Talk:IDF Caterpillar D9

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

Bloodstains[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Caterpillar_D9#Models_in_IDF_service

Does the bulldozer in the bottom right hand corner have Rachael Corrie's bloodstains on it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, considering the fact the bulldozers in the right are new machines, that reached Israel after the Corrie's accident. I read the verdict and it was clearly written that no bloodstains were found on the armored bulldozer involved in the accident. MathKnight 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe change title/heading?[edit]

lets add that through ingenuity and struggle for freedom, the Palestinians managed to make a local device to turn them into #bearshishkaboobi strive for freedom, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.86.226 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the "teddy bear" is a weapons system that happens to be used by the IDF. I propose that the article be called "IMI/Caterpillar D9 Teddy Bear". By doing this we could talk about non-IDF use of the machine, just as the article on the A4 Skyhawk talks about the aircraft's use by many different countries. In the case of the Teddy Bear, it's use by US forces in the Gulf War is very important. About 70 machines were used. They were so important that IDF people were flown in to maintain them when they broke down.

My short 1 paragraph note on use by US forces with a reliable reference was deleted quickly, and for good reason, because as it is this story is about the IDF D9 only. It would be good if it was about the machine in general. The Teddy Bear will be used again........it is just too good not to. When people look to Wikipedia for more info, it should tell the whole story. JMO Jtmilesmmr (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

isn't there an article about the Caterpillar D9? Soosim (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the D9, and another on armored bulldozers in general. My contention is that this particular machine is a military system, made by Cat, and modified by IMI, so the focus of the story should be the MACHINE and it's use by the IDF and other forces that have used it. As can be seen by many edits, it's USE by the IDF brings out many political opinions, but the machine itself performs the same with any reasonably trained crew, be they IDF, US forces, or the East Podunk Army. I go back to my comparison with an aircraft system. Just replacing "IDF" with "IMI" in the title would move the article in a whole new direction. To start a new/additional page with my proposed title, would, IMO, only serve to confuse. Jtmilesmmr (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian D9 platform was designed and produced by Caterpillar Inc. Military modifications and armor are entirely Israeli. Although the armor was planned with cooperation of the IDF ordenance corps, various military contractors have produced and installed it, including the IMI (D9L/N), the IAI (Israel Aerospace Industries) (D9R) and the IDF itself (D9R/T). The bar armor was designed, produced and installed by the IDF itself (and not by other company) so I think "IDF Caterpillar D9" or "IDF D9 armored bulldozer" are the most accurate names for this article. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/armoured-d9r-dozer/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie in "see also"[edit]

I have re-added the link above to the "see also" section. The link has been removed a few times bu editors who haven't signed in, without any discussion here that I could see. (Point me to it if I've missed it.) On the one hand the incident isn't "about" the D9 per se, but it is also one of the highest profile media mentions of the D9. I'd rather see this discussed here than having it flip back-n-forth from the page.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it can stay as a 'See Also' link, but not with the editorializing comment " while acting as a human shield", because that is a matter of dispute. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Human shield" is not in dispute, accident or not is.--TMCk (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is in dispute, and you can't use editorializing comments in see also links. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you post a source showing it to be disputed I will stand corrected.18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous sources in the article about her - the Israeli Army categorically rejects the ISM claim that there were any operations there that day targeting Palestinian homes- they state they were clearing brush/vegetation. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this, for example: "the military’s mission that day “was not, in any way, to destroy homes,” but to clear brush and explosives" [1]. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm only asking for one single source to be posted here that unambiguously denies she was there to act as a human shield. They may or may not have targeted housing at the time and maybe she wasn't aware if they didn't [target houses] but that's besides the point. Single reliable source please.--TMCk (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given you a source, and the article clearly states the nature of the operation is in dispute, so you can't add an editorial comment to a see also link in a different article that states in wikipedia;s voice that she was there as a human shield. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the operation (and thus what caused the incident) is, as I stated before, in dispute while she being there "in the capacity of a human shield" is not and to my knowledge no source is disagreeing with this assessment. Implying a possibility is far too vague.--TMCk (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that explicitly says that - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2003/mar/31/g2.onlinesupplement When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Rachel was not a human shield protecting innocent Palestinians but a traitor and a terrorist sympathiser."You can't be fucking serious.--TMCk (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O am serious. I am not saying this person is right, I am saying it is a matter of dispute, which this source amply demonstrates. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This person" is explaining how the American public is (in part) seeing her, not what she is or was.No more feeding here.--TMCk (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So if the American public sees her as "not a Human Shield", we can't state the contrary opinion as fact here, certainly not in a comment attached to a see also link. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I see no problem with expanding the text in the text to include the "human shield" phrase. The New York Times source provided by User:NoCal100's sock says "On March 16 she and seven other American and British activists acted as human shields, dropping to their knees between the bulldozers and a home they believed were marked for destruction." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added "while acting as a human shield" per the NYT source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IDF Caterpillar D9. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The article currently states

The Israeli armor and durable construction of the D9 makes it impervious to landmines, IED and large belly charges.

The source given is a news story from Arutz Sheva reporting an incident in which a D9 survived a planted explosive. The source gives no information on the durability of D9s in general and frames the survival as being unusual, 'miraculous' in fact. The text appears to extrapolate from this single incident and constitutes original research. 'Impervious' is a bold claim which should be better referenced. If a reference is not forthcoming, the claim will be removed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no sign of this being dealt with, I have removed the text. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IDF_Caterpillar_D9&oldid=1221266572"