Jump to content

Talk:2023 Israeli female tank crew fight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating this article for deletion

[edit]
hatting malformed deletion discussion duplicative of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023) Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This page can merged to Holit massacre as the sources states Hamas could kill more people if the tank unit not had appeared. Further the page is full of useless propaganda. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for deletion.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree , historic battle, first all women crew. Important feminist message and event. The first every female tank crew in combat! It's an historic event! Also per @Oleg Yunakov. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadow4dark
  • 11 Hamas militants could have killed more people if these girls hadn't killed 50?
  • were the other 39 even armed?
If we keep this article, it needs some revisions, because I cannot follow the story at all, see my other thread.
  • I removed a line saying "but more could have been killed" because it wasn't even clear if it meant Gazans or Kibbutzniks. If you re add that line, try to make it clearer to someone who's never heard the story before.
Maybe I just need a coffee? but my impression so far is bafflement. I was going to argue to keep the article, but possibly a merge would connect the missing parts of the story, and it would make more sense?
Irtapil (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for deletion RamHez (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree of course with the deletion. Any "useless propaganda" comes directly from the sources and if anyone believes that provided sources are not reliable they are welcome first to define such sources as unreliable. Unlike the above comments without any reasoning there are multiple sources stating that this was the "first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, which lasted 17 hours" as well as "this was most likely the first time in history that a female armored unit participated in a war". Keep it of course. I have also helped by expending the content. P.S. In ruwiki the article was nominated to be on the front page for the uniqueness of it's content. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleg Yunakov is there anything more in the Russian article that could be translated to expand this? I read the first part of this and it doesn't make much sense, see my other thread. I was thinking merging with the holit massacre it refers to might fill some gaps? Irtapil (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should come with sources that are not from one pov point. All your sources comes from one pov and affiliated on one side. Yes some of them are reliable but not on these topics if they share common arguments. Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source Shadow4dark (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may add other sources and please clarify how The Australian Financial Review mentioned above is allegedly affiliated? And you misunderstood, no one said that Wikipedia is a reliable source. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleg Yunakov it's a centre right newspaper from my country. Not one I read much. Fairly respectable but not military experts, and would probably take Israel / USA side. The Australian Financial Review Irtapil (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not owned by Rupert Murdoch so that's a plus, but it's just be reprinted IDF press release or wire service like Reuters / AP. Irtapil (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I don't see the problem with using POVed sources in this one. Who is supposed to report on this stuff if not the IDF? You can't expect Hamas or whichever terrorist organisation was there to go on and say "Yeah alright you got us.". BonkeySmoke (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BonkeySmoke
Even if they did say that, it'd be a "depreciated source" and we'd not be allowed to include it? But we do trust IDF, for some reason.
As far as I've seen none of the groups acknowledge anyone died on 7 October, let alone 50 killed by a female tank crew. Under reporting combat deaths is very normal for normal militaries, but contradicts the stereotype of Palestinian terrorism glorifying martyrs.
  • We can probably confidently assume it's not actually zero?
  • But the Israeli side reports bare minium 200 from those misidentified as Israeli in the original 1,400 death counts
  • plus these 50 alleged militants allegedly killed in this battle
  • and some reports say up to 1000 Gazans killed in southern Israel
  • and those reports are from before those 200 were confessed
  • So that makes up to 1,200 people one side alleges died in southern Israel any the other side kinda doesn't acknowledge ever existing.
It's a smaller number than the implausible 8000 alleged terrorist the IDF claims they killed in Gaza, but in that case there's debate about if most of those were civilians.
Irtapil (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BonkeySmoke Sorry, than got long. I was just finding it creepy (that word doesn't fit, but i can't think of a better word) that we have 1,139 extremely well documented deaths, and in the same place at the same time, about the same number (or more) of very very very poorly documented deaths on the other side. I was wanting to start trying to fill that gap, and I started here… and found more gaps. Irtapil (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for deletion. EkoGraf (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for deletion. This is a one-sided narrative, the whole thing is nothing but an Israeli propaganda to raise morale. I wonder, for example, is it possible to write an article here about Hamas fighters who achived the first kill of Nimr armored personnel carrier month ago killing 9 IDF soldiers?!Amr F.Nagy (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree- an historic fight with only woman in a tank. First time in history Hila Livne (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amr F.Nagy why not merge? Maybe something salvageable? Irtapil (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we having this discussion - there is already an ongoing AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)

2024 updates, source questions (no consensus on AFD)

[edit]

