Talk:Israel Defense Forces

Israeli soldiers kill in video game style

«According to the report, the women soldiers, located far away in an operations room, press a single key with a PlayStation-style joystick to kill those Gaza residents who allegedly breach the border.» source. I don't see a section in the article called "training" so I don't know where to put this, but before creating a sub-section in "ogranization", maybe someone would suggest a better idea on where to fit it in? Userpd (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not worthy to mention. Is there any difference between this and flying MQ-9 Reaper somewhere in A-stan from Nevada? Anyway presstv.ir is not a reliable source. Flayer (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the context of special-interest sources, I think it is pretty clear that such device exists. So I don't think it would qualify as unreliable in this sense. Also, it's not the only source to mention it, and there's a picture of israeli soldier holding this device, so there shouldn't be any doubt, unless you have a reliable source which would disprove it. And we aren't discussing creating an article for such matter, but since it's a device, which is also a controversial, and is a part of the army, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Userpd (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? I see no evidence that the shape of a weapon control is in any way controversial. This reeks of undue emphasis on the incredibly trivial. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why specific weapons systems should be included in this general article. There are many new developments that are soon outdated. As it is, the subsection 'Main developments' is a bit on the OR side. And per Flayer about the Reaper. --Shuki (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Flayer and Orange Mike. This would seem to be a WP:WEIGHT issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, no doubt such device exists, and what's the deal of not adding it? I mean sooner or later there should be a section for "devices of IDF", that's what encyclopedia is, to enrich it with information. As for now it'd be left in the related section (military technology since it's a part of it). Userpd (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting and using the propoganda style of Iran's governmental PressTV is WP:POV. If you want to report on remote-controlled weapons within the IDF, find a NPOV reliable source, and use neutral language, not "Israeli soldier trained to kill innocent besieged civilian in a PlayStation style" sort of thing. Moreover, using of remote-controlled weaponry in the world is not such a big deal and shouldn't get any special attention here. Finally, you see there is in the talk page a majority who oppose to your addition, consider it. MathKnight 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I avoided their "claims" and just conveyed the gist, besides there are other sources with this information, albeit they themselves referenced turkish haber. Also, will quote myself: "In the context of special-interest sources, I think it is pretty clear that such device exists. So I don't think it would qualify as unreliable in this sense." Unless you will provide with a reliable source that would disprove it. Userpd (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "In the context of special-interest sources, I think it is pretty clear that such device exists" even mean? Do you mean that despite the fact that the source is unreliable, you know that the device exists or that you believe that the source is reliable enough for this statement? In any case, you have not addressed the WP:UNDUE issue at all. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You ignored everything I wrote. The source you gave is highly POV and the formulation of the text you entered is highly POV and propogandic as well. This is Wikipedia, not the "Iranian incitement voice". MathKnight 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It is wikipedia and it's not censored, a lot of users may find content in this article propagandistic, which promotes author's idea (the bomb at top of the head), so what? Was it deleted from wikipedia? No. Yes, told you already there are many sources that confirm this information, and in this context I think it's pretty clear that such device exists, or you think everything, including image of an israeli holding this device - is fake? Then provide a reliable source which would disprove it, I said it already. Obviously, you don't have a disproof. Neutral point? Again, I said already I only noted about device, I didn't add third-party comments on it (like the training to shoot at civilians isn't good), or what describing the information is violating neutral point? Since when? Besides, on Press TV they wrote it pretty neutral. And the same is here, a mention about device, and assumptions are left to readers' minds. However, the source was changed to another albeit I don't see a difference, or mentioning about israeli army's devices in wikipedia are prohibited? Userpd (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to find an English language source for this? Turkish is not a language that many native English-speakers know. If there are reliable sources for this, I woudl expect the likes of The Guardian or The Independent to pick thestory up.