Talk:Israel Defense Forces/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

POV of article

Egypt has announced that it will not allow any criticism of its army by the press eg http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world/middleeast/01egypt.html God, isnt that awful? Shouldn't it say how much better we are? **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 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 [1] (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, if you are another one of those perma banned socks, it would be more prudent for you to hang out on the sidelines for a few years and then began editing the I-P area. Also, when you start editing I-P articles, fancy yourself as some sort of centrist. Nobody will catch on then.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:14, 5 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 [2]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.I have started a discussion on the American armed forces page and the British armed forces page for new section there as well. Anyway thank you for the input.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not implicitly or explicitly compare the Israel Defense Forces to anything Nazi-related again. Thank you. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I was not, I was comparing your argument and stating incorrectly that I was is not a very good thing to do.Everyone can see that it was directed at your argument.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Obviously this page is not worth the effort of editing as the pro Israel editors are not interested in any factual information that criticizes Israel.They are editing this page with no good reason whatsoever but to push their political agenda.It is a shame that wikipedia allows this and it will reflect badly on it.Anyway it is not going to do the pro Israeli crowd any good as wikipedia is already known as being run by pro Israeli editors in these areas.At the end of the day all you are doing is making more people realize what Israel and its supporters are all about and that is a good thing.This kind of pushing of the Israeli line is one of the reasons that the Israeli propaganda machine is working against its aims.The falling support for Israel just goes to proves this point.So carry on the propaganda work as it is working against you not for you.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I see that there is edit warring over the human sields information and that it's been removed repeatedly. I don't have an opinion about whether this is the right place for it although it is certainly reliably sourced. Instead can I please appeal to everyone's sense of objectivity. Go to the Hamas article and search for "human shield". Ask yourself whether the rules you use to make content decisions/reverts etc are based on policy or whether they are based on which side of the conflict the belligerent happens to be on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be one rule here for the Israeli articles and one rule for the Palestinian articles.The Palestinian articles reflect what they have done criticism and all but the Israeli articles do not reflect what Israel has done, true double standards which do not benefit wikipedia at all. Funny how the people who are editing here that the human shields bit is biased without any good reason are not on the Hamas article saying the same thing.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The section which one editor is repeatedly trying to add without seeking consensus, uses wording with obvious neutrality and tone problems, such as "The IDF has a history of using human shields" in a section called "notable tactics". No attempt has been done to fairly represent the other narrative - For example, the IDF code of conduct disallows the use of human shields, and several soldiers acting against orders were tried and convicted in military courts. This is not a "notable tactic" of the IDF. I have absolutely no objection for criticism of IDF in this article as long as the wording is neutral and fair, and the tone is encyclopedic. Marokwitz (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
They do have a history of using human shields and my link to the BBC says so, it even says that the Israeli Defense minister wanted to appeal the decision of the Israeli high court because they wanted to keep using human shields.So the Israelis had a notable tactic of using human shields and that obviously was sanctioned by the government of Israel.Here you go:IDF to appeal human shield ban.The IDF code of conduct is already in the article and comes before what was the section on human shields.As for you having no problem with me criticizing Israel that has already been shown to be untrue.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As for you having no problem with me criticizing Israel: Oh, so you admit to be criticizing Israel? Last time I checked Wikipedians are supposed to be neutral. I didn't see any effort on your side to faithfully represent both sides. Marokwitz (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you ignored the evidence that I put forth as usual and then tried to change the subject.You cannot dispute what my link says and it proves your argument to be incorrect.You obviously failed to see me represent both sides but here it is Israeli point of viewOwain the 1st (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Owain is at least trying to cover the history of the tactic both pre and post it's banning by the HCJ. It also seems about as notable as an IDF tactic as it is a Hamas tactic in terms of complaints by human rights groups and the press talking about it. I think it's a lot more notable than the overseas volunteer program for example. I'm sure some compromise can be worked out eventually although I'm still not sure this is right article for it... Probably the most important thing is to stick to discussing the content (rather than all of our failings as editors) and for objection/support statements that are inconsistent with policy to be excluded from the consensus so as not to cloud the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. (multiple e/c) I have no objection to stating that the IDF code of conduct disallows use of human sheilds, and have done so in restoring the content just now. ( Does anyone have a source for that, btw? Given that the IDF opposed the law courts on this, it would seem to require one. ) But the section you object to, Marokwitz, is better cited than 90% of content on Wikipedia, and the use of human sheilds has been widely reported as a prominent tactic, regardless of the organization's official code of conduct. I don't much care for "notable tactics" as a section title, though; I've changed it to "controversial tactics". In any case, I can see no legitimate reason to expunge the content, and I've restored it, with some changes to try to accomodate concerns expressed here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that Brewcrewer almost immediately reverted my attempt at addressing the problem while joining the discussion here in only a token way. It doesn't greatly surprise me: Given what I've seen of his previous behavior on other articles he does appear to me to reflexively oppose all content that's in any way critical of Israel, regardless of how well sourced or how compliant with policy. His revert without serious discussion here seems to me to just escalate the conflict. It seems a battleground action to me, in other words, and I'd ask that he refrain from such behavior in the future.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please cease attacking me unnecessarily. My comment does not have to be a wall of text going off on seven tangents (like some editors are unfortunately wont to do) when a concise quick comment will do. Especially when the same point was expanded upon by numerous editors. I am not a big fan of pigeon-holing editors, but when you make one edit not anti-Israel, I think you will be in much better position to attack me for "reflexively oppos[ing]" criticism of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
So I suppose this means you won't be nominating me for a Pulitzer Prize? I can't tell you how disappointed I am. You're wrong, though, about the counter charge. It's true that I don't normally go out of my way to promote Israel's interests, of course; there are myriad users here who do that already. But you won't find me sitting on articles and deleting reliably sourced criticism of Hamas, or Hizbullah, or any of the IDF's usual opponents in battle, either. And in the edit you reverted I willingly added uncited text saying that the IDF has a policy against using human shields, simply on the say-so of my Israeli friends here. I have no awareness of any such policy. And if you search Broccolo's talk page you'll find that I offered to help him find an appropriate home for some content about rocket attacks that had been expunged as out of place in a certain article. He didn't respond to the offer, but I doubt you'd find many editors on the Israel side of the political divide make a correspondingly reciprocal offer re content that shows Israel in a bad light.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"you won't find me sitting on articles and deleting reliably sourced criticism of Hamas, or Hizbullah, or any of the IDF's usual opponents in battle, either" The only problem is you made this only a few days ago. Palestinian political violence is unconnected to terrorism. Amazing. So not only are you sitting on P articles and deleting anything that may look derogatory to the P cause you are sitting on I articles and adding anything that may look derogatory to the I cause. I usually don't get involved in these types of time-wasting unencyclopedic schoolyard games, and probably won't be dragged further into this, but when the hypocrisy is so blatantly horrible I feel like I have to respond to your unprovoked personal attacks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
For someone who says he's opposed to personal attacks, "schoolyard games" isn't going to win you any prizes for civility. Yes, I deleted the terrorism sidebar and gory picture, placed by Someone35. You evidently missed his immediately preceding edit, in which he removed that same tag from Zionist political violence, which article is poor, thin, shabby stuff, btw, relative to the accusations gleefully added in living color to the Palestinian article.
Neither or both should be so-tagged: Your support for his edit to Palestinian political violence categorizes any act of armed resistance to the illegal occupation of Palestine and blockade of Gaza as terrorism. If you want to say the same thing about all articles dealing with armed conflict between Israel and her neighbors, that would be something we could talk about. But take any additional criticism you'd like to offer to my talk page, please. This page is for the IDF article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
If this page of for discussing the IDF, don't initiate unprovoked personal attacks against fellow editors, especially pot-calling-kettle-black accusations. And as anyone with average intelligence will note, the desperate attempt at trying to get back into centrist mode is very transparent. Give it up. Best wishes,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I just had a look at several articles about other state militaries, and none of them have sections like the ones proposed and included here. There are articles about specific incidents or wars, but nothing like "controversial tactics" or the "human rights violations" or the other stuff people are trying to put in this article. This is not a big surprise, but I thought I'd just put it out there for the record. Now I guess someone will tell me Israel is a "special case" again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have already started a discussion on the American and the British military article asking for views on including one and asking for all other military articles to include one as well, we cannot have to Israelis left out now can we? The American one already has had a discussion on it and the view there is that it should be included but that was a while ago and no one has done anything but I will get around to that as well as the British one.Why don't you go start it if you are so concerned? Owain the 1st (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's nice that you wrote a couple of lines on the talk pages of those two articles, while you added several paragraphs of text without prior discussion here. I eagerly await to see if the text you put in those articles sticks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I am following the advice posted here.Wikipedia:Be bold.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Do let us know how your being bold works out for you at, say, US Armed Forces. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I submit in agreeance with the numerous editors above who have raised concerns regarding the UNDUE nature of the proposed addition.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just reverted a well sourced section that includes the Israeli point of view for no good reason at all.This just goes to show the points I was making in my comment above.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment The German and Vietnamese wikipedia certainly do not think it is a problem having criticism of the military on them as shown here [3],Tội ác[4], the Vietnamese one has a summary and then a link to another page covering the subject.The German wikipedia also has a criticism section on the IDF as well (Kritik)[5] as does the French one [6].If they have them then I can see no good reason why they cannot be in this one.It is also in the Spanish wikipedia as well [7] Owain the 1st (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Which policy is that based on, again? You'll probably have a better argument if you successfully add some criticism to another article about a state military in en.wiki. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

