Talk:Bar Refaeli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Fashion (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

link leads to trojan/virus - -[edit]

Hello, I'm getting a trojan/virus warning when visiting the website It doesn't happen every time but it happened twice and it is obvious that the advertiser on the top of the page tries to download something onto my PC. We kindly ask administrators to check this issue as soon as possible! Modi9182 08:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Can someone find a better picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:36, 22 February 2008

I believe a newer picture would be more appropriate. We shall find an interesting one shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abiramis (talkcontribs) 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing the pictures. If it's free, Wikipedia can use it. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest using a picture of where she is not 18 years old but 24? The picture of the IMDB for example? It's been a year since someone else last requested this (see above) and it's still the same picture. 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
The photos on IMDb are likely not under free use licenses, so they're not usable here. I'm no photo guru though so I won't go into what there is to do about this. But on the bright side, the current pic (which I've always had doubts about in terms of whether it really is free-use, as it looks like a professional headshot) is a whole lot better than what some other articles have (and have had for a long time).  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be better to remove this picture immediately while a more suitable picture is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

this is the best picture u could find?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

She needs a better picture. She is one of the most beautiful women in the world and this is the best shot you have of her?-- (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft issue[edit]

Refaeli's draft evasion story is a rather prominent issue in the Hebrew version of her entry. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in the English version? Or is it only relevant to the Israeli crowd who read the Hebrew version? (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read Tax avoidance and tax evasion to improve your dictionary on the difference between avoidance and evasion before you risk libel a living person. - (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering that this issue was covered by notable sources and that Bar was interviewed on the issue, it has enough encyclopedic merit for inclusion in the article. And using the word "evade" can hardly be construed as libel. Mbinebri (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad you ignore the aforementioned article. I'd say casually claiming a (living) person is a criminal is pretty much the defintion of libel, both in general and according to Wikipedia's rules. - (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The draft issue content in the personal life section is worded carefully to maintain a neutral POV and cited using articles from Israel's most widely-read newspaper; there is nothing casual about it and no claim that Refaeli did anything illegal is made. Furthermore, Wiki's libel policy hinges on defamation, which requires the claim to be false. If you don't like that the section contains info that can be construed as negative, I'll direct you to Wiki's BLP policy that If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. The content in question meets these criteria and the section as a whole has had several contributors, none of whom has raised any concerns of breached policy.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What are we discussing here? From what I can tell, no one has suggested here we remove the section on the draft controversy. You are just assuming that for no apparent reason. One or two anons (not sure if the anons above are the same person) have objected to referring to her actions as draft evasion as this is potentially libellious as under some definitions it implies her actions were illegal and she is therefore a criminal, with the (first?) anon going as far as to provide a link which explained why. The term 'draft avoidance', which does not, would be preferred. As it stands now, we don't use either term in the article so that is fine as well so this isn't a discussion about the article as it stands. And I would concur with the anons that using the term draft evasion would likely violate our BLP policy based on the potential criminal connotations regardless of whether or not it is libellious (note that BLP requires us to go beyond simply avoiding libel). Note that sourcing is an important issue here. Even if one or two sources use the term draft evasion or similar, we would need sources which suggest she actually broke the law, since anything else may just be inaccurate or differential use of terminology. This is particularly important in a BLP where as you have already conceded, something has to be well sourced so it is simply unacceptable to imply someone was a criminal, when the source may not have meant to imply that but instead was just using terms loosely or did not appreciate the potential implication (or simply didn't care). Also, while we tend to hold lesser standards on talk pages, it is still important they comply with BLP so suggesting she was involved in draft evasion in this talk page or any other wikipedia page (whether about her or anyone else whether Israeli, American, Iranian, South Korean, North Korean or whatever) is not really any more acceptable and it would be nice if you could drop the term, as you have been asked by one or two anons already and I am now asking you to do as well. The reason BTW if your still confused was provided to you nearly a year ago and I've provided it earlier on and if you're still confused, saying she was involved in draft evasion has the implication in some areas of implying that what she did was a criminal act and therefore should not be used in a BLP including talk pages unless your absolutely sure that the term is applicable, e.g. the person was tried and convinced). And just for completeness sake, let me also repeat yet again that the term 'draft avoidance' which it seems to me conveys all that is necessary to convey in this circumstance does not carry the criminal connotations and therefore is a much better term to use if you have to use something. Incidentally your somewhat irrelevant diatribe doesn't seem to address this any of this at all and instead mostly discusses issues no one else seemed interested in discussing, I don't know whether you didn't read what was written or decided to ignore it or whatever but let me repeat the key point no one has suggested we remove the section in this discussion. Unfortunately the unacceptable terminology was there when the second? anon raised the point [1] and I'm guessing it was there since before the first? anon raised the point so goodness knows how long this BLP violating term was used despite two? users pointing out it was unacceptable simply because you for whatever reason choose to ignore the simple message mentioning the term was unacceptable with a link explaining why. Now if you genuinely still feel that there is merit to call her actions 'draft evasion' in the article or in the talk page, then I suggest we take this to WP:BLP/N. If not, then I suggest we let this issue drop since as I've stated, the only thing you seem to keep repeating is that the current section should not be removed even though no one has suggested we remove it in this discussion. P.S. Draft dodger is probably a better article re: this issue then Tax avoidance and tax evasion although I think either is enough to establish that calling it draft 'evasion' should be avoided whenever possible Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While I admit that Bar's actual comments were not very flattering to her, she did indeed say it, and she can be quoted to say what she said, and it can be sourced. It may not be favorable, but that is not hte point of Wikipedia. Whippletheduck (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I remember in previous edition, that it had an sourced interview where Bar made a comment that was certainly not favorable to her, but it was sourceable and I think that is where the haters are coming from. If she REALLY made the comment she made, and it can be verified, then it should be put back in the article, even if it makes her look bad. They want a similar statement where Megan Fox made a VERY ridiculous statement out of her article, almost entirely on the grounds that it makes her look bad. If a celebrity speaks, and it is recorded and written up on, it should remain. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bar Refaeli's mother[edit]

