Talk:Israel Defense Forces/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Deborahjay's changes under Controversy

It appears that Deborahjay wrote a new section on Operation Cast Lead, a section that was removed multiple times. I was under the impression that there was clear consensus that it was undue weight, but here are the arguments again, for Deborahjay:

The article in general is about the IDF, not criticism of the IDF. Minor individual events, no matter how much press coverage they go, such as the recent one in the Rabin pre-army program, should not go into the article. The section on criticism should explain all major lines of criticism with summary style and have wikilinks to more specific articles, such as individual protests, etc. For example, The IDF has been accused of using white phosphorus against civilians.[ref]
Mentioning Operation Cast Lead too much is clearly recentism, as the operation was medium-scale, and the IDF was criticized less for it than other operations. Just like we don't have sections here for larger operations such as Operation Litani and Operation Defensive Shield (which drew more criticism), we don't need one for individual operations. I'd even say that we don't need one for individual wars—the much more significant History section doesn't have a sub-section for any event in the IDF's history. As I said before, if anyone wants to, they should create an article about the criticisms on the IDF, but it should be balanced (not WP:POVFORK) and focus on both criticism from abroad, and criticism from home (e.g. religion is taking over the IDF, criticism of drafting practices, etc.)
There was general consensus to work by this outline written by me, which does not call for having a huge criticism section.
If anyone wants to discuss soldiers' feelings and statements after combat, then the recent event in the Rabin program is nothing compared to the major left-wing soldiers' organization, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Target 21 and Courage to Refuse, related organizations, is also not mentioned.

Finally, the term 'occupied territories' is POV, and there were numerous centralized discussions over it, including a recent one at Talk:Israel. The term should not be used except in specific contexts. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm new to editing this page, you surmised correctly that I was unaware of any previous editing decisions such as having to abide by your consensus-approved outline. So I appreciate the synopsis here and I've already performed an undo back to your approved version that had removed all my content. However, your arguments seem entirely based on this being "criticism" and the "scale" of the operation not fitting this article's scope. I still would contend that what I've added, however "disproportionate" it might seem, is not what you describe and object to as "criticism"; this is an incident of combat soldiers coming forward (tardily) to report on possible (or evident) breaches of the IDF#Code of Conduct against militants and Palestinian civilians during an operation fought in a densely populated area, that may be considered (and ultimately judged?) as along the lines of atrocities or war crimes. If you and the other editors overrule this content's inclusion here, on what page—dealing with combat ethics in the IDF—would it belong? I see there's no main article on Israel Defense Forces#Code of Conduct.-- Deborahjay (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deborahjay! Firstly, I don't think it's our place to judge whether these actions amounted to war crimes, assuming the testaments are true and were reported correctly. Therefore, I fail to see how something like this would not be undue weight for the article. Even if many notable organizations accuse the IDF of war crimes here, the article should take a more general approach, such as "The IDF was accused of war crimes for its actions in several operations, including Sabra and Shatila and Operation Cast Lead.[ref]". There is no reason to detail each incident, and certainly not in the context of soldiers 'coming out' to 'reveal' something about the IDF, as indeed there is an entire organization in Israel devoted to this very purpose, which is not mentioned even once in the article.

Now, I agree that the controversy section is severely lacking (in quality, not length), and IMO one of the reasons is that this article does not have many dedicated editors. Feel free to rewrite the section, but please try not to place undue weight on recent events (Cast Lead, and even the 2006 Lebanon War attracted undue attention on Wikipedia in general, unlike for example the much bigger 1956 Sinai War). The controversy section should outline for what practices the IDF has been criticized and why (with sources), not for what specific events, because it is possible to find multiple sources criticizing the IDF for its every single publicized operation at least starting with the First Lebanon War and onwards.

Finally, an article on Purity of Arms does exist, and if you can find sources linking this event to Purity of Arms, feel free to insert more information there (although again, too much info would be recentist). Also, there is no reason not to create a main article on the IDF Spirit (Code of Conduct), it's just that no one did it yet. My excuse is that the priority is to improve this article first, and it has been taking me quite a long time (over 3 months to make just one graphic, for example). I do hope to work on this article more in the future!

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that we're not communicating "on the same page" in this exchange! I am NOT talking about "bodies criticizing," but rather IDF combat soldiers relating after the events to their situation in the field vis-a-vis their commanders, comrades at arms, soldiers under their command, and the population in the war zone. I felt the content is relevant in light of interest among the English-language readership (some of whom are likely to view it as fuel for criticism of the IDF and Israel; hence my unfortunate use here of the terms "atrocities and war crimes" that I trusted was certainly not to be read as any agenda of my own!). It seemed to me a clear case relating to the Israel Defense Forces#Code of Conduct (not, as you suggest, Purity of Arms)—but as there's no specific incident under that heading, I posted under the heading Controversy. There I found the allegations of phosphorus weapon use, so I proceeded to add a few tightly written sentences including citations plus internal and external links. So is the "undue weight" argument that that these allegations and countercharges among young Israeli soldiers, with serious repercussions throughout Israeli society, isn't as "heavy" as charges of phosphorus weapons use and can't appear beside it? The dense population of civilians in the Gaza war zone does make this different that the "dozens and hundreds" of other midsize operations and even wars, a point made by both sides in the conflict as well as outside bodies. AND Please note: had either the main IDF page or its Talk page been marked with a "semiprotected" banner, I'd have been cautioned that new content is being subjected to strict review ...instead, it just got cut out and now we're both spending a lot of time trying to achieve some understanding about why your outline in effect prohibits content that doesn't conform due to "undue weight". Would a mention of the issue with an internal link such as this be acceptable? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is one way to solve this argument; later tonight (hopefully) I will work on a draft for a controversy section, with an emphasis on good style, structure and flow. We can then work from that point and discuss specifics. Alternatively, you are welcome to create such a draft.