<- I'm disappointed that no one advocating the removal of the information has addressed the issue of the presence of similar information in the Hamas article. I don't believe that my spelling it "human sields" invalidates the argument very much. Surely if we are going to use comparison arguments based on other articles for inclusion/exclusion decisions, the articles about the belligerents in the conflict, IDF, Hamas etc is just as good a set for comparisons as the set of national armies ? Anyway, how about moving it to the human shield article and having a simple inline link or a 'See also' link to that from some highly summarised sentence about all the novel techniques the IDF uses to legitimately defend the Land of Israel/brutally oppress displaced Jordanians or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why compare to Hamas and not to other state's military forces? The IDF and Hamas are not similar. The IDF and the US military are. I've noticed Owain inserted two lines about unspecific accusations of war crimes to that article. Compare to the amount of text in this one (not to mention the complete lack in others). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Sean's suggestion is an invitation to discussion, not a license to proceed. I'd object to such a treatment of the content, myself, as I presume the other editors who've restored the content would, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You mean you and the other editors who restored the content in contravention of WP:BRD? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is clear that stating policy that everyone of the pro Israeli editors have already broken is not a very good argument. Hamas happen to be the military of the Gaza strip so why not compare them? Their article is full of criticism and the IDF one is not, why is this?The IDF have been criticised by the UN, Red Cross, Amnesty,HRW and many other human rights organisations but we are not allowed to put any of that in their wikipedia page.Why not? It is on other foreign wikipedia sites including the German, French and Spanish ones, so what is so special about this site that it cannot be included here? I have put a criticism section on the US military article and a link to their war crimes page.I am now doing the British military one. Owain the 1st (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hamas, in case you didn't notice the first sentence of the article on the subject, is a political party (that has a military wing). That's not the same as the armed forces of a state. I've seen what you added to the end of the US armed forces article. That's two lines. One of which says they have been accused of war crimes, and one that explains what war crimes are. I wouldn't object to similar text here. What I, and other editors object to, and you and several others have been edit warring back into the article despite ongoing discussion, is a huge chunk of text that gives the issues UNDUE weight. I'm sure you've noticed the difference in size between the text you added to the US article and what you added to this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"A huge chunk of text" that huge chunk of text consists of 5 sentences which could not really be considered anywhere near a huge chunk.It certainly does not add undue weight at all, it reflects the reality of what the IDF did and do.It is factual and well sourced so I do not see what the problem is. Hamas armed forces are just the same as the Israeli armed forces except the Israelis have killed more civilians.I have not finished with the American section as yet, it needs improving.Anyway so you have no problem with a piece being put here that says that the Israeli have committed war crimes and a link to their war crimes page? That is what you are saying? Because that is what is on the American site and soon the British one. Owain the 1st (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm glad we agree. I'll fix this article in a sec. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to fix it as you cannot link to the Israeli war crimes page as for some reason it does not exist.Funny that? The US military have one but the Israeli one was deleted by the admins. Unless we get an Israeli war crimes page then we cannot come to an agreement.The British also have a war crimes page. Says it all really about wikipedia that the US and British military have one but the Israelis do not. Owain the 1st (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think what I linked to is fine. Any specific objections? And please, spare us your WP:SOAPBOXING. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have added a link to the human shields article. If that is ok then we are done here.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
What I linked to already has a section about human shields, and further reading links, but whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see that the section you added has already been deleted, so we are back to square one yet again. 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I just looked up the article for Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the United States Armed Forces and they both happen to have a criticism section. Yet neither of them has a "code of conduct" section. In fact I am certain that every military in the world has a rosy code of conduct which is used primarily for propaganda (every country has at least one line stating they do not attack civilian targets or conduct torture despite the fact that most do). So I think the argument, made several times by some editors here that no other army has a criticism section, is not only false, but totally backwards. This article's entire structure is POV in the IDF's favour. Poyani (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The more I look into this topic the worse it looks. The Hezbollah page has a list of crimes that the group has been accused of being involved in by the western media. Some of these crimes happen to have occurred before the group was founded. Yet in the IDF article, it is a battle just to state facts that are unanimously agreed on by every major international human rights organization (such as the IDF's use of human shields, of which there are even videos widely available online). Could you imagine if the IDF article followed the same guidelines as the Hezbollah article? It would include a list of crimes the IDF has been accused of committing by the Arab media.