Article does not mention that Bar Refaeli's mother Tsipi manages her daughter's career, that she was a former Israeli model and actress herself, and her experience played a major role in furthering Bar's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC) links[edit]

This and other Wikipedias in other languages have been relentlessly spammed by anonymous IPs based in Israel (where the domain is registered) for many months. It's gotten sufficiently bad as to warrant addition to the spam blacklist and I have removed a number of these links in anticipation of blacklisting:

Most, but not all, had been added by the site-owner.

If an established, high-volume editor sees value to the specific link I deleted from this article, please let me know and it can be evaluated for addition to the spam "whitelist"
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life[edit]

I'm kind of surprised to find the article didn't contain a "Personal Life" section, considering that the majority of the press Bar gets is about her relationships (which makes it relevant to the article), so I added it. As with the "Controversy" section, everything is cited and uses a neutral POV, so hopefully there won't be any bickering as happens in other model threads when it gets into their personal lives. Mbinebri (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to state your "facts". Anyway, her personal life is now covered as a neutral section. - (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see how I'm using Wiki as a forum or how I'm asserting things to be facts when they're not. And the personal life section has been neutral for a long time now. I have to say though, between this and the draft issue section, you seem to be taking a rather unnecessarily hostile approach to this.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information?[edit]

It seems to me that some of the info in the article is irrelevant (or given too much emphasis) for an encyclopedic entry, such as who interviewed Bar for what magazine and that there were photos in the article. Listing what events Bar has attended seems pointless as well, nor do the examples given demonstrate philanthropy. Unless someone strongly objects, I can go through and delete some things and streamline others so that the article might feel a little more balanced. Mbinebri (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Refaeli? Rafaeli?[edit]

I just realized that I spelled her last name as Rafaeli and did ctrl + F to fix my typos. However, it seems like legitimate newspapers such as Haaretz and Jerusalem Post also spell her surname as "Rafaeli." hmm мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Only sometimes. The source of the confusion is that there is no difference in the Hebrew spelling between 'a' and 'e'. McKay (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