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it really important in this matter? Or is there a rule (give me a link) on wikipedia which would state that sources should be only in english? No I don't think so, as there are sources in non-english on english wikipedia already, like here. But okay I understand that it's preferred and recommended to be in english if available. Userpd (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NONENG is the relevant bit of policy. Yes it says you can non-English sources if nothing else is available and I myself have done so to substantiate that a Mannfred Mann's Earth Band song is based on one of Schubert's impromptu's. However that is a relatively obscure piece of knowledge. The IDF is, at a rough estimate, one of the ten armed forces most written about in English. If a fact about them can't be sourced in English, then it can't be the most important fact and WP:DUE would imply that the space is best used on something that reliable sources consider more important.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for giving a link. Userpd (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculously POV (what with the quoting of "besieged civilans") and undue weight. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was put in quotes, hence is a neutral POV. As for weight, in this section is written about different "technologies of the army" if it's not a "technology" then what? And it's played by young women serving in Israeli army, so as you see it has weight. It's on a state-level, it's not someone's "fan" work. You really make it difficult for someone to add an information which may be not in your favor, but again why should be everything written here in your favor? Yes, it should be written in neutral manner, so the reader would make his mind by himself about this information. So you could just remove these words from the previous placed source, but yet you decided to entirely delete it. Userpd (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"it's played"???? The use of the verb "play" in this sentence makes it clear that you are trying to push this material into this article for non-NPOV reasons, not to improve the article or provide useful information. Women soldiers using control sticks - this is news? Only if you slant the coverage to make it look like these unveiled Jewish women are treating death like a video game; and that seems to be your goal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"played" for you only means like to "play in video-games"? Yes, it can be "played", also this word wasn't used when adding, leaving side thoughts to reader's mind, whether they play it like a game or use it. Why do you think it has no weight? Like I said, it's being used by young women serving in the army, how can't it be anyhow important and conflict with WP:UNDUE?? Where should it be added then? In this derived article?. Okay will add it there then, will see what else will be brought up for picking on in this matter. Something tells me that if this information wasn't in no favor of you, you wouldn't be so interfering with me in adding it. Userpd (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, right now there's only a mentioning about this device along with other kind of weapons in IDF. How far it can be neutral written? And it belongs here, it's a technology that is used by young women serving in IDF. And there's no disprove that this device doesn't exist. Userpd (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with the wording and source you used you used, but I think the changes introduced by Flayer are much better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is your POV formulation, accusing IDF soldiers killing innocent civilians near the border as a PlayStation game. E.g. Machineguns don't liquidate, they just kill (but leave much of the corpse solid and identifiable). And it doesn't matter rather male or female soldiers operate the system. In the IDF, female soldiers can serve as light infantry soldiers. Again, you are being reverted by everyone, and no one in the talk agrees with your propogandic formulation. Stop vandalising the article! MathKnight 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MathKnight in general, though I'd note that I don't think Userpd's edits qualify as vandalism (WP:VAND#NOT). The use of the term "liquidate" in reference to military or intelligence operations used to be euphemistic, but has taken on the same negative connotations of "to wipe out", as well as implying bias or facetious intent on the part of the text containing that use. I am very concerned about this "Palestine Chronicle" source, with the phrase "video game executions" in the title. I don't think this source should be used for anything but sourcing opinion on the weapons system, and then only if it wouldn't violate WP:WEIGHT and then only with proper attribution. The same would apply to mentions of this weapons system in Military equipment of Israel. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In the last edit there's no saying that it targets "innocent civilians", but still you're reverting where is said that it's a playstation Joystick - isn't it WP:OR from your side? If various sources say that it's a playstation like Joystick, you can't delete it unless you have a clear evidence that it isn't. Userpd (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The "style" of the joystick and the gender of the operators has no encyclopedic value here. Please avoid pushing superfluous information and yellow journalism cliché into your edits. Flayer (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"gender of the operators has no encyclopedic value"..not sure that I agree with that. It's not relevant in this article maybe but it might be relevant elsewhere in an article about gender roles etc. I thought the source was pretty interesting "...has mostly attracted attention in Israel because it is operated by 19- and 20-year-old female soldiers, making it the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women. Female soldiers are preferred to operate remote killing devices because of a shortage of male recruits to Israel’s combat units. Young women can carry out missions without breaking the social taboo of risking their lives".[1] I wasn't aware that there was a social taboo for woman risking their lives for instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates rather nicely the problem with using a yellow journalism piece such as the Cook article. Virtually everything that's "pretty interesting" in it is simply wrong or exaggerated. When you look at serious sources, you find that Aviation Week for example notes that the system is used by "mainly female soldiers" [2], but it is not 'the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women' as Cook would have it. When you read about the situation of male recruits to combat units in a serious newspaper like the New York Times, you find that there's no "shortage of male recruits to Israel’s combat units", quite the opposite: there's an "undiminished fervor of young men volunteering to fight in combat units, which make up roughly a third of the army. The Golani infantry brigade, for instance, gets 10 applicants for every place". [3]. And there's of course no "social taboo for woman risking their lives" - women have been deployed in combat situations in Israel since the days of its war of independence, and have been deployed to combat roles long before this remote weapon system came into existence [4]. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it illustrates what anyone familiar with media coverage of Israel related issues already knows, that you need to use a spectrum of reliable sources from around the world to mitigate the yellow journalism, hasbara, misreporting and systemic bias. 'mainly' vs 'exclusively' seems like a triviality to me. 'mainly' is still notable. I'm not sure that I follow your social taboo argument. It's a deductive fallacy to conclude that the presence of women in combat roles indicates that there isn't a social taboo about women risking their lives. It's like saying that the availability and popularity of pornography in a society indicates that there isn't a social taboo with respect to pornography or that the existence of openly gay Muslims indicates that there isn't a social taboo about being an openly gay Muslim. It may be the case that there isn't a social taboo about women risking their lives in Israel, I wouldn't know and I'm assuming it wouldn't include risking their lives by doing genuinely dangerous things like having a baby or driving etc but the presence of women in combat roles doesn't tell you anything about social taboos. As your NYT source says "a young woman can merely state that she “follows a traditional lifestyle” to be exempted as too religious for the army.". The issue of women in combat roles is clearly contentious in Israeli society (as it is in other countries) e.g. is the IDF's Chief Rabbi and the Military Rabbinate in general still opposed to it and what role does that play ? My point was simply that gender based task partitioning in the IDF (and elsewhere) is an encyclopedic subject that shouldn't simply be dismissed as having no value. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sean. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"The "style" of the joystick and the gender of the operators has no encyclopedic value here." It's a describe of the weapon, so the reader would have an empirical image of it in his mind. However, it could be put in the special-interest article. Userpd (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