The IDF and Hezbollah should not even be comparable on similar grounds. The IDF is the military of a state which has signed on numerous articles and conventions stating explicitly that it would not commit the crimes it is accused of committing by the human rights groups. [Owain the 1st]'s criticism section is incredibly mild. There should be absolutely no controversy over this issue. I think the editors who object to the section are misinterpreting the NPOV rule. It states that the material should represent the sources, not that there should be an equal weight given to both the Israeli perspective and the human rights groups' perspective. What some editors feel about the topic shouldn't even be relevant. The balance of articles and books written on the topic generally lean towards the direction that the IDF has committed war crimes. That is far more notable than their code of conduct or any of their particular strategies or tactics. Their page should reflect that balance instead of removing the criticism section or matching every criticism with an IDF response.Poyani (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Poyani.It seems fine for many other pages to have criticism but the IDF get none.What does that tell you? Editors here just do not want to see any real criticism of the IDF even though many of the same editors have been on the Hamas and Hizbollah pages doing exactly that.Just double standards. Owain the 1st (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
What nonsense. The US armed forces and British armed forces articles didn't have a criticism section before you added one yesterday. The Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Chinese (just to mention a few which have issues with human rights that I just checked) still don't. I suppose you just didn't get around to adding those yet. What you added to the British and US pages was objected to within a couple of hours (still missing from the British page).
Your somewhat obsessive focus on Israel is clouding your view of the fact that these type of sections are not common on articles relating to states' armed forces. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Shame you did not discuss hardly any of Poyani points.I guess you missed this one as well [8]Owain the 1st (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Revolutionary Guards?
Any idea when you'll get around to fixing the first one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I see again you have ignored Poyanis points.Why are you not on the Hisbollah and Hamas pages deleting all the criticism there?Owain the 1st (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I addressed those points when they were brought up the first time. Hizbollah and Hamas are not the same as a state's armed forces. I directly replied to you yesterday about this. I guess you forgot. On the other hand, you have failed to address a single point I made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No you never addressed them, all you did was present a weak argument. I have addressed all your points, thanks, guess you forgot about them.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, Iran's main military arm is the Revolutionary Guards, not Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose role is minor in comparison. In any event, it is not really relevant if you think that Hezbollah and Hamas are different than the IDF. A large bulk of material written about the IDF is criticism of its actions. NPOV requires that you present the written material rather than what opinions you feel are important. Removal of these sections because you feel they don't belong there, despite the relevant sources, is just your own OR. Poyani (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, I am going to reiterate my point one more time, as I think you may have missed it. Criticism of the IDF is far more notable and has far many more reliable (English) sources than, say, Minorities in the IDF or the IDF code of conduct. Poyani (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Poyani, a question if I may: What do you think about my main point of argument (all along) against a criticism section? Namely, that most of the criticism against the IDF is either directed at individual soldiers and commanders (e.g. human shields issue), or policies of the government? That point has not been addressed on this page at all, except one argument by Owain which was irrelevant and implicitly compared the IDF to Nazis, which I of course ignored.
Also, I am not convinced by your argument countering the WP:UNDUE argument. What everyone needs to remember (and this relates to the previous point) is that everything in this article must be written in the context of the subject (the Israel Defense Forces), not in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict or any other. Therefore, the fact that there are a myriad of sources discussing the conflict and criticizing the IDF as part of that, are less relevant to this article than sources that discuss the IDF itself, where I am sure you will find a much better balance. For example, the book The Sword and the Olive by Martin van Creveld (in English), which is about the IDF and includes plenty of criticism, also discusses the roles of women and minorities in-depth. This is the kind of source that needs to be pursued and weighed, not mass media articles bashing settlements and taking a jab at the IDF as an aside, etc.
Ynhockey (Talk) 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. To Owain: Since you agreed to post a draft before putting in on the actual page, please do so. Please also note that WP:BOLD does not apply to controversial edits in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict area. This was recently clarified by administrator AGK (see point #2 and others). —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
¿Pro-Israeli editors? ¡¿HERE!? This site is a recruiting center for anti-Semitic muckraking of the worst form- Pretension of “academia.” That said- The article does appear to be generally pro-Israeli, as it should be under the circumstances, though some coverage of unfortunate incidents involving the IDF should be addressed respectfully and tactfully. Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Andy REDDSON

