Talk:Fox (clothing)

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

Bar Refaeli's lack of military service[edit]

I respectfully disagree with [1]. "Israel's unique conscription of women into military combatant service" is simply a description of sourced fact: Israel is the only nation which conscripts women, and the IDF places some drafted women into direct combat roles within its infantry divisions. This observation is fully supported by [2], one of the references cited in the article. Consider the following quotations, straight from the horse's mouth:

34 percent of the IDF are women in regular duty, and it is the only military in the world which drafts women by law.

The general perception of Karakal, that it does not post females on the forefront in battle, is something that Lieutenant Kortzki would like to contradict. You might say she gives it an outright 'negative'. "What if they don’t fall into our arms? We will go out and attack, because that is what we train for, and know how to do.

Erik9 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just because something is a description of sourced fact doesn't mean its usage in certain ways isn't NPOV. What was orignally there, was that she was a "draft-dodger from mandatory military service" (which is perfectly true) and which you said was derogatory, was also a description of sourced fact (see the sources). I'll accept that you don't think the article shouldn't use the term draft-dodger, but what you wrote "who avoided Israel's unique conscription of women into military combatant service via a nuptial exemption for a marriage lasting a short period of time", while I beleive you that Israel is the only nation which conscripts women, it is irrelevant to the point that she avoided it, whether woman or not are conscripted in other countries (or men as well - because many countries have no conscription) has nothing to do with this. The only reason I can see to point out Israel's "unique conscription of women " is to make a point like she had reasons for not doing it (since other woman, somewhere else in the world don't), that seams like POV to me. The NPOV would be just to write that she was able to avoid Israel's mandatory miltary service because of a nuptial exemption for a marriage, the specifics on Israel's draft should be left to the appropriate articles. I will also point out I don't see how the orignal line (the one about the draft dodging) violated WP:BLP [3], and it can easily be sourced by WP:RS (for example). Epson291 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The peculiarities of Israel's conscription policies are relevant to the article in a way that gratuitous derogatory terms such as "draft-dodger" aren't, if for no other reason than IDF officials themselves have recognized the increased hardships faced by women in direct combat roles, and have historically considered such assignments to be immoral:

Soon after the establishment of the IDF and, within it, the Chen (acronym for cheil nashim and meaning "grace" in Hebrew), the removal of all women from front-line positions was decreed. Decisive for this decision was the very real possibility of falling into enemy hands as prisoners of war. It was fair and equitable, it was argued, to demand from women equal sacrifice and risk; but the risk for women prisoners of rape and sexual molestation was infinitely greater than the same risk for men.[4]

Of course, as noted in [5], the IDF has reversed itself. Nonetheless, while New York Magazine treats the issue somewhat flippantly

So she's going to encourage soldiers to fulfill their obligatory army duty while she avoids it herself? That will be a great sell: "Israel needs brave people like you to protect hot bodies like mine!"[6]

the very risk that had historically justified exclusion of women from direct combatant service may actually be much higher for a fashion model such as Bar Refaeli than the average Israeli woman. 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's reasonable to include relevant contextual information to avoid unfairly implying that a living person has frivolously shirked the duties of her citizenship. Erik9 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources that I've seen that talk about Refaeli discuss/address this when mentioning her advoidence of mandatory service. You're clearly using these souces to make a point, this is WP:OR, WP:NPOV, do you have any RS that relate her avoidance of the draft to all these issues? - Epson291 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 [7], that Israel is the only nation that compels women to perform military service [8], that Israel assigns women to direct combatant duties [9], 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 [10], 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) 22:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By using the word unique, your implying it that this is the reason she didn't enlist. That is not supported by facts. Epson291 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to draw conclusions like "this is why Refaeli didn't join the IDF", or "Refaeli was/was not justified in joining the IDF" -- that's for the reader to judge. Just because a neutral presentation of relevant sourced facts might imply a certain conclusion to readers doesn't mean we shouldn't present the facts, because we don't agree with the conclusions readers are likely to draw. Erik9 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_(clothing)&oldid=1202118958"