On a side note, sorry I didn't include the name of the organization I was talking about (forgot), which indeed consists of released soldiers talking about their experiences, usually immoral/illegal things they did to Palestinians during service. It's called Breaking the Silence. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What input I can offer—since you are far better equipped than I to work on the structure and content of this page: I think if the section involves "criticism" (from external vs. internal sources), call it that and not "controversy," or at least "controversial issues"). Consider organizing the subheadings not by region of conflict but by type, e.g. use of unconventional weapons, nomenclature, objection to service, etc. It's less relevant where unconventional weapons were used; I was actually surprised to see the isolated mention of white phosphorus in Gaza without the (U.S. army surplus?) cluster bombs in 2006 South Lebanon, etc. Here too could be a concise grouping of soldiers' IDF service issues, e.g. Breaking the Silence, Yesh Gvul, the officers' letter, the Mechinat Rabin testimonies, etc. Perhaps this could be a laundry list of topics that refer to main articles to be created, or sections in existing main articles. Thanks for your efforts on this. -- Hope this helps, Deborahjay (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I have completed a draft here. I don't think it's perfect, and might be too long and repeats certain words too much. I believe that you as a professional English speaker may be able to fix this (so feel free to edit the draft!) Of course, no refs were included, and any refs you have will be welcome. I may be the only one who can find sources for the domestic criticism section, but the other facts shouldn't be too difficult to source. On the other hand, certain generic facts could indeed prove difficult to source, because I doubt there is any source directly saying something similar to Ever since [Sabra and Shatila], Israel and the IDF in particular have been targets of numerous protests and demonstrations following each operation that left civilians casualties. So that may need to be changed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

YN, the link to your draft only gives the mainspace page with no further edits of yours. Did you mean perhaps a sandbox version? In any event, I didn't find it among your pages, so I'll watch here for an update. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Yeah, it was under the outline page. I have fixed the previous link as well. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional discussion

Included a brief note about the report from Oranim Academic College, Tivon hope it is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Msrasnw, the above discussion is already about that. Please read it. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a note on this while the discussion goes on - this is something that seems to me clearly relevant to the IDF and doens't include anything that I would think would require deletion. Perhaps the section title is problematic this and the T-shirt stuff might be better under the Code of Conduct and Core values of the IDF. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

The question, as stated above, is not whether it's relevant to the IDF, but whether it is undue weight and recentism. I strongly believe that both labels apply to these controversies (especially the T-shirt one), and the article should follow a more general tone anyway. Please see the draft that I created for the section, as a result of the above discussion with Deborahjay. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about why this might be considered to be undue weight. The IDF, rightly in my view, has a history of claiming the high moral ground in its general conduct, with abuses being unusual rather than the norm. And the articles reporting of the Code of Conduct reflects this. However unless such problems are mentioned the article would seem to me unbalanced and appear more like the product of an IDF press office. Whilst this is recent it seems to me that many events in Palestine/Israel, such as this, have very very very long lasting repurcussions and resonances. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Do you have a comment on the proposed draft? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I am a good person to judge on the whole article and I am not sure really on the basis for comparison and there are lots of things to work on in your draft. I think a good strategy for you if you want to do big rewrites is to do it sections at a time and see how it goes. My guess is someone will always object to any substantial change as a lot of their work will go. Everyone likes their bits. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The thing is, I don't think anyone is of the opinion that the current section is good/well-written/NPOV/etc. So many users were calling for it to be rewritten in the past, but no one offered a comprehensive rewrite as of yet. I did a major rewrite to the history section a few months ago and so far I haven't seen a single complaint, so a total rewrite is definitely the way to go. I am certainly not trying to impose a final version, and the draft is open to any changes, the main idea being that the section shouldn't be huge.

If we included even a small paragraph for every controversy of a similar scope to the recent soldiers' testimonies, we'd easily get a 100K section only for criticism, because there were a series of such testimonies after each major operation, and some of the notable cases are listed here. There are also multiple organizations, notably Breaking the Silence, that deal specifically with this issue (see above discussion with Deborahjay), and there is a main article for the recent controversy. I for one do not think that the controversy/criticism section needs to be any bigger than any one of the history, structure or equipment sections. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Irgun/Lehi

I added the qualification terrorist to these groups in the description of the intro. It was reverted. I revised it again, removing the qualification terrorist. I believe the qualification should remain. Any comments? CapitalElll (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears this qualification is not appropriate. Would militant be a better choice? CapitalElll (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a qualification at all? Seems like a form of poisoning the well to me. Moreover, it would not have a meaning because 'paramilitary' and 'militant' in this context are the same thing. You can call the Haganah 'militants', and you can call both Irgun and Lehi 'paramilitaries'. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is special about this context? CapitalElll (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The words would mean the same thing in the sentence. Read it out loud. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, paramilitary and militant have distinct meanings. Right now it reads incorporating the underground groups Irgun and Lehi. I propose to change to incorporating the militant groups Irgun and Lehi. CapitalElll (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with this version before your edits. It assumes a neutral tone, and does not really say anything about any of the three groups, except 'underground' which is a fair qualification for all three and does not imply anything other than they were illegal at the time. I don't see a reason to write it any other way. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

"Critics, including... Amnesty International"

given that they have criticized Israel for attacking civilian infrastructure - calling it "war crimes" and have not criticized Hezbollah for actually targeting civilians, and given that AI has a long history of anti-American and Anti-Israel positions should they really be given any weight in this article? Apple Rancher 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Despite what AI is actually worth, it is a repected international body. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider this: Hezbolah is only 'Anti-American' because the U.S supports Israel. And might i add, why? I think you'll find that the three most hated nations in order are: Israel, The U.S and France. But im sure The U.S will find its place in the world if it renounced the existance of Israel and stoped being so stupidly, stubbornly and naively friendly with Jews in the West Bank. People stopped feeling sorry for them about the holocaust a long, long time ago...

If you're going to constantly write "consider this:" right before your anti-semitic statements, you could at least sign what you say. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.105.30.44 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Hezbollah attached the US AMrine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980s--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be able to rebut any Anti-Israeli critism by calling it "anti semitic" in the US, but it just makes you look ignorant and cluless when you do it anywhere else, including here. If you do not have any ideas or knowledge regarding the issue, then please do not speak. --85.102.120.201 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The US support Israel because it remains the most democratic regime in the area. It is vital to the United States foreign policy to have a stronghold in the Middle-East. Hezbollaah can be anti-American because for any reason under the blue sky, it still doesn't give it legitimacy to purposely target civilians. Ill be fair and Call these attacks "act of war", taking into consideration the fact that they haven't half the means Israel does, but then you cant trash about civilians dying because they refused to leave their houses after Israelis warned them that " armed Hezbollaah personel" were firing rockets from their roof. if you support such acts and risk your children's life in the face of such an act, then you to are a "soldier" and suffer the consequence of war. It has become quiet the "mode" to bash on Israel and "Zionists" in light of what is happening in the Mid.-East. you mustnt forget the Fundemental right of Israel's existence and its right to defend itself. only 18 million Jews in the whole world!!! there are more Sceintologist's!!!(just joking, don't quote me on that, im not sure). Don't be ignorant, check your facts. There is a very interesting debate to be wrong, don't be quick to see only black and white, the situation is more complicated than it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elamar23 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Jewish and i agree Israel has perpetuated massive war crimes against the Palistinian people. I hope Iran will wipe that little fucking piece of desert out soon