Military Ethics of Fighting Terror

Hello -- PMFJI ; I was bold enough to revamp former « Code of Conduct against militants and Palestinian civilians » sub-section into a (deserved, IMHO) more detailed and better sourced one, about an important and debated perspective on the current IDF doctrine. Best, Ireilly (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seruv Movement is not quoted

The article´s version in other languages (e.g. German) does not only host a "critique" section but also cites the seruv-movement. As there are not many armies whose soldiers are polically organised in a way to refuse certain service (in the West Bank), this is a fact worth mentioning in Wikipedia, isn´t it? http://seruv.org.il/

Regarding any link of Antisemitism with critique of the IDF, jewish intelectuals like Moshe Zuckerman and non-jews like Slavoi Zizek have pointed out, that the best prevention of Antisemitism is a sincere political critique of Israel, while the inflationary (ab)use of Antisemitism as an imunisation strategy opens the doors for real Antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.120 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

South Africa?

Was there ever a consensus for this content? Foreign relations does not belong in this article. Nothing in the section suggests the IDF had relations with the SAFD. Stuff about nuclear weapons would go Israel and weapons of mass destruction and Foreign relations of Israel. I will self-revert if an editor can point me to a consensus about this information. If there is none then let's talk about it here. WikifanBe nice 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Including this material in the current article makes no sense. The "IDF" is not a synonym of "Israel". I'm not sure why you reverted your removal, but this material definitely doesn't belong here. Marokwitz (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I self-reverted at the request of Poyani though I assumed he would point me to a consensus here. I agree the content makes no sense because the Israeli Army didn't have a role in South Africa's nuclear program and the section itself doesn't mention the IDF once. WikifanBe nice 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the foreign policy section at the very top. As I noted there, I have no problem with significantly changing this section. However I believe the Israel's military relations with South Africa are far more notable than say the relationship with India or China. I understand that a relationship with the IDF is not the same as a relationship with Israel. However I believe a military relationship is the same. Note for example that the section for India begins with "India and Israel enjoy strong military and strategic ties. Some analysts have dubbed the alliance between India and Israel as the new ..."Poyani (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources point to the Israeli Army having any involvement in South Africa's nuclear program. There is a difference between foreign policy and military policy. The content doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in South Africa-Israel relations. We don't talk about NK's contribution to Syria's nuclear program in its article. You said there was a consensus for the content but I don't see one. Is there one in the archives? WikifanBe nice 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the section since no one has come up with a reasonable justification why it should remain. If and when editors can find a source that explicitly describes the IDF of being involved with SA's nuclear program, the section can be restored. WikifanBe nice 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Israel army flag.gif Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Israel army flag.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What about the Nuclear Weapons that the IDF possesses?

67.71.58.61, please sign your posts with 4 ~
The nuclear weapons topic is extensively covered in this article by the 2 sentences "Israel is known to have developed nuclear weapons.[54] Israel does not officially acknowledge its nuclear weapons program." Alternatively you can read Nuclear weapons and Israel, Negev Nuclear Research Center and Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers get paid $125 a month

How do they get by on that? Do they get food stamps or something? Hcobb (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't spend too much money on duty. You wear your uniform, eat in your dining room, and sleep in your barracks. When you're on vacation, your parents take care about you. So the answer is no, no food-stamps. Flayer (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How about their families? Do they have starving naked kids on the streets or what? Hcobb (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
18 years old conscripts usually don't have wives and children, however married soldiers are being payed much more. Same with soldiers who don't have supporting parents for some reason, they are being payed much more. Obviously, after three years of mandatory service every soldier on career service has a normal salary (starting from $2000-$3000 a month). Actually ~$125 refers only for conscripts in non-combat positions during three years of mandatory service. Fighters get up to ~$300 during during three years of mandatory service. Flayer (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hcobb, your sourceless and highly inflammatory attacks on subjects are getting exceedingly tiresome. Take it off Wikipedia if this is how you want to operate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for the extra payments? This doesn't seem to be covered at all here or in the conscript article, hence my asking. Hcobb (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Israeli who served in IDF. The extra payment for married soldiers, orphan soldiers, and impecunious soldiers on their regular service is a well known issue here in Israel, but I don't think I'll be able to find refs, especial English refs about that. Flayer (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
All I'm getting is little snippets like: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/conscripts-without-any-rights-1.386180 I was just shocked that any Middle Eastern country could pay starvation wages to the majority of their army and not get a new government installed at bayonet point. Hcobb (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggesting, with zero basis, that there are children starving on the street from this is not "just asking"! --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The numbers in the article at this moment paint that exact picture. There are obviously subsidies in the system that we have overlooked. Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Baloney. The numbers in the article paint absolutely no such picture, not without any information on actually HAVING CHILDREN in the picture, cost of living in the country, what other services are provided (housing, even in barracks, for example). No, what we have is your BS and POV again. Take it off Wikipedia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may throw some light on the subject :

for men :

  • married soldier will get a 2K NIS (500$) salary boost, and may have a salary of upto ~3K NIS (~700$) when serving under normal draft.
  • married soldier with children may be offered a short (less then three years) or removed from duty
  • "after three years of mandatory service every soldier on career service has a normal salary of starting from $2000-$3000 a month)" is just plain wrong : the starting salary for a married soldier (not an officer) is the minimum wage (~1000$) ~4000 NIS the common salary for a non educated (without a bachelor degree )and non combat personal for the first five years is up to 9K (2250$).

for any soldier : he get 100% subside for city wages (can be up to 300$ in some cities) , gets a subsidy for childcare (taking into account only his wife income).