Hello! I came across this article today. The sources for this article, specifically the second one, maybe not the best? I don't think a New York Sun article written by a former Israeli intelligence officer is the encyclopedic tone we need. I know this is a contentious article, and people see value it, but right now it's a feminist war puff piece. see also purplewashing Soyembika (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soyembika As a feminist, I do NOT think this is a "feminist war puff piece", it's just a "war puff piece". There's a very obvious (and not very nice) reason the IDF might need to have all female tank crews (not mixed), and a feminist wouldn't leave that out. Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil thank you for replying to this. I feel similarly, that this is NOT feminist. I did not articulate that at all in my original comment. ‘“feminist” war puff piece’ with heavy emphasis on the quotes. Soyembika (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is also currently deriving its name from headlines, in opposition to WP:HEADLINES, and is not a properly encyclopedic WP:NCE title. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nominated since October 10th too. I'm trying to word myself in a polite way but I am kind of wondering if this article does more harm than good in it's current state? Like it's objectively not up to code Soyembika (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soyembika My first thought when I was part way through reading it was "were the people they killed even armed?" I thought I was maybe being too "conspiracy theorist" but from the rest of your comments, maybe that wasn't such an unreasonable question. How close to the border was this? Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But them coming from an attack at another location explains it, less interesting, but also less horrifying, and this war has more than enough horrifying already. Irtapil (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Sun is not affiliated with The Sun (UK), which is listed on WP:RSP. Ted Lapkin's background as a former IDF combat soldier in 1982, makes them more of an authority on the subject, not less. Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz The problem is it makes him more expert but also more biased, it's an awkward trade off. Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha sorry I tagged that wrong. You are right, The New York Sun is not affiliated with The Sun (UK). Soyembika (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz and are you saying The Sun is a reliable source? I thought it was tabloid trash? Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello if you get a chance to reply please do Soyembika (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Lapkins writer bio in the source says "strategic communications, reputation management, and government relations."
I have such a hard time accepting this archived webpage is so authoritative it warrants being reffed 15 times in the article. News is not static, and changes when new information is made available. This article dates itself with the sources it uses Soyembika (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitzsorry forgot to ping Soyembika (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one considered unreliable is a different Sun (UK-based); I'm not aware of this newspaper being problematic. You can ask at WP:RSN Marokwitz (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article be rejected if there is no consensus for it to exist, per WP:ONUS? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely wondering about how these things are decided. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS no, i think it should lean towards keep, we can always delete it later. Give those who want to keep it a few weeks to improve it. The merge idea doesn't seem to work because it connects to too many other events? Irtapil (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS But we could merge it with 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel like a lot of other small battles. We can always split it out again if it grows into something worth a whole article. Irtapil (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are weird.

[edit]

This story has a big gap or something?

  • 11 Gazans attack a kibbutz
  • 13 Kibutz residents killed? I presume that 13 doesn't include Gazans?
  • no hostages?
  • then this tank crew kill 50 people?
Where did the other 39 come from? When? and why were they killed?
  • did the IDF just round up to the nearest 50?
  • or are there 50 unclaimed bodies still in an Israeli morgue?

And, for the day as a whole, why does a culture frequently stereotyped as glorifying death in battle claim (as far as i can tell) zero martyrs from 7 October? … while Israel claims there were 200 to 1200 Gazans who died in southern Israel that day? Irtapil (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I checked the source in Russian and it says nothing about "11 Gazans", so for now I removed this fact and added a [citation needed] tag. Other source that is cited later says over 100 militants took positions in Kibbutz Sufa in addition to the battle in Kibbutz Holit. Marokwitz (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz I think I added "Gazans" in lieu of a {{citation needed}} or "alleged" or "presumed". It would have been either "terrorist" or "Hamas militant" before. Other pages have a consensus that we should avoid "terrorist", and the sources cited were sources that call everyone and everything "Hamas" (PIJ, PFLP, Gazan civilians, the UN, etc.). I was confident from other sources that they were definitely not any of the very well documented 1139 October 7 victims, so I went with definite Gazan rather than "alleged militant" or "presumed Hamas". But maybe that was too much deduction and I should have stuck with "alleged" or "presumed" if the source seemed unreliable for the level of specificity stated? Irtapil (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz so now we have all 50 materialising from the either? But more seriously, I think that was a connection to the Holit Massacre page, I'm leaning more and not towards merging these. Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz oh, it was between two of them? Then it's unclear which to merge with? So maybe merge doesn't work? Irtapil (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to any other article is not a good idea because the combat occurred over 17 hours at different locations, so there is no clear merge target Marokwitz (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz if keeping the article, it definitely needs a map, and "see also" to related events. Irtapil (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a great idea. Marokwitz (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz
However, I think this is just a minor part of the Battle of Sufa. I've not actually looked at the proper deletion discussion yet.
Irtapil (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense propaganda?

[edit]

This seems to read like nonsense propaganda? "20 year young teenagers"? It's self-contradictory and non-encyclopedic. It only seems to exist for propaganda reasons. Fanccr (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense propaganda. The previous deletion discussions have favored keeping the article despite no good argument for it. It's impressive. There are previous editors who are now topic banned, and many page watchers who comment a great deal during deletion reviews but are silent now. Soyembika (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point I removed that nonsense. Marokwitz (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it’s been right at the top of google searches this whole time too which is really frustrating Soyembika (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the "israeli female tank crew fight" ends up being a one sided celebration of eventually a 4 tank skirmish, with the brave heroes valiantly defeat the evil na'er do wells, saving the world for the righteous and striking a blow for gender equality... if it isn't deleted entirely it should be pared down until it covers just the female tank crew fight, and maybe an analysis of how it's been used for nationalistic militarist propaganda, or merged into maybe some article about women in the IDF and an article about Kibbutz Sufa or the larger 10/7 attack. Fanccr (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanccr @Marokwitz @Soyembika
There is still way too much of it based on one - no longer available - New York Sun article.
It should be merged into Battle of Sufa.
Irtapil (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don’t think this article should exist in its current form thank u for tagging. now that the sun article is no longer available i don’t think this article stands at all on its own. Soyembika (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on? This article is an obvious bunch of nonsense that wouldn't even be deserving of an article if it was real. There's hardly even a case being made for keeping the article here and yet it remains. Jyffizz (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Israeli_female_tank_crew_fight&oldid=1249597244"