That cover photo looks as if she had a boob job. True? If so, she did not deserve to be there, and I don't care what anyone thinks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether she has implants or not, and your opinion on the matter, are not relevant issues to the article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In a biography of a model it is obvious a relevant issue. But a reliable source is needed. McKay (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are being diplomatic with your words Mr McKay, we both know (and so does anyone with eyes) full well that she has breast implants, and we both also know that it would be difficult to find Wikigitimate references that support the supposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources: no WP:RS, no controversial claims about a living person's breasts :) Erik9 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Though if you do wish to engage in original research about celebrities, there are many (far less reputable) websites willing to publish it. What we won't do is launder tabloid-type speculations and present them as encyclopedia articles about living people. Erik9 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tribute song[edit]

Just to explain further for my removal... Saying this song has to be recognized in Bar's article because Gisele Bundchen has her own sub-section on a tribute song isn't a valid argument: the circumstances are nowhere near the same. The Gisele song has two secondary sources in regards to it (which makes it notable), has been recognized by Gisele herself, is used on her website (which makes it relevant), and was recorded by a professional recording artist with individual hits on Brazilian news sites. Whereas the band "Leo & The Kings" brings up no Google search results whatsoever besides hits to this Wiki page and a mirror site, so there is nothing to show this band is notable or that their song is. Its inclusion in the article is simply an obvious attempt at promotion, especially considering its addition to the article is the only editing the IP user has done on Wikipedia. If this doesn't end the matter, I'll be happy to take it to dispute resolution.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue detail[edit]

I just reverted a few edits by a pair of editors, but this'll take a little more explanation than what I can give in an edit summary. First, the controversy over Refaeli's image on the plane is minor. Some conservative group or another is always going to raise some concern like this, and I see no real reason for it to be included - especially if the response to it is accusations of antisemitism via more undue detail. If this is what we're going to get into, it's better to just leave the claim out entirely.

Second, although I already said this in my previous edit summary, the extended info on Israeli army duties is unnecessary. As WP:UNDUE states, the amount of detail an incident is given in an article should be proportionate to its importance to the subject. Considering the "draft-evasion" incident already has more article space than her work for SI (which is vastly more important), the proportion line has probably already been crossed. There is no need for more info on it - even if it's "context." If people want to know more, perhaps an external link to a more detailed explanation would be warranted, but the detail does not belong in the article itself; and even if it's only a two-to-one consensus, the consensus supports the detail/context being kept out.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:UNDUE, I removed some of the detail from the draft issue - mainly the quotes - so the depth of detail is proportionate.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason to include the right-wing group's criticism is that models don't routinely get involved in disputes like this. We wouldn't need to include every right-wing criticism in, say, a liberal politician's bio, but for a model it's notable. One sentence about it isn't undue weight. I do agree with you, however, about the excess detail. To turn this into a back-and-forth about whether Southwest Airlines exhibited good taste would be getting too far afield from Refaeli's bio. Some readers might want to know more about the source of the criticism, the American Family Association -- but that's what wikilinks are for. The information about alleged anti-Semitism by the AFA should definitely be included in the AFA article if it's not already there. JamesMLane t c 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE should not be defined by a naive quantification of the number of column inches devoted to certain subject matter, if the effect is to omit important contextual information, thereby portraying a living person in an unjustifiably negative light. Per WP:BLP