109.226.54.190 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) an ex carrier soldier

¿$125 converts to what in Isræl? In most of the Americas, $125/month is a livable wage; Even in Canada, it’s nothing to sniff at. I was able to live on little more than twice that in Sacramento (by no means the cheapest living, but far from the worst). With this in mind, don’t think quite so literally. A. J. REDDSON
In Israel soldiers are not supposed to live on $125/month. It is just for cigarettes and drinks. Flayer (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
as Flayer pointed out the salary isn't supposed to provide enough to be livable wage - for a note a minimum wage in israel for 2012 is around 1000$ (~4000NIS), there is an asumption in the military that any soldier that does not request help don't need it, the case for non maried soldiers without helping families (no contact , valunteer , no live reletives) :
  • the army provdie housing on and off base (when the former is less common)
  • person could recive helping tuation by providing legal docuents for the abscense of help[1] or if his family needs his help[2]

a person could not afford to live with this kind of salary: renting a room in the perphria of IL will be around 75$ for a month in very poor neighbourhood (the type where you can buy drugs in the streets in the middle of the day). food for a single only for two weekends can be lowered to 100 NIS (25$) (to have three vegeterian meals per day for each weekend). but the amount of soldiers that will choose this kind of life is extremly low

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.53.223 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 

Proposal

Currently, under the heading of "foreign suppliers" a slew of countries, who contribute less than insignificant amounts to the IDF, are noted. Only the major suppliers such as the United States and perhaps Germany and the U.K. should be noted. I propose we eliminate the rest. It's kind of silly to list Bosnia and India as arms suppliers for the IDF. I don't know of any weapons platform in use by the IDF that comes from Brasil or Serbia.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

All suppliers should be noted, including small ones.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why? that doesn't seem to be done on other similar pages. for example, the Syrian armed forces page only lists the top 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You are free to ad more at the SAF article if you have sources for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The source is already given in that article (http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/values.php), and it gives more than twice the number of suppliers currently listed. I don't want to add more suppliers to other articles, nor to this one. I want you to explain why you think this should be done, when it doesn't seem to be the norm for similar articles. Better yet, since you edit a lot of Syrian articles, how about YOU add all those other countries supplying Syria. You know, just to show your good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because other articles aren't as informative as this one doesn't mean we should downgrade the standard here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I take it you won't be making the Syrian Armed Forces article more informative, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The infobox is not the place to be putting extensive lists of suppliers, no matter how small. It results in an unwieldy and large infobox. We can have a section in the article for a more complete list. There is precedence for this on Wikipedia. Military aircraft articles, for example, only list the top three users after the primary, and then put a link to see the rest in the article. There is no reason to have dozens of suppliers listed in the infobox. The top few are enough, and then we can have more detail in the article itself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Aside from the United States, is there any other country that should be listed? Germany perhaps because they supply the Dolphin Class submarines. But that should be it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Depth Corps

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/appointment-of-idf-s-new-iran-command-chief-raises-eyebrows-1.402023?localLinksEnabled=false

Should the Depth Corps be mentioned here or in a more in-depth article? Hcobb (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A comprehensive separate article would be best, of course, seeing as the other "regional commands" only have a link to their articles. A "Depth Command" article modeled after the other three... if you (or me, or anyone else) could spare the time. PluniAlmoni (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion/Judaism related controversies in the IDF

Recently there has been much talk about the refusal of some religious Jewish male soldiers to follow orders that they feel that are against their beliefs, e.g. hearing women sing in army ceremonies. Adding to that the refusal of some Religious Zionists to take part in forced evacuations of Israeli settlements on religious grounds - and the support some of them get from Rabbis, which is related to the whole "taking orders from commanders or rabbis" debate, and I think there's a sufficient basis for a separate article with said headline ("Religion in the IDF" - Judaism section) while of course including a reference to it in this article (service section or controversies?). There's currently a section dealing with the singing in the Women in the IDF article, but since it has little to do with female soldiers than with religious males, I feel that a separate article dealing with the entire aspect of religion would be best. I'll try to come up with something... meanwhile I'd appreciate any input you may have. PluniAlmoni (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the info is relevant to Women in the Israel Defense Forces, but there's no problem with also having an article such as Religion in the Israel Defense Forces. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Israel-South African military relations

I see that the section pertaining to Israel/South African military relations has been deleted in this edit. I recall that this is actually in contradiction of the consensus which was reached on the talk-page. Would anyone object to it being reintroduced? Poyani (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted in previous talks, this relationship has been the subject of far more coverage and research than, say, Israel's military relations with India. Poyani (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking back in the archive, I see two editors (Wikifan and Marokwitz) opposed to this content, and only you supporting its inclusion, so I don't see much support for the claim that the removal is "in contradiction of the consensus which was reached on the talk-page." You need to get consensus for it if you want it included. The IDF relationship with India is documented in reliable sources, and pretty much uncontroversial. The speculation about the IDF's involvement in SA's nuclear program is, well, speculation. It would need a much higher quality source than Hedges.Jeff Song (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You tried this before, Poyani. You did not present the past consensus then, and other editors pointed out that "IDF" and "Israel" are not synonymous. Your content doesn't have to do with the IDF, but with Israeli foreign policy. This isn't the article on Israeli foreign relations. The removed content asserts Israeli "army" involvement, but the sources do not once suggest a relationship between the Israeli "army" and South Africa. The content only appears to fit in the page by contradicting its sources, and otherwise does not belong on this page as it isn't about the IDF, but about Israel. Searching through the rest of the archives, I do not find consensus, as you claim, for inclusion of content on South Africa. I find a few talk page discussions where you push for inclusion, and most everyone else disagrees for reasons similar to what I have now stated. The content stays out. There was no consensus for inclusion, and as it was currently written, it was a misrepresentation of the source material. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete source

