Talk:Zastava M21

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Balkan / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force

Serbia Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The article is biased : unverified claims of NATO wishing to purchase the rifle for it's allies, "perfect" balance, "low" recoil and similar statements that provide no resources.

I'm not saying the rifle is bad, but the article needs a bit more neutrality.

Guest

That's because article is little more than a copy paste of data on the rifle from Zastava's commercial site. Whilst Zastava makes good assault rifles, there should def. be some evaluation from a source other than it's marketing presentation. Marko Parabucki (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source removed once again

Opinions of random forum posters on internet forums that a photo of unknown origin shows people allegedly holding a particular gun do not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The other two sources do not mention the M21. Accordingly, I have reverted once again. O Fenian (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this source does not contain the term "Zastava M21", or "Zastava" or "M21" for that matter.

this source does not contain the term "Zastava M21", "Zastava" or "M21".

this source does not even load a page on two different browsers. Searching the site for Cameroon returns 15 results, adding Zastava returns 0 results

this source is a picture of unknown origin. Who is to say the weapon pictured is a Zastava M21, and the people are the Cameroon Army? This is original research.

this source does not contain any word I can see relating to Cameroon.

this source does not contain any reference to the Zastava M21.

So to sum up, your sources do not source the claim that Cameroon uses the Zastava M21. They either fail to mention the gun in the first place, or ones that do mention the gun fail to mention Cameroon, or are pictures. O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:

To your objection: "Who is to say the weapon pictured is a Zastava M21, and the people are the Cameroon Army? This is original research." a) The soldiers are carrying a flag of Cameroon b) It is mentioned in the text c) The article is about the Cameroon Military d) The rifle can be clearly identified as an M-21 by the ripped plastic front handguard and the plastic buttstock which consists of only one "bar" to the triangle at the shoulder (Galil and R4 have two metal bars going to the triangle), the plastic pistol grip, and the AK system which it is based on (clearly distinguishable) by anyone who knows how to distinguish specific weapons from each other and to whom not every weapon with wooden furniture is just a "Kalashnikov".

Here's proof foor these points, that the soldiers pictured are part of the Cameroon Military, a scan from a French military magazine, you can keep track of the pages with the numbers on the bottom of the page, to confirm that it is still the same article:

First page, clearly states that the anniversary is of the Cameroon Military: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img20910.jpg

Second page: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img21210.jpg

Third page: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img21310.jpg

Fourth page: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img21610.jpg

Fifth page: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img21710.jpg

Sixth page: http://i88.servimg.com/u/f88/12/18/32/45/img21810.jpg

So I can conclude: Sufficient sources have been given. It is no original research, it is in a French military magazine. If you still delete it, I will report you to wikipedia because you obviously follow a personal agenda to manipulate wikipedia entries to your personal bias and liking and to keep out what you don't want to see in here just because you don't like it. Your edits are not based on objective points like the wikipedia policty because you have, now for a dozen times, ignored the other unsourced entries, but just pick this one. Which evidently shows that you have a personal agenda. Again: A sufficent Source has been provided. Now if you delete it it would be the same as if you would have deleted a picture of cars in articles about them just because you cannot tell if a car is really a Mercedes or a BMW. Stop playing dumb, once again, stop wasting my time, it is people like you who destroy wikipedia.

What is your problem with Cameroon being on that list? THere's more sources that Cameroon uses it than there is that Armenia, Macedonia or PMC's use it. All of these can and are confirmed only through pictures of their actual soldiers using it. But you don't remove these, do you? So you must have a personal problem with Cameroon being on that list, that's why you feel the need to keep an eye on this article for months just to prevent that Cameroon gets on the list.

Your comment of "The rifle can be clearly identified as an M-21 by the ripped plastic front handguard and the plastic buttstock which consists of only one "bar" to the triangle at the shoulder (Galil and R4 have two metal bars going to the triangle), the plastic pistol grip, and the AK system which it is based on (clearly distinguishable) by anyone who knows how to distinguish specific weapons from each other and to whom not every weapon with wooden furniture is just a "Kalashnikov"." shows you simply do not get it. That is original research, it is your assertion that the photo shows a Zastava M21.

To date, you have not provided a single reliable source that unequivocally states Cameroon uses the Zastava M21. Unless and until you do, the addition will be removed. O Fenian (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- Answer: So when I post a picture of a Camerounaise airplane with their flag and roundel on it, you will say that there's no source that the aircraft pictured is really the aircraft it is? Or when I post a picture of a Mercedes in the article about Mercedes-Benz? Because that would be "original research"? Are you kidding me? I will now report you to wikipedia, I am really getting tired of you.

It's also very ironic that you have a quote about repression on your User page... Tell, me, what is your problem? I really can't wrap my head around your fanatism, so please explain it to me, so I can understand it. You keep deleting my entry which is perfectly sourced. And it has obviously nothing to do with wikipedias policy because oyu do not delete anything else that breaks wikipedias policy even more than my entry ever could with a lot of imagination.

References

I've removed the unreferenced users per the nowiki talk in the text saying they must be referenced. I've removed the above edits as well as the sources are not reliable or sufficient proof. On top of that I've added an unreferenced tag to the entire article, as there is not one source to back up any of the information contained within with the exception of two users. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the U.S. Marines with[1]?--Свифт (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey I am from Serbia and I know that Zastava M21 is bad rifle it's just a stupid copy of Galil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.56.3 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zastava M21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]