The above, if you are truly Jewish, you should be ashamed of yourself. Iran doesn't just hate Israel, it hates all Jewry and non-Islamic countries, religions and groups. If Iran tried to destroy Israel, we (The U.S. and apparently the only staunch ally of Israel) would wipe their leadership all over the desert sands. 67.142.162.36 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Bo

Wow, can you cite 'massive war crimes?Foamking (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Why can't fedayeen be described as such? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Most readers wouldn't know what fedayeen are, and would have to click the link; we want to avoid that as much as possible—links are mostly meant to enrich a reader's knowledge on a subject, not teach them how to read a summary. If someone wants to know more about the Arab infiltrators, they should click the link; they shouldn't have to click it by default. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the first paragraph and scanned the rest of the article, but can't find one instance of the word "infiltrate" or similar. Perhaps we should be using a term that more accurately reflects the article's content. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LP, it baffled me.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be because you changed it. Anyway, I don't really mind the current version. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be because I changed it? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OR paragraph

It looks like the vandals who insert the OR paragraph won't go away, so I am opening a discussion about it. If anyone can provide a reliable source for the paragraph constantly being inserted, there will be no problem paraphrasing the source and inserting the material. Otherwise, please stop inserting original research. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit-warring over OR is pointless. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First gaza war

What the hell is the " first gaza war" that mentioned in the article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzick22 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I already removed it twice in the past, somehow one instance got through. Thanks for removing it. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaza No2

It appears that a reference to the recent conflict in Gaza keeps being re-added at a rate of once per 2 days or so. Please stop re-adding it without discussion. It is recentism and shouldn't be there. Why it shouldn't be there: as much as the conflict seems significant, it actually does not appear to be that important in an historical perspective, the way we should be looking at the article.

It is not that large-scale in the historical perspective, even compared to other Israeli operations. Both Defensive Shield and Litani, for example, were broader and involved a lot more force, but are not mentioned. As far as I know, Cast Lead involved less than an entire division (not the ridiculous claim of 176,000 in the main article), which is actually very little. The command was held by Eyal Eisenberg, who is barely a general.
Its significance in the historical perspective has not been established; Sometimes there are small or medium-sized operations that are highly significant. For example, Operation Entebbe. It is not known yet what role Cast Lead played in the long run, and so far many Israelis are saying that the operation did not change anything, i.e. insignificant.

It should be kept in mind that the History section of this article is a very brief summary, and is not meant to detail the entire history of the IDF, for which there is History of the Israel Defense Forces, where information about Cast Lead (and all of the above) does belong. It is true that I unilaterally picked what should be mentioned, taking into account scale, significance, and pratical prose/style concerns. I do not own the article, and if there is a flaw in my thinking, it should be fixed. However, the section is now light years ahead of what it used to be before the rewrite, and I'd prefer it if we didn't slowly work to return it to the very poor condition it was in. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is not only extremely spurious and eccentric, but also irrelevant. On the former point, how do you judge the comparative scale of the wars? Certainly the Gaza War involved a similar number of deaths, as well as a similar number of flight-hours, or quantity of ammunition fired or disruption of civilian life ect, to the 2006 lebanon conflict. As to its political import, who can tell how the muse of history will turn? These considerations are all irrelevant, given that the addition of one sentence mentioning the Gaza War would hardly clutter up the article, while at the same time increasing its informativeness. Avaya1 (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how this was re-added about 50 times but no one until now noticed this comment that's been here since May. Anyway, comparing Operation Cast Lead to the Second Lebanon War is clueless at best. It follows a recent trend in worldwide media to assess the scale of a conflict by civilian casualties, which, indeed, is completely irrelevant. The Second Lebanon War was far larger in scale, both military and political.

But forget that; the real problem with adding this "war" is that it's not even a war. Aside from the media, there is no evidence that the historical record refers to it as a war; it is simply recentism. Comparetively, Operation Defensive Shield was also referred to as a war by many media sources, and probably Operation Litani (although I wasn't alive then and so couldn't follow the media). In addition, Israel very clear defines what is a war and what isn't, so at least the first instance of the addition, which clearly refers to "Israel's wars", shouldn't be there. In light of the above, I have two very important questions for you, which I request that you (and anyone else wishing to add information about Cast Lead to this article) address:

Why did you not add this information to History of the Israel Defense Forces, the main article?
Do you support also adding information about Operation Defensive Shield, Operation Litani, and more information on the three large wars (1948, 1967, 1973) which had a number of large-scale operations?

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that, as you say, it's been re-added about 50 times, shows that the wikipedia consensus is that it stay. The number of casualties is one of the best measures for judging the scale of a war (since statistics like this are more objective and verifiable than questions of "historical significance" ect). The addition consists of only three words and it makes the article more comprehensive and relevant. If you want add links for other large scale operations, then that would also be relevant for the lead (and improve the article without using up any more than a few additional words). As to whether or not it should count as a war, then that is surely just a matter of semantics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Finally I agree this info should also be added to the main history article as well. Avaya1 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have answered neither question I provided:

Why did you not add this information to History of the Israel Defense Forces, the main article?
Do you support also adding information about Operation Defensive Shield, Operation Litani, and more information on the three large wars (1948, 1967, 1973) which had a number of large-scale operations?

Lead section

It appears that stuff about Gaza is now being added to the lead section. If this was not clear enough, the changes discussion in the Gaza No2 section are for the history section of this article, not the lead. The current edit by Avaya1 is completely off, as the Yom Kippur War was not a "major Israeli military operation", nor was any other one of Israel's wars—that's what separates the wars from the operations. If many users have a serious problem with Israel's very well-defined designation of war, the list can be removed from the lead section entirely, as it's not directly relevant to the IDF anyway, and is discussed in the history section per Gaza No2 on this talk page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