House demolitions

Trimmed it a bit and disassociated fighting role from deterrence. Still not perfect, obviously, but this was long overdue. The original text was moved to the main article about House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the good work! Even so, the section should be at least half the current length per WP:UNDUE. Maybe we should work on a draft? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a minimalist approach would produce something like this: "During fighting and searching houses for militants, the IDF employs the use of house demolitions when deemed necessary. Until February 2005, house demolition, as a deterrent, was also used for houses of suicide bombers. Critics oppose house demolitions claiming they are a violation of international law, while Israel denies this assertion." It does contain all the main points in the section, BUT is of course far too lacking in information and prose. I suggest this as the bare minimum of any draft (assuming it won't be trimmed this much). PluniAlmoni (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I like this short version very much. I really don't see any need to make a longer version, for two main reasons:

1) The subject has its own article, House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

2) The subject's importance is marginal. Targeted Killing is more important and it has a shorter section; same with various tactics of advanced notification of targeted areas (leaflets, "knocks", etc.) unique to the IDF which are barely/not mentioned at all. but there are also many other topics which are more important for the main IDF article—for example, a prose-based overview of the main units, which is completely lacking. The current page is already almost 100 KB in size, much more than is recommended for an article. I also have a feeling that the article currently gives undue weight to topics of interest to certain niches, not the general public. Look at the huge sections on women and minorities; they should be split into separate articles, as both as highly notable topics, but create extreme undue weight in the article.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the quality of the article about house-demolition is underwhelming to say the least. The current section includes all information and provides streamlined and understandable information about the subject in relation to the IDF. If we go for the "minimalist" approach, an inquisitive reader would get lost in the main article if he wants to find out more. In my opinion, it would be bad judgment to go for the minimalist approach without taking care of the main article about the subject first.
• I agree about the undue length of the sections about niche subjects. Two articles, one about women and another about minorities would help to streamline the main IDF article, and then we could include the "minorities" in the "service" section. "Overseas volunteers" could also be included in the service section. But then the service section itself would become bloated, requiring a new article about "service in the IDF"... This would require a HUGE amount of work. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the house demolition article is in poor state is a reason to give it undue weight in this article. History of the Israel Defense Forces is also not in a good state, and Military equipment of Israel is a list. Your concern for the overall quality of Wikipedia vs. the quality of individual articles is commendable, and if you feel strongly about it I will do my best to help you improve the house demolitions article. However, I don't think we should compromise the quality of the main article because of the low quality of other articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Women in the Israeli Defense Forces created... PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine section

I suggest that the latter points in the "Doctrine" section be moved to a new section called "Tactics" or something of the like, because they refer to tactics and no parts of a general doctrine (in contrast to, say, "no territorial ambitions"). Also, I think that the "Low-intensity warfare" (without necessary elaboration). should be dropped altogether - it doesn't contain any meaningful information... not unique or relevant in any way (amounts to saying that "the IDF also operates in urban environments"). Also without citation. I'll wait for any opposition in the next 24 hours, and after that if no one has any objection I'll mend the article as stated. PluniAlmoni (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose a different approach: have two main sections under "Doctrine": something about the general doctrine (can't think of a good name right now), like no territorial ambitions; and another section on tactics. The main difference from your proposal is that IMO the entire tactics section should be one, similar to History, without sub-sections or any kind of division. It should be well-written in flowing prose and not divided into points. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Policy"? "Courses of action"? "Conduct"? Anyway, I don't think that "tactics" falls under "Doctrine". "Doctrine" is more of a general, strategic set of "preferences" in the Macro scale. Tactics are by definition much more small-scale, action-specific "preferences". Maybe a better division would be between "Tactics" and "Doctrine", when tactics would include references to house-demolition, roof-knocking, targeted foiling etc. and "doctrine" would include both the general doctrine of the IDF and the section currently called "code of conduct". Thus we would have a "general IDF-POV" section and a "tactical" section. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Let's try it and see how it flows with the article :) —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I saw the opportunity fitting for a major reshuffle in the entire article - moved Doctrine closer to the top and pushed Budget and Equipment further down. As these are "material" things and subject to relatively frequent change, and do not habitually reflect the unique nature of the IDF, I felt that they should be closer to the bottom than the Service and Doctrine Sections. As for the Minorities section - maybe later... PluniAlmoni (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Women

Women in the Israeli Defense Forces created. It took up too much space on this article and frankly has enough material to stand on its own. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks really good. I gave you an award for it! Sorry for not helping much, I have just been short on time in the last year or so, and have trouble making a serious commitment to quality content creation. However, please tell me if I can help with sources or whatever else. Anyway, now it's time to create a separate article for minorities. There is one already about the Minorities Unit, which is suffering from several problems (mainly that it's unclear whether anything there is correct). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Budget

Does this figure of 13,4 billion dollars include US military aid ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

