::Agreed. Also with "I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value." And with the RfC opener's general issues with these three in particular. But that doesn't translate into a ban on the image source. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. Also with "I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value." And with the RfC opener's general issues with these three in particular. But that doesn't translate into a ban on the image source. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::True - but it's not just those three images... I've been trying to figure out exactly what/how to describe the photos I take issue with and it is pretty much "soldier aiming down gun at nothing" type of photo. I think using IDF photos are fine for vehicles/dress uniform type imagery but there are so many photos of "drills" that I think some are redundant and others could utilize actual combat images that are from journalists or civilians. I don't want to hold a trial for every image so maybe tomorrow I will go through and bebold. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::True - but it's not just those three images... I've been trying to figure out exactly what/how to describe the photos I take issue with and it is pretty much "soldier aiming down gun at nothing" type of photo. I think using IDF photos are fine for vehicles/dress uniform type imagery but there are so many photos of "drills" that I think some are redundant and others could utilize actual combat images that are from journalists or civilians. I don't want to hold a trial for every image so maybe tomorrow I will go through and bebold. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with OP. These seem to be training/recruiting photos. [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IDF’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians reduces it to…
Hi, I have a question: What is the main goal of a terrorist organisation? To terrorize people so they turn against their state and by doing so supposedly achieve their goals. Isn’t that what the IDF is doing by bombing Gaza indiscriminately and hoping that the people turn against Hamas? So IDF has reduced itself to a terrorist organisation, right? Please change the article accordingly. Thank you! 176.237.52.74 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, but we do not based article content on the original research of users. See MOS:TERRORIST. If you have independent reliable sources (and a lot of them) that say the IDF is a terrorist organization, please offer them. Note that we don't say Hamas is a terrorist organization for the same reason(though we note which countries do). 331dot (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2hospitals
But is not the indiscriminately killing of civilians, targetting hospitals and blasting of whole housing blocks all the evidence a human rights court might need to prove that the IDF is acting like a terrorist organization? And does not punishing a whole people prove that Israel is acting like a terrorist nation?
You've been told why. Also, Wikipedia is not a human rights court and doesn't decide for said courts what is or is not evidence. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, leaving aside any mention of the courts, does not the human rights outrages carried out by the IDF strongly indicate that Israel is acting like a terrorist state?
P.S: Is the needless undertone to your reply an attempt to shut down unwelcome debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.214 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not for debate on subjects to begin with. We cannot put content into articles except that which is covered in reliable sources, and we cannot make our own conclusions not specifically stated in said sources. This was already all stated by 331dot but you ignored it. This isn't a debate. If you want to have a debate, there are many other websites catered to that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, if you want people to use the 'Talk' page to help make an article 'the best it can be' - why prevent them from getting involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.4 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is, but doing so can only be done within the rules of this website. What you are suggesting violates the rules of this website, so you are being told "no" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there not a human rights violation or war crimes section?
It does not seem difficult to surfance trivial evidence of this. 69.249.205.180 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the "see also" section, and you will note that there is an entire article dedicated to the subject. It does not need to be duplicated here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is the page Israeli war crimes, but I do think a section on this article about IDF war crimes and criticism would be reasonable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is one good example of undue weight section. And all content if relevant should be included in the body of the article and not to create undue weight sections.178.222.28.123 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ENGVAR, an article clearly about a single significantly-Anglophone country/culture should use their conventions, or else retain a consistent style of English. Per Languages of Israel § English and online anecdotes it would seem that in Israel nowadays American English spelling and accents have displaced those of British English, although there are some usage exceptions. I can't find at a glance any official or unofficial documentation of modern Israeli English conventions. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Israel wants to weigh in? Meanwhile the American spelling is "defense", and the house style of say the Times of Israel is "defense" (but their copy editors seem to be inconsistent in enforcing this, like with this AFP story they bought). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFC Removing photography taken and published by the IDF
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
I feel like using photography published and distributed by the IDF from their Flickr is not really the purpose of Wikipedia and does not really feel NPOV to me - what do other Wikipedians think about removing these images and replacing them with other creative commons images? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Saw notice at WP:NPOVN) I think it depends on each specific image, how it's used in an article. and whether there is a better alternative available in each instance. Schazjmd(talk) 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they tend to all have some kind of light vignette filter and/or a portrait blur. additionally, I don't know how many "action" images we need especially when those action images are produced by the armed forces rather than a journalist.
my concern is specifically images like these rather than images of equipment or vehicles specifically:
On the technical aspects: while I do perceive a vignette on the smaller versions of the first two images, when looking at the enlarged versions it is more likely just darker objects at some of the corners; the background blur is likely just a shallow depth of field, produced by a larger aperture lens, rather than an effect (e.g. from the EXIF data, the third image is shot at 50mm (75mm full frame equivalent) f2.2, which would be expected to produce this type of blur). Rotary Enginetalk 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value. But that's just my opinion as a reader. I'm not familiar with this article's history or how it came to this state. Schazjmd(talk) 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that they are duplicitous. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the numbers of images is probably more than is necessary, and more than is useful to the reader. Rotary Enginetalk 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on use in context, per Schazjmd. Oppose a blanket ban. No objection to the removal or replacement of some images. Rotary Enginetalk 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also with "I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value." And with the RfC opener's general issues with these three in particular. But that doesn't translate into a ban on the image source. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True - but it's not just those three images... I've been trying to figure out exactly what/how to describe the photos I take issue with and it is pretty much "soldier aiming down gun at nothing" type of photo. I think using IDF photos are fine for vehicles/dress uniform type imagery but there are so many photos of "drills" that I think some are redundant and others could utilize actual combat images that are from journalists or civilians. I don't want to hold a trial for every image so maybe tomorrow I will go through and bebold. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OP. These seem to be training/recruiting photos. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).
.jpg)
.jpg)
