China’s Submarine Fleet, Evolution & news

[JSCh]

 

[samsara]

This SDF user is non-ethical, a repeated offender, “hijacking” pics posted here without giving the due credit! An improper practice.

Posted at (((SDF))) “PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos” on 2018.04.24, time is that board's time zone.

 

[Figaro]

This SDF user is non-ethical, a repeated offender, “hijacking” pics posted here without giving the due credit! An improper practice.

Posted at (((SDF))) “PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos” on 2018.04.24, time is that board's time zone.
View attachment 469094

Well, to be fair, he might not have gotten that image from PDF. But even if he did, that poster probably wouldn’t credit PDF as he calls it a “fanboy forum”

 

[Dante80]

This SDF user is non-ethical, a repeated offender, “hijacking” pics posted here without giving the due credit! An improper practice.

You cannot and do not give credit to secondary source attribution (a non press source posting an image that he/she has no copyright claim on). You do give credit to the original source. In this case, I think this was an officially released photo.

It is possible (and maybe probable) that a user that has access to both forums may re-post non-original content from one to the other. What matters is the content itself though, and whether said content is properly attributed (at most times, source info is embedded inside the images posted, as in this example). There is really nothing wrong with that. The image comes from the official PLAN microblog they launched some time ago, and was publicly released .

Primary source: http://t.people.com.cn/planavy

 

[samsara]

Well, to be fair, he might not have gotten that image from PDF. But even if he did, that poster probably wouldn’t credit PDF as he calls it a “fanboy forum”

I have thought about that possibility, but it's weird that he just posted those questionable stuffs AFTER some users posted here. You may wish to check his other post on those interesting batch of pictures of Liaoning showing the under deck etc posted by @LKJ86. Again, this kind of practice is not new to that user. Only now I intend to highlight such cases, previously I just ignored it. Since you are there, you may also track such practice of his. And those stuffs were not something posted in twitter. I'll keep on highlighting such practice here by every user there whenever I spot such nonethical practice. I read here first then I read there as free reader, so I can spot easily if anything of particular interest being duplicated without the due credit! Indeed not only pics, also exclusive information posted here is also repeated there as if the poster get it from nowhere, just like the case of 055 #2 launch speculation by other diligent poster there, quoted @cirr rhetorical post. I can see user such as Hendrik_2000 plays by forum rules giving the credit where it's due each time.

 

[samsara]

Is Hendrix2000 a user at PDF?

Of course, only I think he no longer actively engages in PDF as of a couple of years ago.

You cannot and do not give credit to secondary source attribution (a non press source posting an image that he/she has no copyright claim on). You do give credit to the original source. In this case, I think this was an officially released photo.

It is possible (and maybe probable) that a user that has access to both forums may re-post non-original content from one to the other. What matters is the content itself though, and whether said content is properly attributed (at most times, source info is embedded inside the images posted, as in this example). There is really nothing wrong with that. The image comes from the official PLAN microblog they launched some time ago, and was publicly released .

Primary source: http://t.people.com.cn/planavy

I don't agree with your opinion that a user or even a free reader of multiple forums is okay to freely transfer the materials from one forum to the other without giving credit to the original poster in that related forum... A kind of free rider! Your opinion may be more suitable for the academic publication or journal or the press in general.
But let's see if those diligent, affected posters here do agree with your opinion
The other solution I'll suggest the concerned posters here who post significant pictures to put some subtle yet distinctive watermark in some select pictures, not necessary all, just the most prominent ones within a batch to save time. Then let's see the funny effect Anyhow it's showing the quality of plagiarism, which is surely not reflecting a commendable quality of any forum!

 

[Deino]

This SDF user is non-ethical, a repeated offender, “hijacking” pics posted here without giving the due credit! An improper practice.

Posted at (((SDF))) “PLAN breaking news, pics, & videos” on 2018.04.24, time is that board's time zone.
View attachment 469094

To admit I beg you to be careful: I know by78 quite well since years and to admit he's the least one hanging around here at the PDF (at least no longer), since he does not rate this forum very high.

Quite to the contrary he's almost famous at the SDF for most often posting high quality images even before they were posted here. So in conclusion I would swear for him that he found that image at the original source.

Also - and again - why should anyone quote any third, fourth or so on grade source like PDF if the original source is well known??
To expect that anyone tries to find out where an image was posted before is simply impossible and by the way - with all due respect to Cirr, LKJ86 and others, do they always give credit and quote the original source??
Or are these image made by themselves?

Best,
Deino


PS: and by the way not wanting to nit-pick, You yourself just posted an image at the 055 thread with the explanations just a few minutes ago

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/type-055-ddg-news-discussions.307231/page-79#post-10442337

... which was posted exactly at the SDF already yesterday by A.Man without giving credit to him.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-543

 

[samsara]

To admit I beg you to be careful: I know by78 quite well since years and to admit he's the least one hanging around here at the PDF (at least no longer), since he does not rate this forum very high.

Quite to the contrary he's almost famous at the SDF for most often posting high quality images even before they were posted here. So in conclusion I would swear for him that he found that image at the original source.

Also - and again - why should anyone quote any third, fourth or so on grade source like PDF if the original source is well known??
To expect that anyone tries to find out where an image was posted before is simply impossible and by the way - with all due respect to Cirr, LKJ86 and others, do they always give credit and quote the original source??
Or are these image made by themselves?

Best,
Deino


PS: and by the way not wanting to nit-pick, You yourself just posted an image at the 055 thread with the explanations just a few minutes ago

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/type-055-ddg-news-discussions.307231/page-79#post-10442337

... which was posted exactly at the SDF already yesterday by A.Man without giving credit to him.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-543

My earlier reply is here so I won't repeat it again:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/type-055-ddg-news-discussions.307231/page-79#post-10443055

I have thought it over, this kind of "free transfer" of pics and info from PDF to SDF are conducted by some members there because they are TOO PROUD to admit that they obtain such info from the fan-boy or not-so-high quality forum as PDF

Keep on watching the timestamp of some particular hot info made available here vs there, just conclude on your own then. Just pay attention to the posters and the corresponding time. I can wait for deferring the conclusion while keep on watching....

 

[星海军事]

It was first reported by an official news channel, but it's suspected to be related to the Type 09IIIB rather than the Type 09V that everybody had initially suspected.

So, as of now, the PLAN has three variants of the Type 09III: the original 09III version, the Type 09IIIA (shown in the parade), and the Type 09IIIB with VLS.

Sorry, I don't see the causality. The mentioned "new nuclear submarine" was actually completed in "the past five years since the 18th National Congress of the CPC" (2012-2017).

 

[Akasa]

Sorry, I don't see the causality. The mentioned "new nuclear submarine" was actually completed in "the past five years since the 18th National Congress of the CPC" (2012-2017).

It was mentioned that the sub belonged to a new class of boats, which roughly corresponds to the 09IIIB since that happens to be the only new submarine variant that was spotted in the 2012-2017 time frame.

 

[星海军事]

It was mentioned that the sub belonged to a new class of boats, which roughly corresponds to the 09IIIB since that happens to be the only new submarine variant that was spotted in the 2012-2017 time frame.

I suppose you mean 09IIIA?

Since 2002, the PLAN has constructed ten nuclear submarines—two SHANG I-class SSNs (Type 093), four SHANG II-class SSNs (Type 093A), and four JIN-class SSBNs (Type 094)

-- Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2017​

 

[Akasa]

I suppose you mean 09IIIA?

There is no 09IIIB with VLS?

 

[星海军事]

There is no 09IIIB with VLS?

View attachment 470489

No, but there will be.

 

[LKJ86]

 

[LKJ86]