Talk:Nukhba forces

armyrecognition.com is not a reliable source

G'day, there are quite a few citations to armyrecognition.com. As indicated here and here, it is not a reliable source. This article cannot be a GA while it has sources of this type. Unless this is rectified shortly (in the next seven days), I will quickfail the GAN after providing some more pointers on possible improvements. Feel free to ask any questions about this on this thread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:  Done Thanks for pointing this out. Source removed. There was nothing in that source that wasn't widely reported elsewhere. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries. MEMRI is also pretty questionable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and search for MEMRI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: there's no doubt that MEMRI is partisan. However the use here is that they've shared on YouTube Hamas' own video about Nukhba from the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades' Telegram channel and provided English subtitles translating the voiceover. So in terms of reliability, the only question would be if the translation was accurate. I think it is a valuable source in this regard as there are few places where Hamas itself describes the Nukhba's capabilities, backing up what the Israelis claim. Seems like a reasonable use of the source to me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would expect hard questions about this at GAN, as it is a self-published source and not independent of the subject ie Hamas created the video and this article is about a Hamas unit. Just because Hamas and the IDF agree on a unit's capabilities doesn't mean either of them is right. Hamas may inflate its capability for propaganda purposes, and as we have seen recently, the IDF's intelligence sources are hardly infallible, and if their recent press releases are any measure, they are also prone to use propaganda for their own purposes. I wouldn't pass a source review with it included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And IDF press releases are hardly "independent of the subject" as WP:RS expects. Surely such things have been covered in legitimate news sources? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nukhba (Hamas unit)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Copied in part from the talk page: The Hamas Youtube video is a self-published source and not independent of the subject ie Hamas created the video and this article is about a Hamas unit. Just because Hamas and the IDF agree on a unit's capabilities doesn't mean either of them is right. Hamas may inflate its capability for propaganda purposes, and as we have seen recently, the IDF's intelligence sources are hardly infallible, and if their recent press releases are any measure, they are also prone to use propaganda for their own purposes. The combination of the Hamas video and the IDF press releases make for a hard fail unless they are replaced with WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Currently a hard no for sources. I cannot assess the rest of the article until the unreliable sources are replaced with reliable ones. Placing on hold for seven days for the sourcing issue to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC) *Failing. No attempt has been made to improve the sourcing for over a fortnight since issues were first raised on the talk page. Without the unreliable sources, it seems unlikely this article could meet the criteria in any case, so I'm failing it on criteria 2b. It is impossible to assess most of the other criteria because so much of it relies on unreliable sources. I strongly recommend revising the sources for the article and seeking reliable ones before renominating the article at GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

POV

Clear overreliance on Israeli sources, even Israeli army press releases, all of which I have removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss. I was beginning to wondered if they even exist. But I found one thing on AJ النخبة القسامية so it's probably not a complete fiction? FourPi (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But some one-sided sources can be relevant, if presented clearly. Public statements and messing are an important part of the story. FourPi (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, do you still think this tag is necessary? Just quickly googling, it seems like all the English-language coverage of this topic is from Israeli media, so I don't see how this could be avoided. Prezbo (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I see there are some Google Books sources the article could rely on more. Prezbo (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is still a problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Hebrew transliteration

In Israel the Nukhba is much more commonly spelt ״נוח׳בה״ in accordance with other transliterations of the letter خ. For example: Khan Younis (خان يونس) is transliterated as ״ח׳אן יונס״ TomGoLeen (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Does the letter כ not correspond to خ in this case? ח would be ح as in Beit Hanoun (בית חאנון), however if I am wrong do correct me. I am saying this as an Arabic speaker The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria. The Hebrew letter ח corresponds to both ح and خ in Arabic. (I suspect this is why Hebrew speakers say حماس as خماس with the same sounds as خان يونس whereas English speakers say حماس as هماس like هنية with the same English H? but that's just my own speculation?)

I think כ is usually ك and ק is usually ق but both end up K in English sometimes. There probably are times where خ is כ because some old place names are unpredictable? But usually خ and ح are both ח in Hebrew.

I know hardly any Hebrew, just enough of the alphabet to spell and recognize names etc. So I am a bit unsure about the character after ח which is why I changed it a couple of times trying to get the page right. The ׳ that TomGoLeen used is Geresh, this page: Geresh § ח says it's supposed to differentiate the two Arabic letters خ or ح but it's not often used, most news sites just use an apostrophe and so does Hebrew Wikipedia he: נוח'בה or some leave it out completely he: נוחבה (that's a redirect on Hebrew wiki), we should probably list Hebrew both with and without that mark, and probably just an apostrophe.

FourPi (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, I haven’t reverted the edit and was not aware it was like that on the Hebrew page until it was brought up. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why include the detention camps?

Israel's detention camps aren't a battle so why are they in the battles section listed as a battle? Mauzer's random BS (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hebrew transliteration for Nukhba (נוכ'בה) is incorrect

Hi all, the transliteration for خ in Hebrew is ח' and NOT כ' This is also reflected in the Hebrew Wikipedia Transliteration from Arabic Rules page.

Since this page is protected, I'm starting this talk topic. Omeriko9 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. LagoonGoose (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What's with the refusal to use the word "terrorist" anywhere in the description

There's no legal ambiguity as to their status and designation 2A02:14F:17D:BBD1:4003:CC6:259C:E9C3 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)