While Israelis are welcome to call their military what they wish, has it not occurred to anyone that "Israel Defence Forces" is not a neutral term? Whereas "Israel Military Forces" is more neutral: it or similar phrases should be used in the body of the article once the Israeli term has been described. NickyMcLean (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the USA have departments of both defense and homeland security? Surely only one is needed. And don't get me started on our Department of the Outdoors. Hcobb (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NAME. It's no different from referring to New York as New York. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is different. Try reading Politics_and_the_English_Language by George Orwell, for example, and I'm not making jokes about Military Intelligence either, tempting though they are. NickyMcLean (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title". Marokwitz (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations section

I think this section should be significantly trimmed. IMO, its subsections should comprise the United States, Germany and possibly India, with all other countries going into a final 'other countries' section. It's highly problematic that the section takes so much space in the article, giving it undue weight. Also, the section currently contains a lot of facts with dubious notability for Wikipedia in general, let alone an article on a broad topic such as this one. Moreover, the facts already have a home in Israel's separate foreign relations articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy and a lot of articles and books written about the Israeli relation with South Africa under Apartheid. There is at least one whole book about the relationship between Israel and SA with regards to nuclear weapons. That is a much more relevant and notable than either India or Germany Poyani (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That has little relevance because the section deals mostly with the present. The past should be dealt with in the history section or the History of the Israel Defense Forces article. And if you do want to discuss history, many books were written about Israel–German relations, most of which discuss military relations at length. It's actually a major topic.

But even given the above deliberations, you must not forget that the whole topic of the IDF's relations with foreign militaries is minor compared to most of the other topics in the article, and moreover, it's a topic less relevant to the IDF than to Israel's foreign relations. For example, Israel's weapon sales and joint weapons tests may go with minor or no IDF involvement, especially today that the weapons industry is privatized.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. However, let's be consistent. If weapon sales and history of relations are not relevant to the IDF Foreign Relations section, then the same should also be said for all countries, not just South Africa. Currently, the section on India and China deal almost exclusively with weapons sales. Also, I think the relations with Turkey should be kept. I think that is very notable. It gets a lot of press coverage. Far more than all the others. If you go ahead and make the changes please do so consistently. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable Tactics?

It seems to me the "Notable Tactics" section would be better if called "Controversial Tactics" or something along those lines. If not, the notable tactics section needs to be entirely redone to include more tactics and less of the controversial issues, especially housing demolitions of terrorists which as the article stated went out of use in 2005 and is therefore not a tactic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.236.131 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This article has a lot of serious POV problems. For example, the IDF has been criticized at least dozens of times by practically every major human rights organization there is. It has been found to have violated numerous articles of the Geneva conventions and even its own code of conduct. It has been denounced in numerous UN resolutions. Countless books and news articles have denounced their actions. In fact, I think this is what most non-Israeli people think of when they hear of the IDF.

Yet there is no critical information presented here at all. Poyani (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There have actually been a few discussions about this (they can be found in the archives). We took the precedent of other articles about world armies, which don't have criticism sections (including armies like US or Russia, which have been criticized by many). In any case, even if we look at this article on an individual basis, just like with the foreign relations section, what needs to be considered is that most criticism against the IDF either criticizes actions by specific soldiers (who are often tried), or policies of the government. It's hard to wade out the criticism that deals with internal IDF policies alone and include them here. If you can introduce a draft however, we might be able to work from that point. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If none of the other armies have it then let's stay consistent. Poyani (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Kicked off the Internet

Apparently the IDF has cut off access to the Internet because the troops were telling what they actually did, which of course horrified the world.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-pulls-plug-on-soldiers-internet-access-1.361980?localLinksEnabled=false A new threat has arisen recently, in the form of social networks such as Facebook, to which soldiers have posted photographs and operational details that tarnished the IDF's image and may also have jeopardized security.