Jabotito48, you added an incomplete source here[9] when I click on it it doesn't direct me to any book or other source. Could you please say what source it is and provide a direct quotation from the source here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48, I checked p 225 and it did not contain any of the info you allege that it supports. The two other pages are not viewable for me. Please provide the quote from the source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Quote p 93: The Druze acquiesced and by the beginning of May, 212 soldiers in Wahab's regiment had deserted and returned to Jabal Druze.--Jabotito48 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
How do we go from what the source is saying - that they returned to Syria, to what you added to the article - that they "joined Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You are right. I change the sources:
A) During the British Mandate over Palestine they refrained from taking part in the Arab-Jewish conflict, and during Israel's War of Independence (1948) became active participants on Israel's side.
B) And so, in 1948, many Druze fought for Israel, and in the early years of the state many joined the Israeli army voluntarily.--Jabotito48 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48, the sentence currently says: "During the Israeli Independence War, many Druze soldiers and officers on the Arab side deserted and joined Israel." I checked the two sources and could not find any info that any Druze who fought on the Arab side, deserted and joined Israel. Could you please point out where in the sources this is? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito48 is a blocked sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
See [10] Some returned to their villages while others assisted the Israelis in various capacities per Gelber. That should put that matter to rest.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
As for foreign suppliers, see consensus and position above[11] I am a bit puzzled though. Why note a supplier, that hasn't supplied anything since 1990? Moreover, the source at the cited page reference says nothing of South Africa supplying military equipment to Israel.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to the book right now, but Morris discusses the issue of the Druze changing sides in his 1948. Specifically after the battle of Ramat Yochanan, IIRC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I do recall that in Morris' book. However, it's confirmed through Gelber as well. Not all joined the IDF. Some did and some assisted in other ways while others simply retired to their respective villages. There are other sources as well such as The major example is the Syrian Druze battalion that eventually defected from the Arabs and fought with the Haganah in the 1948 War. and Young Druze started fighting alongside Jews in 1947, when Druze community elders agreed to allow them to serve in the pre-state Haganah militia.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I confirm for Gelber. Details are already in this article
I add that Yoav Gelber is a specialist on the topic. He published 'Druzes and Jews in the war of 1948', Middle Eastern Studies, April 1948.
81.247.97.117 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page Formatting is Broken

The formatting at the top of the page is broken, but I don't known how to fix it (something to do with ref tags), so I've flagged it for cleanup so someone who knows more than I do can fix it - Camundongo (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

literal translation

exact translation would be "israel army of defense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.139.130 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. My literal translation would be, "Defense Army for/to Israel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.113.39 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"and has no civilian jurisdiction within Israel." What does this mean? Does it mean that Israel is not a military dictatorship? Does Wikipedia say this about the armed forces of other democratic states? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Since no-one has responded, I have deleted the sentence. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces Emblem

Can someone help link to this orphaned article? Gbawden (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No mention of IDF War Crimes/Human Rights outrages

It is obvious that pro-israeli editors wrote this article; what is even more blatant, the selection of photos supplied to illustrate the "benevolent" nature of IDF smacks of the Nazi hypocracy, "Arbeit macht frei". Not a single photo of killed and mutilated Palestinian children (more than 300 by most conservative estimates during this year 2014). SHAME on wikipedia and this article!!! — Precedng unsigned comment added by 186.9.167.17 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article exclude any mention of atrocities carried out by the Israel Defense Forces? The Hamas article does not exclude violent acts associated with Hamas. Why doesn't this article talk about this aspect of the IDF? By excluding this aspect of the IDF, this article reeks of a Pro-Israel bias. I think that this should be promptly addressed. 72.174.6.46 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC) i

I second this view. There is no mention even of controversy at all that I can find. It is not appropriate or balanced. It does not even link to any allegations or proven events. Wikipedia is supposed to be for knowledge and education, not politically censored. It is well known that the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has been here in a concerted editing effort. Ministry of Truth. 129.78.32.22 (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you feel is missing? Can you provide some examples? —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. Why comment using a anonymous IP address?
  2. Hamas is a militant group. The IDF are armed forces of a nation. As a result, they are differing entities and I frankly see little need to introduce a "controversy" section for the IDF just because Hamas has one. For the record, I see no section on atrocities on either the pages of the Iranian, US, PRC, North Korean armed forces. Of course, this is not exhaustive as I hardly expect myself to go scanning the pages regarding the national armed forces of ~200 countries.
  3. As a result, I cannot bring myself to believe that your suggestion is either objective or un-biased in nature. Good day. Assassin3577 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this link for accounts of terrorist activities carried out by the IDF http://thenakedtruthinaconfusedworld.blogspot.com/2010/12/idf-atrocities-former-israeli-soldiers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.222.56 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the history section. Seems a bit odd that there is no mention of "occupation" given that has been one of the main activities of the Israeli army since 1967. More generally, the whole history section (6 paragraphs) only has two citations and the parent History of the Israel Defense Forces is also largely unreferenced. Dlv999 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the citations, but I believe that it's more important to provide detailed citations in History of the Israel Defense Forces, because this article's history section is a very concise summary. I think here we should focus on readability of the prose and provide the citations in the article that it summarizes.
Regarding occupation, it's not really relevant here. That's a political term which is way out of the scope of the IDF alone. There might be some things that are relevant here, but many are already listed—like the low-intensity conflict with the Palestinians, and the two intifadas. Regarding standard operations in the territories outside of the major flare-ups, they do warrant some mention, but then we should also talk more about other IDF standard operations, like the back and forth border clashes before 1967.
Ynhockey (Talk) 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding occupation, I disagree with your opinion, but there is not much point debating this right now as what is relevant is based on what has been published in RS and as it stands we don't have any to verify this section or to ensure that it is consistent with WP:NPOV. I know readability and prose are important, but personally I am more interested in our core policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV. I'm going to try to find some high quality sources to add to the article and amend it where appropriate. Prose and readability can always be improved once we have ensured the material is consistent with our core policies. Dlv999 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a controversy section added to the article, given the numerous UN law infractions committed by the IDF on the Palestinians alone. This should be worthy of mention because, as stated above, Hamas's page has listed its controversies, I believe that to be fair and balanced, the IDF page should also include the negative things associated with it in addition to the positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.34.194 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clear the we have reached consensus that the controversy should be added to this page. However, Inkbug continues to rever my edits. The only contention raised about adding this section is verifiability and it is clear from reading WP:RS and WP:VER that the UN meets the criteria, but even to be more NPOV, I have been explicit in stating whence this criticisms come. Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Where has such consensus been found? three ips and two editors support adding the section. Two editors beside me are against. Since when is 5 to 3 a consensus? When counting registered users, there is a majority against adding the section. That is besides the fact that User:Assassin3577's comments have been ignored. Inkbug (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ynhockey was not strictly opposed to the section and his opinion should be taken again, given what the controversy section looks like now. As for Thus given the vote really to be 5-2. More so, Assassin3577's opposition is strictly that other similar pages do not cover controversy. However, that is not how NPOV works. NPOV is not based on whether similar pages carry controversy content, but on whether there is sufficient literature that is WP:RS that warrants its inclusion. Can you please state your reason for believing it should not be included? Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we can count User:Plot Spoiler as against, as he also reverted the edit. Regarding my reasoning, I feel that adding that section is WP:UNDUE, especially since no other national military (Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a national military) has a criticism section. In addition, the text of the section was using WP:PRIMARY sources (as opposed to newspaper articles on the reports or other secondary sources). Inkbug (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine, if you believe adding a separate section is undue, I can understand that, but this information should be incorporated somewhere into the article to keep it NPOV. Here is a secondary source that can be used for the AI part: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Rights-group-accuses-Israel-of-war-crimes-2757134.php for Amnesty International. However, if you read WP:PRIMARY closely, you'll see why it is appropriate to use OHCHR as a primary source here. Can you recommend a place in the article where you see inclusion of such information fit? I think it would also be fitting to link to Battle of Jenin article itself too. Thoughts?Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What about adding the following sentence to the end of the history section: "The IDF has also participated in a number of operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including Operation Defensive Shield, Operation Cast Lead, and Operation Pillar of Defense; some of these operations have been criticized for human-rights violations.<refs here>"? Inkbug (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with that. Yaakov Franklin (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What about adding the following sentence to the end of the history section: "The IDF has also participated in a number of air strikes and bombing operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; many of these attacks have been criticized as human-rights outrages"? 2.96.126.160 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Facebook