US support

Hi, As you may have noticed I reverted a statement attributing Israeli military tech "largely to US support". I reverted it because it seemed to be a very general statement. I agree that there is a lot of Israeli mil-tech that is US, but the same holds true of French mil-tech and the same hold true of Israeli localy-made items. Is there a way to be more specific about this statement? Joe407 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An article referenced in the short budget section [2] mentions $2billion as US military aid to Israel. This figure is however several years old. An up-to-date figure could appropriately be included there but I didn't think it was worth using one that was too old. If someone can find an article that gives more up to date info that would help. What would also be useful would be an indication of how specific this aid is. A lot of international aid comes with strings attached - "you can have this amount of money provided you spend it all on buying these overpriced items from these companies based in our nation". So is Israel given so much aid in cash or is it given so many aircraft, missiles etc? And also an indication of whether there is a privileged partner status of some sort which means that Israel is one of a special list of allies allowed to buy the current stuff rather then the previous generation of equipment? A RS that answers these sorts of questions would allow the article to be much better than just havign vague referfences to generous American aid.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The debate about how much aid the US really gives Israel is quite fascinating, but not relevant to the edit in question. Lapsed Pacifist in his edit implied that all Israeli weapons were made with "generous US support", which is both original research and inappropriate synthesis. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I implied no such thing. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we have no mention at all in the article of US support - the title of this thread. LP's edit was an attempt to insert a mention though not, in my opinion, in the best place or manner. I am suggesting that the budget section is the best place, and that instead of the imprecise term "generous", somethign like the $2bn 2001 figure but more recent would be a better way. Then, where LP inserted the reference to US support, a referenced mention to any special trading status that Israel has with the US (and indeed France) that enables the IDF to get the most up-to-date weapons would be appropriate. Conversely the minor restrictions recently placed by Britain would also be worth a mention unless there is a broader statement somewhere that covers multiple nations.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind having a sentence or two about US support, but it has to be devoid of original research. Consider the following points:

The figure is, as you said yourself, from 2001, and it has changed significantly over the years, I think the Bush administration made some long-term changes.
Israel received $X in "military aid" from the US. Who says that this all goes to the IDF? AFAIK, there is a significant contribution to the military industries, which are not part of the IDF. Without more accurate statistic, it would be original research to translate "military aid" to "IDF".
Another point you raised yourself—how are the funds used? Even ignoring the previous 2 points, just saying that "the IDF receives $X from the US" would imply that this is an integral part of the yearly IDF budget. However, this could be completely false, and it could be part of a special budget within the IDF (or outside of it) for purchasing US exports or something.

I hope these issues are clarified before anything is added. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything is better than a whitewash. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not your edit. I invite you to make constructive suggestions for specific changes in the article, and then implement them if there is consensus. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You prefer a whitewash to my edit? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "whitewash" you mean "current version", then the answer is yes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three "legs" to the American support for Israeli Offense, er I mean defense.

Money
Guns
and Lawyers, er soft support. Intel, training, technical and of course political cover by stopping international law from arresting them. Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I make it $2.7 billion for 2009, rising $150 million every year for the next ten. See Israel-United_States_military_relations#Military_aid. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite it, than please add a clear statement about amounts of US military aid. Thanks. Joe407 (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You've got some sources (and an indication of annually published sources for more up to date figures) there to insert something more specific than a reference to "generous" military aid. Some can be inserted in the budget section while being aware of the caveats mentioned by Ynhockey above. The reference to a lot of the aid being tied to equipment purchases is appropriate in the equipment section where you originally inserted a mention of US aid. A see also would also be relevant.--12:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

http://opencrs.com/document/RL33222/ U.S. military aid has helped transform Israel’s armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world. ... In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. For FY2008, Israel is receiving $2.4 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The agreement calls for incremental annual increases in FMF to Israel, reaching $3.1 billion a year by FY2018.1 ... Most analysts consider Israel’s ability to use a significant portion of its annual military aid for procurement spending in Israel to be a valuable aspect of its assistance package; no other recipient of U.S. military assistance has been granted this benefit. Hcobb (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hcobb, thanks for the ref. It should be part of this article. The only caveat I feel is that it should not be the opening line of the section as the original edit by LP was. Joe407 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture removal

Flayer removed a picture from the gallery, saying "Unclear, biased" in the edit summary. Could you be more specific? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a thread two up where we were discussing removal of that gallery. The hardware gallery I think adds some udnerstanding and it is more interesting to see some piccies than have a prose list of gadgets used by the IDF. But this other gallery falls foul of policy and should be removed with the best pictures integrated into the text, if necessary replacing weak ones up there.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, I'm going to remove the photo of the four men from the Gaza - West Bank section. It doesn't show context that they are in WB or GS. Joe407 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's easily remedied, Joe. We can write a piece in the text about how the IDF and settlers work together [3]. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. The photo would be appropriate for an article about the civilian nature of the IDF or of civilian defense groups in settlements. Go for it. I would still caution against using this photo connected to a specific location (WB or GS) because there is no context in the photo. From the background scenery it could have been taken in the Golan Heights or in Beer Sheba.

But you are correct that the citizen-soldier nature of the IDF (as expressed in Israeli culture and the reserve duty system) is a good topic that may well deserve it's own article. Joe407 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem now? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the talk page before editing. As I mentioned above, there is no visible context in the picture showing that it has anything to do with either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. It is a picture of four men, two in uniform, holding rifles. It could have been taken in Nablus, East Jerusalem or Petach Tikvah. As such it is an excellent illustrative photo of militantism in Israeli culture or the citizen-soldier nature of the IDF but not relevant to a general article about the IDF or an article about a specific location. Joe407 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe it's not relevant. It shows the nature of IDF operations in the occupied territories, its cooperation with settler groups. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, how do you know the photo is of an area in the WB or GS? If the four men were standing in front of a sign saying "Efrat" or a recognizable landmark like the Church of Saint Porphyrius in Gaza, it would be a relevant picture.

Yes, the photo shows a cultural connection between the IDF and Israeli civilians but it is not a relevant photo regarding any specific area because the photo shows no context as to where it was taken. Joe407 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the lack of a sign or landmark is enough to justify deleting the picture. It was taken near Nablus, according to its description. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, a caption given by an uploader or by a flikr stream owner is unverifiable and as such not according to WP standards. When you look through most other photos, you see the caption is a description given to what the user sees in the photo. Often it adds information that is only evident to a professional (explaining that the rhino in the picture is an african rhino) but a caption should not add information not evident in the photo (explaining that the rhino's name is Susan), unless this information can be sourced. Joe407 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I do not feel that this photo should be deleted. All I am pointing out is that this article is not a relavant place for it. Joe407 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe it's not relevant. It shows the nature of IDF operations in the occupied territories, its cooperation with settler groups. —User:Lapsed Pacifist

