whilst it is possible to find references that use the term "Mors-Minerva", I find that they are very much outnumbered by those that say simply "Mors". And in a difference of view such as this, where neither view is demonstrably wrong, the majority should carry the day. A source that supports one's contention does not "trump" a larger number of sources that oppose it. As I see it, "Mors" is greatly in the majority. I note that the museum website says "Mors-Minerva", but believe me, museums can be wrong.
Does the story of the replica in fact belong here rather than in the Minerva article? It's about the vehicle rather than the Expeditionary Force. I should have thought that a link to the Minerva site from here would be more appropriate, especially since the illustration in the museum seems to show a Minerva taking on a German Kuirassier, which places it in Belgium in 1914, not Russia in 1916.
I should be happier if this article were more reliant for its information on military historians than on a stamp collector. Hengistmate ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how was it possible that by late 1915 Belgium was still a neutral country, since she had been declared upon and invaded by Germany in 1914? Was she not a member of the Triple Entente? Greetings, -- Abulmiskafur ( talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)