When I looked at the websites for the IDF or the British Army the images that I saw were informative action, training or similar shots. The same is true for the British Army page. The IDF page has a number of posed shots as in present time edit here. One of the images was captioned, "Israeli "Netzah Yehuda" recon company in full combat gear prepare for a night raid in the West Bank". No they're not. They're posing for a photo. I recently removed the cute young girl image from the demography section of the State of Palestine article and am arguing that the similar image be removed be removed from the Israel article. WP:PILLARS presents the primary concept that encyclopaedic (informative) content be presented "warts and all". Articles are not the place to be presenting Editor inspired PR or social media type images. This isn't Saatchi & Saatchi or Facebook. GregKaye 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms section

Should we add one to mention events such as when Israel has taken (more) Palestinian land for the IDF? Danotto94 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is the criticism or controversy section? Why is so much missing?

The Idf is an extremely controversial entity, I'm shocked that there's no controversy section on this article.

Further, the history section seems very whitewashed, with no mention that a founding organization of the Idf (lehi) was a terrorist organization that intentionally targeted civilians (see "the Stern gang" for more information).

I implore that a controversy section be added, as the Israeli border dispute and Israeli conflict are extremely contentious and controversial topics.

I'm able to provide Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of respectable references to back up this claim. ~~Harrisberg

Have you checked if there's a criticism or controversy section for other military forces? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Absence of a "criticism" section

It's obviously a tremendously well written page, with excellent sources for its various paragraphs. I notice however an absence of a "controversies/criticism" section. May I suggest that this oversight be addressed? Something along the lines of "The IDF takes criticism seriously and does its utmost to follow the rules of law" etc etc. Glen Gormley (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Criticism: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Hope that explains why there isn't a criticism section, nor should there be. - BilCat (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no criticism within the article either. Trying to add counterpoints into this article would be an impossible task. Sepsis II (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Video

Video clip about the IDF

Recently Israel News Company of Channel 2 (Israel) released a series of free-license videos as a contribution to Wikipedia. One of them was about the Israel Defense Forces. The film contains no text nor speech (other than the title "צה"ל") and mainly shows the various units of the IDF training or maneuvering, and shows some of the weapons, gear and combat vehicles of the IDF. The relevant aspect of the video is clear and central. These footage are clearly neutral and carry no emotional charges. However, it was removed with the explanation "Remove propaganda video" even though I proved that the video is informative, neutral and adheres to the WP:NPOV policy. The video should be kept in the article because of its informative value. MathKnight 18:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Those images, that music... all that is missing is a "Join the IDF" caption. A neutral, factual video has a completely different look and feel than this one. You have not proven anything, whether a video comes across as neutral or not is hardly something anyone can prove. The video gives me, as a neutral viewer, not the idea of a neutral, infomative video at all, but looks like an "approved", official video with nice images and poor music and no information at all (all one knows is that it supposedly is a video of the IDF, but what are we looking at? The same kind of video every army produces, with fake images of "dangerous" actions taken by a camera going backwards in front of the special forces, close-ups of flags, and so on. Not the kind of video we should have on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This video was compiled by a news channel - Channel 2 (Israel) - and not by the IDF. It shows soldiers training, ships sailing, tanks moving and airplanes flying - displaying the units and technology of the IDF. What's not factual in that? The video doesn't deal with history and politics issues, contains no text nor speech. What's not neutral in showing tanks rolling and soldiers during training? It just like presenting moving images of tanks, infantry and warplanes. Are you going to argue that a photo of the Merkava tank is not NPOV? This video presents this aspect of the IDF's activity: training, arsenal, technology. And about the music: it is the standard tune of the Channel 2 News broadcast and not any sort of a military march. I don't think that not liking the music is a valid reason to ban and remove a video. MathKnight 19:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:ONUS: [t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. There absolutely should not be edit-warring to restore disputed material, and it very clearly is disputed material. I personally find the video to be non-neutral and promotional. But I also think this article is fairly non-neutral. But regardless, theres a dispute over the video, and if people want to include they need to show there is consensus for it. nableezy - 00:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur. Further, the user has claimed that the video is "informative", yet he states, "The video doesn't deal with history and politics issues, contains no text nor speech." So the video is informative but contains no information as such? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The video is informative about the aspects of trainings, vehicles and equipment of the IDF. It is a short video, not a full-length documentary. It is like having a short video showing a crocodile swimming and you want to remove it because it doesn't show the crocodile eating. MathKnight 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say I wanted to remove it because it wasn't informative. You said it should stay because it's informative, and then showed why it wasn't informative. And no, I wouldn't want to see a crocodile eating. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood my point. A less than 2-minutes video cannot be comprehensive and survey all the possible aspects of a subject. This video shows training and gear of the IDF. It is bad form to disqualify or remove it on the reason that it doesn't deal with history and politics. This video is just showing soldiers training, tanks rolling, jets flying and ships sailing - what's not NPOV in that? MathKnight 22:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll agree that the video is propaganda that's missing the "Join the IDF today" frame. Sepsis II (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not a recruitment video. The IDF enlists Israeli citizens by law. MathKnight 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you describe what in your opinion would a neutral video showing IDF equipment and training look like? —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, the music there is the same music that is used as background music in all Channel 2 news reports.
I'm an Israeli myself, so feel free to think I'm biased, but this feels nowhere near propaganda. It is a news report. A news report by an Israeli TV channel, released under a free license. Is is not government-sanctioned—it is from a private commercial TV channel. Is it an Israeli perspective?—yes, it certainly is. More precisely, a perspective of an Israeli private commercial TV channel. Just like a BBC report would be a British perspective and a Palestinian TV report would be a Palestinian perspective. If it's OK to add hyperlinks to Israeli news sources, it's OK to include this video—it's just more directly embedded than an external link.
Linking to other news sources that provide different perspectives or including (freely-licensed) videos from them would be great as well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The name