The above comment shows exactly why this picture shouldn't be in this article, as it can be broadly, and incorrectly, interpreted. From what I can tell from the picture, it's a joint patrol/weapon unloading by the IDF and local security forces, and this has nothing to do with the "settlement movement" or anything of the sort. The patrol is in the territories, so the locals would obviously be settlers, but this is not about "cooperation with settler groups". It is clear that anyone not living in Israel would not correctly interpret this picture. Therefore, it should not be in such a visible article. Maybe in another article, although I can't think of one where it would be directly relevant at this point. Maybe an article about weapon unloading. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant group as in small group (like the two men with the soldiers), not the colonist movement as a whole. "It is clear that anyone not living in Israel would not correctly interpret this picture. Therefore, it should not be in such a visible article. " That is extraordinarily condescending. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if the comment was offensive. I meant no offense however, and was merely saying that there are quite a few indicators in that picture as to what the nature of the picture is, and these identifiers wouldn't be understandable to most people in the world, just like I wouldn't understand many things obvious to a New Yorker for example. It is not meant to be condescending, but the comment still stands. I don't think we should use such a broadly-interpretable picture in this article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't said how you believe that "anyone not living in Israel" will interpret the picture. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but you did. It shows the nature of IDF operations in the occupied territories, its cooperation with settler groups. —User:Lapsed Pacifist

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't consider the men in the photo to be cooperating? How would people living in Israel describe it? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As both of you are correctly demonstrating, the photo is inconclusive as to what is happening and defintiely as to where is to is happening. It's a photo of four men with rifles. Two of them are in IDF uniform, two of them look to be religious Jews. That's all we know!! We don't know what they are doing, who they are, where they are doing it or what the relationship between the four men is. This is the reason I was uncomfortable with this photo being used in this article. Joe407 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point! What I added later was that, as an Israeli and army veteran, it's easy to notice a few more details that identify the event better than a foreigner would. However, this is not relevant to the article, and constitutes original research. I fully support removing this picture from this article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery edits

Hello all, I'd like to ask for a bit of community input. I've gone back and forth a few times with Liftarn (talk) regarding the image gallery on this article. The images we've inserted and deleted include:

Photograph of Mt. Hertzl military cemetery.
Photograph of two IDF soldier with one of them sticking up his middle finger.
Photograph of four men with guns, two in IDF uniform and two not.

Please look at the article history of the past day or so to see who moved what images. I don't care if my opinion is accepted or not but I would like for the community to express an opinion about what images should be in the gallary so that it (as is in WP:IG) adds information to the article in an objective and NPOV manner. Thank you for helping us avoid an edit war on this.

Joe407 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IG gives a guidline. It says "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." and "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." (I think "contrast" applies here). It's ofcourse not necessary to have a gallery as it says "The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." // Liftarn (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn, Can you explain what the contrast expressed by a soldier smiling and sticking up his middle finger at the camera is? The photo shows no context and no setting other than dessert. It could have been taken in Gaza or in Eilat. There is no way of knowing. There is also no way of knowing what the soldier is "flipping off" with his finger. He could be directing it towards the camera man or towards an arab standing behind the camera man or towards the back of his officer who he dislikes or he could just think that it's cool to stick his finger up when he is smiling for the camera.

The same questions can be raised regarding the photo of the four men. The caption given by the uploader or by the flikr stream owner is unverifiable and as such not according to WP standards. Given the hands-in-pockets pose of the second guy from the right and the clean clothes they are all wearing it could just be some friends posing for a picture wanting to look cool. Alternately you could say that three of the guys are pointing their guns at a man they just finished beating to a pulp and are about to shoot who is laying at the feel of the camera man. With no context, anything is possible.

You are raising an important issue here that we should review all of the images here and ensure that they are appropriate to be in the article. Joe407 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Joe407. The photo of the two soldiers looks like it came from a personal photo album. The faces are clearly visible. Same goes, actually, for the Ethiopian soldier. -- Nudve (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IG says "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." and this goes for all pictures in the gallery. For inctance we have a picture of a soldier holding a paper (File:Soldier at Kalandia checkpoint.jpg). A group of soldiers walking around (File:Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem.jpg) // Liftarn (talk)

There is zero encyclopedic value in any and all of the images in the gallery. Moreover, the captions were obviously written by someone who doesn't quite know what these images are about. I would also remove some of the images in the actual article, or group them into a gallery (e.g. Israeli military technology). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to return to the question originaly posed here. I listed 3 photographs that were contested if they should be in the gallery or not. Ynhockey rasied the question of dropping the entire image gallery. The images currently on the gallery are: (I've left the captions as they currently appear.)

Off-duty soldiers in Jerusalem.
Soldiers at IDF Remembrance Day.
A Palestinian boy and Israeli soldier in front of the West Bank Barrier.
‎Soldiers conducting an operation in the city of Nablus.
Soldier at Kalandia checkpoint.
A Jewish-Ethiopian soldier.
Settlers and IDF soldiers in Iraq Burin

My vote would be to keep images number 2,3,4 & 6. Please vote. Joe407 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the gallery should be got rid of altogether. If you really want to keep some of these, then replace existing pictures. Do we need to see pictures of Israeli soldiers in both Hebron and Nablus? (replace the Hebron one with 4 if you wish.) Do we need to see pictures of women soldiers by a train and the historic 1950 picture? (You could replace one with 2) Do we need to see pictures of reserves about to go parachuting? Number 3 hasn't got a very professional encyclopedic look and I'm not sure what 6 does apart from show the extremely ignorant that there are black Israelis.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I feel you are asking an additional, very good question: do we want to take a minimalist approach towards photos or not? Personally I feel that the two photos of the women soldiers adds to the article.
For right now I'm just trying to determine what to do with this image gallery. Joe407 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And I am answering that question. From WP:IG:

However, the use of galleries (usually by way of the gallery tag or gallery template) may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

I do not consider that this gallery "adds to the reader's understanding of the" IDF by "illustrat[ing] aspects of [the] subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." So the gallery should be scrapped. I've given options for using some of your favourite images - replace the less useful existing ones. Obviously, if there is a large chunk of unadorned text, you can put a relevant image there. But get rid of the gallery. The military hardware gallery is of a different nature. Provided the items are discussed in the article in the relevant section, then having illustrations is entirely appropriate. However, I think there is an argument for repositioning it (and the accompanying text?) at the bottom as it might make someoen think that they've read to the end of the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe407, polls on Wikipedia are not subsitutes for discussion. Having said that, I will still comment on each image:

Completely useless
Useless—low quality, no encyclopedic value, does not display any aspect of the IDF
Interesting, but no encyclopedic value
Interesting, but a very similar image (Hebron) is already in the article, in much higher quality
Useless—no encylopedic value
Excellent picture, could be used in a recruitment poster, but no encyclopedic value
Interesting and significant picture, but not relevant directly to the IDF (more relevant to specific articles), and without a proper sourced caption, not much can be derived from this image.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the three weeks since I opened this thread I see the gallery has rolled over. It is now a scattering of pictures representing the IDF with the images ranging from non-encyclopedic to somewhat encyclopedic. What occurs to me is that the photos are all fairly positive towards the IDF and for someone looking to see the subject as the subject might present itself, these images do a fair job. It looks like a gallery the World Book encyclopedia might have at the end of an article.