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Therefore, it is unjustifiable in the extreme to mention inflammatory accusations by the American Family Association against a Jewish model, sourced solely on the AFA's own website, characterizing an image of Refaeli in attire no more immodest than the swimwear worn by millions of women on American beaches, as "pornography", while carefully suppressing the AFA's unwholesome history of antisemitic propaganda, much of which blames Jews for the promotion of sexually provocative material and other content which the AFA hates. Likewise, we should not cover the fuss over Refaeli's lack of military service, while squelching the very reasons that a controversy could occur over this issue:
  1. Israel is the only nation in the world which conscripts women
  2. The Israel Defense Forces assigns conscripted women to combatant duties which places them directly in the line of enemy fire, and subjects them to the significant possibility of being captured by the enemy, who is far more likely to sexually assault them than male prisoners of war.
Wikipedia may discuss issues raised in the first instance by the antisemitic bigots at the American Family Association, the unscrupulous tabloid publishers of Yedioth Ahronoth (which created the fuss over Refaeli's lack of military service, and which we are currently utilizing as the sole source concerning it), or similarly unwholesome characters, but we should not sink to their level of gutter journalism. Erik9 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
My issues are currently this: #1. I don't see why One Million Dads denouncing Southwest's use of Refaeli's image on a plane is specifically notable unless a secondary source has pointed it out. #2. Their criticism isn't directed at Refaeli - it's directed at Southwest Airlines. And #3. The page that's used as a ref does not make a point of Refaeli being Jewish, so inserting info on the AFA's supposed antisemitism spins this into a religious issue when the only evidence we have is that it's a pornographic one.
That said, here's my solution: the OMD site is mostly just a copy-and-paste from this news item, so I've removed the mention of OMD (thereby skirting any religious issues associated with the AFA) and replaced the text by generically mentioning the soft porn criticism. Therefore, the criticism remains but with no religious issues to worry about.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with both of you about the Southwest controversy.
1. The anti-Semitism thing is a red herring. This isn't an "accusation" against Refaeli, such that the possible bias of the accuser might be relevant (model So-and-so alleged that Refaeli had slept with her husband; model So-and-so is competing with Refaeli for jobs). Here, no one doubts that Refaeli posed for the picture. Instead, this is an opinion about Refaeli's image. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about prominent opinions. Some readers might want to know if the AFA opinion is likely motivated by an absurdly restrictive position concerning images of the human body, or by anti-Semitism, or by the desire to latch onto an issue that will enable AFA to get its members in a lather and extract more money from them. That dispute, however, concerns AFA, not Refaeli. Readers who want to know more about where AFA is coming from can go to the AFA article. If the Refaeli bio article were to veer off to attacking AFA for anti-Semitism, then, to be fair, it would also have to include the other side of the question, i.e., defenses offered by AFA and its supporters to show that it's not anti-Semitic. By that time we've gone way too far afield from Bar Refaeli's bio.
2. The problem with including only the FNC link is that, as one would expect from Fox, it distorts the news to further a right-wing agenda. The Fox piece says, "The airline has received a flood of criticism...." This implies a spontaneous grassroots groundswell of concern. In fact, however, we know, from the AFA home page, that this outrage has been carefully orchestrated and pumped up. It's more informative to our readers to report the AFA opinion than to leave a false impression about how that opinion came to be reflected in a lot of posts on the Southwest website.
If Mbinebri doesn't want to report the facts about the AFA opinion, or if Erik9 won't allow the report to stay in unless there's also a completely tangential and one-sided denunciation of the AFA, then we might as well just drop the subject entirely. I think it would be a shame to deprive our readers of the interesting turn in this model's career, that her image provoked this response from a conservative religious group, but omitting it completely would be better than this version (leaving a false impression) or this version (attacking the AFA). JamesMLane t c 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the IDF controversy, Erik9 says we should avoid "squelching the very reasons that a controversy could occur over this issue...." I see no indication that this whole sidetrack about IDF policies is such a reason, however. Has anyone prominent expressed an opinion like, "It's a good thing Bar Refaeli avoided military service, given the IDF's bad policy about women in combat"? If that opinion's been expressed, it could be considered for inclusion. Otherwise, dragging in a more general debate about IDF policies violates WP:NOR. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Fox News Channel is considered a reliable source per our standards. The mere presence of right-wing political bias does not render them unreliable, any more than The New York Times or Haaretz are considered unreliable on account of their left-wing leanings. Indeed, if we were to consider all sources which did not maintain a policy of strict neutrality on political questions to be unreliable, we would have few sources remaining. For a source to be unreliable solely on account of their political bias requires more than the presence of bias: it requires that the bias be so strong as to prevent responsible journalism. On the other hand, tabloids such as Yedioth Ahronoth are considered unreliable not because of their political proclivities, but because of their excessive focus on the exploitation of provocative subject matter to increase their circulation (Wolfsfeld, G. (1997) Media and Political Conflict ISBN 0521589673, page 96) Given that Fox News Channel is considered to be a reliable source, their reporting (which apparently predates the AFA's web posting) is acceptable for inclusion in the article. It might appear that the complaining passengers are excessively prudish and/or have never visited an American beach; however, we have no sources to support the claim.
With regard to the controversy over Refaeli's lack of military service, the mere inclusion of sourced, relevant background material does not amount to original research. Per WP:NOR, collection of relevant information in an article, including background information needed for context, is acceptable:

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

The determination of source relevancy is not itself considered to be original research, provided that all statements in the article assert no more than directly supported by the sources, without any novel synthesis. So, since we have sources for the claims that Bar Refaeli married in a manner which avoided conscription [2], that Israel is the only nation that compels women to perform military service [3], that Israel assigns women to direct combatant duties [4], and that IDF commanders have historically considered the practice of assigning women to combatant duties to be immoral due to the hightened risk of sexual assault that women would face if captured by the enemy [5], we may legitimately make all of these claims in the article. Original research is only created when one advances a claim not directly supported by the sources cited, through a novel synthesis. For instance, if I wrote, in the text of the article, "Bar Refaeli's avoidance of military service which might result in her being assigned direct combatant duties was reasonable in light of the heightened risk of sexual assault that she would face if captured by the enemy", this would constitute original research (and violate WP:NPOV to boot by asserting an opinion such as "was reasonable" as a fact). But merely stating the relevant facts directly supported by the sources cited, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, is exactly what compliance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV is all about. Erik9 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the added claims to be "OR", but I do consider them an unnecessary tangent/detail, no matter the presence of sources or not. As Saranghae said in her edit summary: this article is about bar rafaeli; specific information about idf's practices is unneccessary). I agree - if people want to know more, they can read about it in an article where the content is better-suited; it seems JamesMLane agrees with the content's removal for his own reasons. While I won't remove anything for right now (questionably 3RR issues here), I see no reason to not accept the content's removal as the current consensus.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The information about the IDF's conscription practices isn't included in the article to satisfy the reader's curiosity -- it's there to provide the essential context in which Refaeli's avoidance of the draft occurred. As describing the controversy over Refaeli's lack of military service while omitting key contextual information has the effect of portraying her in an unwarrantedly negative light, inconsistent with WP:BLP, it makes little sense to provide the background information only to readers who search it out. Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The OR here is your assertion that various facts you've dug up, and that you personally think are important, are "key contextual information" about Refaeli. Has anyone else drawn a connection? Does any prominent spokesperson opine that those facts are key in the context of the Refaeli controversy?
Suppose another editor comes along and says, "Key contextual information is that Israel is surrounded by bitter and violent enemies who have sworn to drive her into the sea and destroy the Jewish state, and that those enemies greatly outnumber the people of Israel, and that the IDF therefore needs every able-bodied person it can get, even supermodels." Another editor adds, "Israel is the only country in the world that has conscription and doesn't discriminate against men in doing so. In Israel, the sexes havefull equality under the law in all respects, as to burdens and benefits, with no special privileges accorded to men to compensate for any additional burden that might be placed on them." (I don't know if this is true; it's just a hypothetical.) Someone might reasonably see any or all of those points as being part of the context, as well. We would end up giving the pros and cons of whatever debates go on in Israel about whether to have conscription, whether to include women, and whether to limit the duties performed by women in the IDF. That's getting way too tangential for this article. None of it would belong here unless some prominent spokesperson raised any such concern with specific reference to Refaeli.
As for the airplane, I agree with you that, under current Wikipedia standards, FNC is considered a reliable source for most purposes. I didn't say that we lacked adequate sourcing for the assertion that Southwest received many complaints. There's a difference between saying "We can't report something Fox says" (which isn't our policy) and "We can report something Fox omits" (which certainly is our policy). We can report that there was an organized effort to incite complaints. We also aren't restricted to aping Fox's news judgment. We can report encyclopedic facts even if they don't fit Fox's agenda. The AFA campaign is one such fact. From the point of view of the Refaeli bio, that the AFA used her image as the basis for this effort is actually more interesting than reporting how many people emailed Southwest, although I don't object to the inclusion of the Fox report if you want to add it. JamesMLane t c 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The editorial determination of content relevancy does not constitute original research: the construction of articles would be stifled if we required sources not only for the facts presented, but also to establish that the facts were sufficiently important for inclusion in the article. Furthermore, while a hypothetical presentation of "both sides" of the female conscription/combat service issue might prove excessively long for inclusion in this article, per WP:VER we are limited to presenting material published by reliable sources -- we are not required to supply arguments not actually supported by acceptable sources in search of an imaginary balance. A reliable source (a historian employed by the IDF itself, acting in his official capacity) has stated that IDF commanders have historically considered the practice of assigning women to combatant duties to be immoral due to the hightened risk of sexual assault that women would face if captured by the enemy [6]. However, it appears, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that no reliable source has published any arguments refuting the IDF commanders' historical position (for instance, by claiming that female prisoners of war are at no greater risk of harm than males, or that while female prisoners would be at greater risk, assigning women to combat duties is moral anyway). Since, per WP:VER, we cannot provide arguments that reliable sources don't make, we should not exclude the IDF commanders' historical views of the situation based on the hypothetical length of a description of a potential contrary position for which we have no reliable sources.
