"

lets do some POV analyse: the text now says 
However, on 6 June, the effective strength of the 12th SS Panzer Division was 20,540 men and 150 tanks.[42] By 23 August, it was reduced to ""weak infantry elements, no tanks, no artillery
the editor claims the statement come from:
Stacey, Colonel Charles Perry; Bond, Major C.C.J.. ""Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: Volume III. The Victory Campaign: The operations in North-West Europe 1944-1945
what says the article of colonel stacey? 
"" On 22 and 23 August Army Group ""B"" reported3 the state of its eight armoured divisions as follows: 12th S.S. Panzer Division—300 men, 10 tanks, no artillery.
stacey says that the rest of the divisions were casualties? no! the 12 SS suffered 8.000 casualties... and the rest was pulled out of the line. the remaining 300 men are a battle group lend to another division. 
from the 12 SS article   The units in the Division that were not fit for combat were ordered to pull back to Germany on 8 September, leaving behind a small Kampfgruppe attached to the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.  ( with citiation )
 so what makes the editor here? he takes a statement then he poved it a bit with the word ""reduced"" , than he claims no tanks. knowing it is wrong...
by the way the reported strenghts were grabenstärke... 
the sense of this statement was to bring the reader some idea about german casualties on this battle.  by the way the 12 SS not even participated the full battle^^ 

eye, thats what u call ""reliably-sourced material""

maybe the editor should be banned for a short while? he faked a quote to support his POV -)

please tll me eye, is this POV ? which encyclopedia would come to the moronic idea of using this statement when it his has no overall figures?"