The questions begs: But is it NPOV? If we are looking to represent the subject we should also represent the controversy and the negative about the subject!

I'd like to make the case that we do not need the photo gallery in this article to be NPOV regarding issues of Israel related controversy (i.e. Palis-Isra). The main thrust of the article is about a countries military. In an article about the American military I would expect to see a small number of a images depicting the US army as they would want to be depicted. Soldiers running and looking manly; helicopters saving people; Iwo Jima and others. The place for images of American soldiers hazing each other can go in the article about military hazing. The images of US soldiers beating prisoners in Guantanamo can go in the Guantanamo article.
So too with this article. The images that are currently there do not show every possible perspective on the IDF but are images representative of an army. I would say that inclusion in this gallery, which closes a long and detailed article (with many links to main articles) should be given the following test: If this gallery was as the end of the article on the Danish military, would you keep it? Joe407 (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now been WP:Bold and deleted the gallery. It seems to be a magnet for more pictures of doubtful worth to the article. How do we know that someone is returning from Lebanon, for example? As stated above, WP:IG is fairly clear on what is expected of galleries. The type of pot pourri that was in the gallery does not add to the reader's understanding of the subject and is not encyclopedic. The more relevant pictures can be relocated into the article, squeezing out weaker pictures already there if appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter, As no consensus has been reached and the topic was open I'm going to restore the gallery. You are correct that WP:Bold allows and even encourages an attitude of "Just do it". The original question that opened this thread does seem to have quieted down which may indicate a defacto consensus. How about if we put a clock on the topic and ask people to weigh in to reach a consensus. If say in 7 days, if no consensus has been reached we'll open it back to WP:Bold? For now I'm going to restore it. Joe407 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe407, consensus or no consensus - the gallery can't use images by famous israeli photographers without giving them due credit. I saw today an image of female soldiers saluting at a memorial service which looked too "good" to be the work of an amateur photographer and indeed.. some searching revealed it to be the work of noted AFP photographer Menachem Kahana. While the image doubtless has worth conveying the values of the IDF, such blatant disrespect for one of Israel's greatest photographers can hardly be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.146.145 (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've finally got round to removing these. As there are allegations of copyright infringement made by the anon above, I've not made any attempt to move any of these around. Even in the case of legitimate images, WP:IG applies. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IDF controls 35% of open spaces of Israel

This Israeli site: [Ynews] tells that IDF controls 35% of open spaces of Israel.Agre22 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

House Demolitions

As of now, the "House demolitions" section is longer than a third of the entire IDF doctrine section. Would it not be better to cut it back to scale, around the same size as the "Assassinations" section, and leave the link to the main article about the subject in place? I would have done it myself, but it seems like a sensitive subject. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have long advocated trimming that entire part. However, it would require a comprehensive rewrite, not an easy task (even if there are no neutrality concerns). I suggest that you prepare a draft and we can discuss it here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I fail to see why this entire section is in the article at all. It seems to be a very focused topic more aptly addressed in other articles dealing with I-P issues. It's strange to me that "house demolitions" and other ancillary items are so prominently featured while other more relevant topics, such as the various wars and battles during the course of the IDF's history don't even get an honorable mention. It's bizzare and the entire section should be reverted and replaced perhaps with a brief synopsis of the various wars and prominent military operations.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

Hello. The article 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories is once again nominated for deletion and it looks like it will once again survive. Half of the content is about the accusations of organ harvesting by the IDF and would probably be better addressed in an article whose focus is the IDF, say Conspiracy theories related to the Israel Defense Forces. In any case, a few editors have tried to maintain some veneer of respectability to the 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article but I, for one, will take it off my watchlist because it seems silly to work on an article that I wish was deleted. I'm hoping that some editors here can get involved. Pichpich (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy proposition

I've been reviewing the article and for the most part it's pretty solid. However I must take issue with the controversy controversy section. For starters, it looks very misplaced. Countries with much more "colorful" military history such as the United States armed forces, French Armed Forces, British Armed Forces, and Indian Armed Forces have no similar controversy section. There is certainly more than enough reliable sources to support one, so the absence is telling. Why is the IDF article any different?

I propose we move the controversy section to Military history of Israel, History of the Israel Defense Forces, or Israeli wars and armed conflict. To be perfectly honest I think those 3 articles could be easily moved into a single article, and any left pertinent information could be moved here.

On a side note, I see there is a small incomplete chart of Israel military casualties here, I would like to see a full article devoted to Israel's casualties like this one: United States casualties of war. There is more than enough references to support one I'd say.