So which section does this go under? Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To the Internet censorship by country, or Israeli Military Censor. Here it would be classified as "miscellaneous". PluniAlmoni (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PluniAlmoni is correct; this information is undue weight in this article, especially with Haaretz's spin on things. As far as I am aware, the move was caused by an incident where a soldier disclosed that he was going to an operation, with the location of that operation. This has nothing to do with the Facebook photographs posted by some soldiers that tarnished the IDF's image, because those were all posted from the soldiers' home computers (and/or by demobilized soldiers). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For the general knowledge of whoever stumbles on this discussion, Internet is not commonplace on IDF bases as it is, and in most ground forces bases, soldiers don't have any Internet access. Therefore the importance of this move is quite minor despite the coverage it received in the media. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC/B'Tselem

Regarding the removal of this content with the edit summary "B'Tselem is not a reliable source, extremely biased section". B'Tselem are an RS (with attribution) and the BBC are an RS of course. They have come up at WP:RSN here (where typically for the I=P topic area, you will see several comments by people subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry). I'm not advocating that the content is restored but I'm just making the point that removing it on the basis that the highly respected B'Tselem is not an RS is not a valid reason to remove it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The piece I put in is perfectly fine and well resourced and the people who are deleting it are doing so with no good reason at all.All they are doing is vandalism.The BBC and B'Tselem are respected sources and the piece is relevant to the part of the article where it was put.It is a fact that the IDF used human shields and my sources say just that they back up everything that I posted.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now added links from Haaretz and Ynet News, two Israeli news sources to further back up the claims. Owain the 1st (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Before we continue editing or discussion this section, can you please copyedit it? I don't feel comfortable editing it in its current form, and if it's not copyedited I believe it should be removed on the grounds of poor spelling, grammar and style alone. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you point out some poor spelling in that piece as my spellchecker cannot find any.I will wait.Owain the 1st (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor spelling, grammar and style is another way of saying that something is badly written. Read this:

For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:Enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants.Remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army.Stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers.Walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.

And please copyedit. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So you could not find any poor spelling, I thought as much.I will edit it sometime.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it around for you.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just now I checked out the sources in question. It concerns me greatly that you copied much of the text directly from the B'Tselem website. I know that you are new to Wikipedia, but please note that such behavior is strictly prohibited here. You simply cannot copy content from other websites directly, or with minor tweaking. Moreover, I am sorry you feel the way you do about the quality of writing on Wikipedia. I have copyedited the section by removing the plagiarism and also clearly qualified comments by B'Tselem. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem I have redone the section so that it does not break wikipedia rules and I have expanded it as well, more to come.Thanks.I will be opening a new section on allegations of IDF war crimes soon, I know you will like that.Owain the 1st (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to undermine your effort, but please read WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM before making more such edits. Moreover, most of what you're trying to insert has been discussed here in the past, so I encourage you to also read this talk page's archives. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You certainly are trying to undermine my efforts and if you continue with your relentless reverting everything I post in this section then I am going to report you.I suggest you self revert that perfectly good section back to what it was.The IDF page has hardly any criticism at all in it and that is not a NPOV, that is a POV.What I have put in it is all factual and well sourced.I have also included the Israeli point of view so your claims of UNDUE and RECENTISM do not stand up.I will not stand by and let you get away with this type of rubbish.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this was the first time I ever reverted you, so I don't know what you're talking about. Please read the relevant policies, now including WP:CIVIL, and post a policy-based argument on why what you wrote should be in the article. Regarding criticism, please see earlier discussions on this page as I have kindly asked before. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is the second time that you have reverted my work in this thread.[5]Reverting means reverting the work of an editor even in part which you have done twice.I have told you why it should be in the article, that is above your post.I have asked you nicely to self revert, you have failed to do that so it seems you leave me no choice but to advance this debate.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue with you over these points any further. Just want to say for the record (if anyone is observing the discussion) that the first edit was not only not a revert, but it was actually an edit meant to help Owain the 1st to insert the gist of what he wanted into the article without it being a copyright violation (which it had been, as inserted by Owain the 1st). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that is your choice not to debate this.Your first edit reverted my work, so yes it was a revert as anyone can see here.[6] where you trimmed the piece but the worst one is here [7], you have reverted a whole section that was reputably sourced and included the Israeli point of view.Being as you do not want to discuss this further then you leave me no choice but to advance this further.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