With regard to the Fox News/AFA situation, it appears that the Fox article precedes the AFA's web post, since the latter expressly cites the former (though it is possible that the AFA's web post was altered after its initial publication). For us to claim, in this context, that the AFA actually stirred up the controversy, rather than simply following the initial complaining passengers' lead, and is substantially responsible for the passenger complaints that Fox News reported (that is, that the Fox News reporting is false, insofar as what it reported as passenger complaints were actually complaints by non-passenger AFA members rallied for the purpose) is original research, unless we have a reliable source to support the assertion. Erik9 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it would be quite easy to formulate arguments against the historical IDF commanders. For instance, it could be claimed that the exclusion of women from combat roles places men at greater risk of bodily harm, and is therefore no less inequitable than if women were to be placed at the greater risk by serving as combatants. Alternatively, it could be argued that Israel's pressing need for a strong and highly effective national defense in the face of surrounding hostile nations outweighs its citizens' interest in the strictly equal distribution of the danger inherent in military service. It could be said that, while individual variations in martial skill affect the risk of direct combatant service, IDF soldiers aren't treated differently on such a basis, so there would be no justification for the special accomidation only of those differences in combat risk arising from gender, and not from other factors. In the absence of reliable sources, however, all of these arguments are solidly in original research territory, and are completely unacceptable for inclusion in the text of the article. No basis for the exclusion of a reliably sourced argument against female combatant service arises from the length of the unsourced original research that could potentially be marshaled against it. Erik9 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we shouldn't assert that the AFA stirred up the controversy, or that Fox erred in implying that all those complaining were passengers. I never argued for any such statement in the article. All I said was that we should inform our readers of the fact of the AFA's criticism of the image and of AFA's call for protests to be made to Southwest. I specifically said that I had no objection to including the Fox report. (My first edit included a link to the Fox subpage that had additional photos of the jet, and I still think that's a useful link.)
As for the IDF, yes, we make judgments about importance, but here there is AFAIK no reliable source whatsoever that asserts a connection between the women-in-combat issue and Refaeli's marriage. You personally think it's an important context. Someone else could certainly find reliable sources for the assertion that Israel is greatly outnumbered by its enemies, and could assert, with as much validity as you, that that fact is a key part of the context of an Israeli who escapes the conscription requirement. Would some readers conclude, "It was reasonable for Refaeli to stay out of the IDF, given her exposure to danger as a woman"? Would others conclude, "It was unreasonable for Refaeli to sty out of the IDF, given Israel's heightened need for soliders"? Sure, some might, but this is all too tangential here. JamesMLane t c 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia for months, so I can't completely grasp the debate going on here. It does seem like the debate surrounds whether to include the sentences regarding Israeli practice of drafting women. I agree with Mbinebri that the portion places excessive emphasis on Israeli government's practice when the article should be faithful to the subject who is Bar Refaeli in this case. It also compromises the neutrality that the article should maintain, if you haven't noticed that the portion skews the article towards Refaeli's favor. A concise mention that Refaeli dodged the draft will suffice; the reader can decide whether her action was just. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The actual quote she gives against wars, unfortunately, she did indeed say it, and that is not right or left wing (there are probably a lot of left wing groups that would applaud her comments), to be quite honest, what a comment "means" is not the point of wikipedia. She said it, it can be verified, for an article as short as this, it does not harm it. Remember, we are not here to make edits that are favorable or unfavorable to Mrs Rafeli. We are here to post accurate, truthfull, sourced/verified information and her comment she made, regardless of what you think of it, meets wikipedia standards. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I reverted several edits that hurt the article more than helped it. As I alluded to in my edit summary, the controversy regarding Refaeli's photo on a plane is not what she is most notable for, which is what the lead is reserved for. That is just one news-worthy item of her career and it was more suitably placed where it was before. The editor also changed several references into in-line external links. If you want to change a ref to a new source, please keep read WP:CITE and keep it as a ref. Other changes appeared to be superficial formatting changes (to paragraph breaks, for example). A few other things were somewhat inexplicable, like adding "Official site" to the official site spot in the infobox when the infobox already clearly labels it as such, and also removing the "Jewish actors" category when Refaeli is verifiably an actor and I'm assuming Jewish.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First Israeli SI model??[edit]