But the main issue here is the controversy section. Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. I went further and opened several other army articles and none have controversy sections. This is a disease common only to Israeli articles in which POV editors find it an obligation to dirty them. You don't see Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse on the United States Army page and you could be sure that it would not be tolerated on other army articles as well. The scandals are not hushed up, they are placed in perspective. --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that there should be a controversy section, but like Shuki, believe it should be put in perspective. Only controversies that affected the IDF in a significant way should be represented; this excludes things like (looking at the current section): the USS Liberty incident, the term "IOF", Oranim College, the offensive t-shirts, etc. Some controversies however have had a huge effect, some in Israel only and some abroad, and they can be counted on the fingers. What comes to mind is the Lavon Affair (party IDF), the Yom Kippur war as a debacle (controversy within Israel) and the Sabra and Shatila massacre. There really aren't many controversial incidents that definitely caused such an effect. Recommended reading on the subject is The Sword and the Olive by Martin van Creveld. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking for precedents to support the section and I can't find a single one. For all intents and purposes Israel's military "controversy" - even the most extreme interpretation, is nothing compared to America, Britain, France and India. So like I said, why is Israel any different? Is there a bi-law that supports it? I think it would be a lot more fair to move the section to the pertinent article. The controversies (such as sabra and shatila) should be represented in their respective war...but the t-shirt controversy? Please, that was hardly notable as far as the IDF is concerned. Do we need to vote or something? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The USS Liberty attack should not be included? You serious? nableezy - 02:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As Shuki correctly noted, we have to put the events in perspective. The USS Liberty incident is well-known because it was one of the greatest friendly fire debacles in Israeli history and also as one of the main US-related incidents in IDF history. However, from an historical point of view, it's a fairly small incident that had almost no influence on anything. I've read a few books on general IDF history (as opposed to specific episodes), and none of them talk in-depth about the USS Liberty incident or attribute it significance in the long term. If you can find such sources, it would be interesting to have a look, but if we including the Liberty incident, we might as well have a 100-page controversy section detailing every screw-up the IDF has ever made. I bet some Wikipedians would like that, but this would not lead to a balanced article. Moreover, Wikifan is quite right about not having such sections for other armies. Therefore I believe there should be a controversy section but it should be small and deal with controversies that have historical significance. Everything else can be part of History of the Israel Defense Forces, which for some reason no one wants to work on. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont particularly care whether or not the "controversies" are grouped together in a single section, but in my opinion they should be placed within the articles in the areas dealing with the controversy. As for the Liberty attack, most of the books I have seen that deal with 67 discuss it, and often going in to some detail. Even the sources that conclude that it was a simple mistake with no motive or intent still discuss the impact of the attack. See for example Segev 1967. And yes, there have been many books published about the attack itself, that does not make it less important or notable. But books dealing with 67 often discuss the Liberty attack. So to should this article when discussing 67. nableezy - 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I would expect any book dealing with 1967 to discuss the USS Liberty incident. However, every book dealing with 1967 also discusses its various battles which are not mentioned in this article, and I don't think they should be. For example, with all due respect to the Battle of Ammunition Hill, likely more significant in the long term than the Liberty incident, it simply did not impact the IDF in a major way to be included here. Again, don't forget that we have a History of the Israel Defense Forces article, which I encourage people who want to go into more detail to have a look at. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But, as I was saying - would it be fair to move the controversy section to the other pertinent articles? We could merge any relevant information - such as the Liberty incident - to their respective sections, like the 67' war. This is consistent with similar articles and I think justified by wiki protocol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy sections (and even more so articles) need to be handed with care as they often become content/POV forks. Do you get an article which mainly consists of blurb about how wonderful and saintly a particular person or institution is written by their fans or employees and then it has a subsection about how it has been claimed on an obscure website that they eat babies. I think this article suffers from some of that with glamorous pitures of equipment women soldiers, disucssion of the code of ethics in most of the article followed by the scandal. It would follow Wikipedia guidelines better if say discussion of scandals associated with particular wars occurred in the place where those wars are mentioned and if the more extreme ethical abuses were included in the discussion of the ethical cide. also we should be aware of WP:Recentism and spend too much time on complaints about what happenned in Gaza just because it is fresh in our minds.

On Wikifan's point about there not being similr coveerage elsewhere it might be worth an approach to the WP:MILHIST project and suggest they produce guidelines on how to deal with this. It is of the nature of occupying armies that they abuse the occupied. Obviously it would be somewhat peculiar to have a controversies section in Roman Army saying that it sometimes sacked cities, raping, killing or enslaving large chunks of the population. The thing only becomes an issue if the army belongs to a state that professes democratic values or at a time when institutions such as the United Nations, International Court and Geneva Conventions are meant to control all armies. But there have been enough wars involving such states in modern times that it really is something for which MILHIST ought to have developed techniques.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The controversy section has little to do with the "occupation." America and Britain have engaged in extensive occupations in many countries and neither of their articles contain any sort of "controversy" section describing them. There is no justification to support a controversy section, unless I'm missing something, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's been a full day. Any more discussion because I'd really like to edit the content without provoking a revert war.

Ive read through the article now and the faults I discussed, namely content forking and recentism, apply. Try and disperse the material and cut down on some of the Gaza war stuff, There is extensive space given to the mission and codes of conduct etc. A lot of the "controversies" appear to refer to alleged violations of thesen principles and would therefore be better handled as part of that. Are you willing ot have a go at turning some of those into examples of how those codes in practice? E.g. how Sabra and Shatilla was followed by an enquiry the t-shirt slogans resulted in a statement sbout them violating principles some of the Gaze War claims were denied.... --Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I say bring this article in line with other NPOV army articles and remove 'controversy' section. --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The t-shirt controversy warrants little mention and should be moved to a more pertinent article, or removed. I say we move the controversy section all together since no other Western military has one (in spite of being far more controversial.) There is simply nothing to support its existence. So unless can justify its inclusion I'm going to remove it for now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

infobox

Shuki, if you want to remove the infobox as you did [4] get consensus for it first, it shows a lot of important info, for example, foreign suppliers and manpower numbers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Shuki, your edit summary said "army -> armed forces. (seems to be the standard way to open a nations's army article, please check around as well" and yet your edit removed the infobox. That is quite a significant mismatch. Is there a problem with the infobox ? It seems okay, it's just a 'National Military' infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake. There's nothing wrong with it at all. Sorry for not noticing that before saving and after. --Shuki (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IOF/Israeli Occupation Forces

An edit in the introduction stated: 'called in media condemning the Israeli occupation or supporting the Palestinian cause the "Israili Occupation Forces" or by the acrynum "IOF", or simply "Occupation Army"' was reverted, the reason given is that sitation needed, this is ridiculous, if you quickly search the term "israeli occupation forces" or "IOF", a quick view of the result clearly shows that the above statement is a fact, if you wish, there exists a subset of media that mostly condemns the israeli occupation AND/OR supporting the palestinian cause that uses the above mentioned term in order to describe what is officially called in Israel The "Israel Defence Forces" or acronymed "IDF", this is not about the correctness of the naming, its a FACT; the term is used, which reflects the definition of these forces by different groups. -- anon by choice --83.244.96.227 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh? If it is indeed so simple, why haven't you actually brought forth a reliable source? According what you say, it should be trivial. You also ignored the other part of the removal reason: WP:UNDUE. Yes, there are partisan (and unreliable) sources calling the Israeli military "IOF" and such. Is this sufficiently notable to mentioned in the lead? Is it notable enough to mentioned at all? Rami R 14:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So was the IDF known as the "IOF" because the "occupation" began between 1948-1967? The "IOF", IMO (obviously) is simply another buzzword designed to villify and demonize the Israeli army. As far as wikipedia policy goes, you won't find anything to support renaming the article Israel occupation force. For those who are unaware, the vast majority of the Israeli army are stationed in Israeli-proper, not the West Bank or the Golan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

well, i never said anything about renaming the article !! nor did i bring up the issue where the IDF is stationed mostly, this is irrelevant, there is a significant portion of the media world wide that uses that term, regarding being undue, well, the occupation of westbank, gaza strip and golan was performed by and only by the IDF, currently it is the only occupying army in the context of the Palestinian israili conflict! it is and has been (i.e. the occupation) a hot topic in the news for the last 42+ years!! this is all irrelevent, BUT sources such as aljazeera.net [5], the palestinian center for human rights [6], and reliefweb [7] are examples of sources which do use the term IOF instead of IDF. this is a very important aspect of how NOT the official name of the army of israel is used! the claim that the reason it is used is to demonize the israeli army or not is also irrelevant to this discussion. the addition was straight to the point, this is how X is called by Y! --213.6.37.137 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