The full name of the IDF in Hebrew, by the Israeli Basic Law: The Military is צבא הגנה לישראל (Tsva Hagana le-Yisra'el) and not צבא ההגנה לישראל (Tsva ha-Hagana le-Yisra'el). In the Hebrew Wikipedia page they had a talk about it, and decided to use the correct name, צבא הגנה לישראל. If someone can edit the page, please do so.

85.64.113.49 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whatever discussion you may have had on he.wiki, according to the IDF website, the name is צבא ההגנה לישראל (underlining added for emphasis), as written in the first sentence of this article and shown in the emblem in the infobox. In addition, when I entered your version of the name in Google.co.il, it corrected me—usually (but not always) an indication that mine is the more common version of the name. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I would add that, as the IP editor wrote, the he.wiki article is titled צבא הגנה לישראל. Right after that phrase is bolded in the first sentence is a parenthetical where it says it's best known by the abbreviation צה"ל or as צבא ההגנה לישראל, followed by this footnote:
בשנות ה-90 החל צה"ל להשתמש בשם "צבא ההגנה לישראל", בעקבות המלצת האקדמיה ללשון העברית להשתמש בצורה המיודעת. עם זאת, שם הצבא בחוק יסוד: הצבא לא שונה ונותר "צבא הגנה לישראל", וגם בחקיקה מאוחרת יותר בנושאי צה"ל השם המלא נותר "צבא הגנה לישראל".
An editor with a better understanding of Hebrew may be able to offer a better translation, but the gist of the footnote is that during the 1990s, the IDF began to use the name צבא ההגנה לישראל [editorial note: as does the en.wiki article] following the recommendation of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, but nevertheless the Basic Law concerning the Military was not changed and continues to refer to צבא הגנה לישראל, as does subsequent relevant legislation [editorial note: and the he.wiki article]. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand, this is the situation. The law says the army is called "Tsva Hagana le-Yisra'el" while in the 90s the IDF decided to use the version "Tsva HaHagana le-Yisra'el" because of a suggestion of the Hebrew Academy. So the official name according to the law is "Tsva Hagana Le-Yisrae'l" (צבא הגנה לישראל) while the official name according to the IDF (and the correct form according to the Hebrew Academy) is "Tsva HaHagana Le-Yisra'el" (צבא ההגנה לישראל).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you think this issue is worth mentioning, either in a footnote to the Hebrew name in the first sentence or in the "Etymology" section of the article, or is it much ado about nothing? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong link

"IDF Wordpress Blog – news and updates from the field" - It's linking to Idaho Falls' spokesperson website. Wrong IDF? :) 87.68.49.46 (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Minorities

Hello . Is it non-Jews or Jewish-related citizens, in the section that concerns minorities . BatmobileFire (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Jewish-related citizens"? the first and the second sub-sections of the 'minorities' section are about non-Jews. The rest of that section is mostly about Jews. I have never heard the term "Jewish-related citizen". Amitayzl (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing discussion of Samaritans in the IDF, a small but significant group. [3] Dfink (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ soldiers without family olim al madim (hebrew)
  2. ^ family payments olim al madim (hebrew)
  3. ^ http://www.shomronim.co.il/37-2/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2017

There's an extra space here above the new "Technological development" section. Also I think that section should be merged with "Weapons and equipment". It has repeated weapons and was copy-pasted from Israel#Military, probably to show more pictures of Israeli inventions.--186.137.184.20 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Extra space was removed by Redrose64. Terra (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking this as answered. st170e 21:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lebanon War

How long was the Lebanon War? Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Try the Wiki Help Desk. The TP's are not for general discussions.50.111.11.205 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Avaya1's "Technological development" section re-addition

I've reverted Avaya1 recent re-addition of his "Technological development" section (this edit). I had removed the section several weeks ago as it covered the same subject as the long standing "Weapons and equipment" section, and was furthermore located in a completely unreasonable location in the article, before both manpower and organization sections. Nevertheless, I had not removed it outright, bur rather amalgamated the two, migrating most of the section and photos to the section below. The recent restoration of this section was not only unnecessary, but rather caused even further unnecessary duplication of content. Poliocretes (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

I would like if someone removes the link "safe space" made in this edit, since it has nothing to do with religion or haredim, but the term is used for gay people. Also there's a grammatical error for the "Religious Zionist seor", which should be changed for sector.--186.153.52.240 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)