Although there are sources claiming Bar was the first Israeli model to appear in the pages of SI swimsuit Issue, that's false - Michaela Bercu is the first Israeli model to appear in SI swimsuit Issue.-- (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Which picture[edit]

Avaya believes that we have to have a headshot in the infobox rather than the shot that was previously there. I can't imagine this is dictated by policy, but because I don't feel like researching it, I'll assume for the sake of argument that some guideline prefers a headshot. But even if that's so, it can be overrided by consensus. The headshot is from eight years ago when she was 18. It's awful - for a model or for an actress. It has funny tones to it, and it makes her look like a schoolgirl. The other picture (now moved down - the two were swapped by Avaya) is from when she was about 22, it's elegant, it shows her head pointed toward the camera, and is quite decent to look at. So, we have a picture that is more recent and looks far better, and we're going to sacrifice that for a lousy picture just because it doesn't include all of her body (it's not just a headshot, btw)? I don't usually get involved in picture discussions because I generally don't care much one way or the other (unless it's a copyright issue), but this seems to be some sort of strict adhesion to a guideline when common sense should prevail. Anyway, I'll leave Avaya's preference in unless there's a consensus to override it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bbb23. I've always been under the impression it's better to use the more recent photo of a subject, as long as it's a good one, which I think the Cannes film festival photo is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Generally, having a frontal headshot is preferable for an infobox, especially in the case of a model or actor. Having a frontal and professional one like we have here (taken without makeup) is surely the ideal for an encyclopedia. I don't understand the argument against, because we only have two images, and the Cannes photo is perfect for placement next to the film section. I think it makes the article look more professional having a Cannes photo next to the film subsection. As for recency, we are talking about two photos both of which are going to be in the article either way, and they're only four years apart. Avaya1 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the photo when she was 18 looks professional at all. It looks downright weird. Four years apart is a large difference for someone her age.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a studio photo. The angle of the camera's not completely straight on, but it's basically a professional headshot. I understand the recency argument, but I don't think the four years is significant (the photo in my passport is ten years old and it still identifies me), and the obvious choice is to use a headshot for the infobox and a Cannes photo for the film section (it illustrates her in relation to the film industry). I think the one problem is that the Cannes photo is pushing the Personal Life heading to the right - but I think we can fix that by expanding the film section. I think the image placement in the article is now really professional looking. Avaya1 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


"Her relationship with DiCaprio caused one nationalist Israeli organization to send her a letter, later leaked to the press,[36] in which she was asked, for the sake of "future generations of Jews", not to marry a "non-Jew", a request similar to the one made to Israeli 1998 Miss World winner Linor Abargil, a few years previously.[37]"

Is it really fair to call this group "nationalist"? It's obviously a religious group, they didn't make mention of the fact that DiCaprio isn't an Israeli citizen (there are many Israeli citizens who are not Jews and many Jews who are not Israeli citizens) or that he doesn't speak Hebrew (again, many Hebreophones who are not Jews and many Jews who are not Hebreophones)?