POV of article

I believe that this article does not have a NPOV.It reads like an advert for the IDF, they could have written it themselves and parts they probably did in their spare time.There is hardly any criticism in the entire piece and when some is put in it is deleted or trimmed down and changed to a more positive view of the IDF.It is clear that the IDF have not been without criticism in their history but it certainly does not show up in this article.The piece lacks any balance at all.I have tried to added factual evidence into this article which has been reverted with feeble excuses every time.It sure looks like there is a campaign by pro Israeli editors to keep this article from reflecting anything bad about the IDF.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit [8] (submitted by you) looks like it is doing exactly what you are raising a complaint about. As a few users have suggested, it is biased. And you are edit warring over it. And it is cut and pasted (copyvio) from its source. Should be deleted. Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the source yet, but you know a very great deal about Wikipedia policies, for an apparently new user. Would you mind disclosing how that comes to be the case? As you may know, this topic area is rife with new accounts that do not, in fact, represent new users. It receives the attention of multiple banned users who create sometimes dozens of new accounts per week. I mean no disrespect, but because that's such a problem in this area, I'm sure you'll understand why an explanation of how you come to be so knowledgeable would be helpful. Have you previously edited under some other identity?  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lirika, thank you for bringing that to my attention.It is not my intention to break any copyright laws on wikipedia and being as I am a fairly new user I am still learning how this place operates.The piece that you have linked to has already been changed by another editor.I know that a few editors have said that B'Tselem is biased but I cannot agree with those sorry.B'Tselem are just reporting what many human rights organizations have stated in reports.Anyway thanks again for bringing that to my attention. Owain the 1st (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The alleged POV of this article, especially the lack of a criticism section, was already brought up on this page countless times, most recently here. The arguments I provided there still stand, as does the proposal that someone prepares a draft. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.Your argument seems to be that because no other army has a criticism section then the IDF do not need one as well.One of your other points was finding IDF policy. They of course act on orders and if they do something wrong then they are to be held accountable, that was proven at the end of WW2 as stated in the Nuremberg Principles, so we do not need to wade through IDF policy at all.I would think that it would be better that all other army articles including the IDF get a criticism section and then they will all be equal and the article will be more balanced and reflect reality.The IDF like other armies have been criticized and your link has one editor stating that.So at the moment we still have an IDF article that is just a POV with no criticism of it before I added the piece on human shields.I will be looking into the other armies as well.A proper encyclopedia would have the bad and the good to be balanced of course.Having a new section would improve Wikipedia.You brought up the Russian army in your link.I was just looking at their page here [9]and there is a pretty big section criticizing corruption. Owain the 1st (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said before (again, on more than one occasion—I urge you to read the archived discussions before repeating everything that's been said), I don't oppose a criticism section in principle. However, if you would like to write one, you should post it here before making it live. This way enough editors can comment and list their concerns, without having to go into edit warring and conflict. I can already foresee the criticism I will have of the draft, but do not wish to poison the well, so please go ahead with the draft.

Regarding the Russian army, that's exactly the thing—they have a section on internal problems, which is obviously related only to the army and not other bodies. It would actually be interesting to have such a section for the IDF. However, for external problems you can't pin most of them on the IDF (as some would like), which follows the policies of the government and defense ministry.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I will work on a draft and post it here when I have time.As I have already stated in international law under the Nuremberg Principles the IDF are responsible for the actions they take and it does not matter if they follow policy of the government and defense ministry.What you are trying to put forward is the argument that Nazis used after WW2 and it did not work then either.Anyway thank you for the input.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)