IT doesn't matter that AJ, Palestinian rights groups, whatever invent names for the Israeli army. What is your angle? You are seriously proposing a merge of opinionated, Arabist propaganda into the article? Where would it go? You might want to try Human rights in Israel. Also, just to be clear - the EU and US military has a presence in the WB, training the Palestinian security forces. And no Israeli occupies Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

<- I don't think it's reasonable to entirely dismiss the IOF term. It is used by mainstream RS both in their narrative voice and when they quote prominent sources who use the term routinely. Here are some examples but there are many, many more. It probably doesn't deserve any more than a sentence but not mentioning it could be seen as inconsistent with NPOV requirements.

"Once local Arab police are on the streets, the Israeli occupation forces would withdraw from Palestinian towns in the occupied territories to 'specified security locations'." - The Independent (about Palestinian areas)
"Delegates will be asked to condemn "terrorism" but to differentiate this from "legitimate resistance" (i.e. Hizbollah's war against Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon)." - The Independent (about Lebanon)
"We condemn these actions, whether by the Israeli occupation forces or the reactions of some Palestinian factions." - The Independent (quoting Abbas)
"After the televised celebration on the lawn of the White House in Washington in September 1993, when Arafat and the Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin shook hands, and after an embarrassing tantrum in Cairo in May 1994 when Arafat would not sign the proposed map of autonomous Jericho despite the visible anger of President Mubarak, the two areas were handed over to the control of the PLO. Israeli occupation forces withdrew, and some 900,000 Palestinians greeted Palestinian policemen on their streets." - The Times (Arafat's Obituary, note the term is used in the Times' narrative voice)
“The landing carried out by the Israeli occupation forces today in the Bekaa was a flagrant violation of the cessation of hostilities,” - The Times (quoting Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister)

Sean.hoyland - talk 02:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you suggesting Sean? That we merge a clearly opinionated, if not extremely partisan/propaganda libel into the article? I don't know how we could put IOF into the article without compromising the integrity of it. Drawing personal inferences or conclusions based on the statements made by partisan media is blatant OR. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that in order to comply with NPOV, a mandatory policy, it may be necessary to make a brief mention that the IDF is sometimes referred to as the IOF thereby increasing the integrity and policy compliance of the article. 'partisan media' , The Times ? Hello ? 'partisan/propaganda libel', nonsense and please desist from voicing your opinion about what is libel because it won't help disussions here. The selection of sources I have provided at the very least shows that the term exists and is used by both mainstream RS and by partisan sources who regard or have regarded themselves as under occupation. This is similar to the situation where Israeli Settlements are sometimes referred to as neighborhoods rather than settlements. We are obliged by policy to mention that in order to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because a term exists does not mean it deserves to be in the intro. Parallels to the settlement dispute are absurd. Israeli settlements being referred to as "cities, neighborhoods, whatever" is not the same as nicknaming the Israeli military, "Israeli occupation force." This is not a legal, national, or internationally-recognized title. I can probably find numerous articles libeling the militaries of USA and India for their occupation of Iraq and Kashmir. Doesn't mean the intro paragraph should include a parenthesis indicating a vocal minority aren't capable of intellectual thought process. I apologize for "voicing" my opinion about the Times, AJ, etc. It was reactionary and not part of my argument. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting putting it in the lead. I was merely suggesting that completely dismissing it may be a step too far NPOV-wise given its presence in RS and that perhaps it should be mentioned sonewhere. 'a vocal minority aren't capable of intellectual thought process', given that there is consensus within the international community about a set of things called the Israeli occupied territories it's hardly surprising that the IOF term would exist and be used in RS and as part of the defense vs occupation narrative war (which is, in my view, very similar to the settlement vs neighborhood narrative war). It's true that it isn't a legal or national title (although who knows, maybe its usage is mandated by certain sources in their official communications, I don't know) but its presence in RS does indicate that it is some kind of alternate name (and its validity doesn't come into it). Let's agree to disagree and let others comment. I don't really have any more to add. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The original edit was far from POV and completely unnecessary. That is where my disagreement is based from. Again, I'm not disputing that the term exists and is frequently thrown around in left-leaning/arabist news agencies, but drawing parallels to the settlement/disputed/occupied territories whatever was simply false. IOF is essentially name-calling in comparison. Some commentators insist these sorts of words are part of a general effort to reframe the reality of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I await others comments, but I would be interested in hearing how this could somehow be included in an article without compromising integrity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall simply and incredibly pretentiously quote Wittgenstein and say 'The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.' Have you considered 'affectionately known as the IOF' ? The United States Marine Corp article has a section on terminology -> Us_marines#Unofficial_traditions_and_customs which may or may not help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

<--Sean, it's quite clear the authors say "IOF" in a pejorative way. Yeah, Israeli soldiers are stationed in the WB and parts of the Golan, so one could be part of an "occupying force." But the language used by AJ and British newspapers is hardly....fair. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfair, pejorative, doesn't matter does it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal does not merit a serious response. How about we start the Obama article with:

Barack Obama, called simply Hussein by his detractors, is the president of the United States

The article on George W. Bush does not mention the word "Dubya" (a nickname used by thousands of reliable sources, and not pejorative). In short, please concentrate your efforts elsewhere. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you take this article off your watchlist for now and have another go at responding when you are able to do so in a way that is consistent with the discretionary sanctions ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the insistance of entering in the intro the term IOF, is far from NPOV and ment only to slant the IDF. Since we don't enter prejorative terms and insults on anyone who has opposition, since we are an encyclopedia and not a debate forum or a propoganda site, we apply the same here. The term is used only by partisan sources, that if we would quote or state every deformation they express we would have racist and antisemitic hate speech such as "Zionazies", "Jews are jerms" (Sheikh Raed Salah, the Islamic Movement (Israel)" and we had to open the Holocaust value by "called Zionist Fraud by....". I object of entering the term IOF. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 12:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only the IP editor has suggested putting anything in the lead. No one has supported that position so far. There's no basis for anyone to insist of anything unless they have convincing policy based evidence to support their position. I've not seen or heard this term very often personally so I quickly checked whether/how it is used in some mainstream RS (listed above). I was sufficiently surprised by the results to suggest that completely dismissing it may be a step too far NPOV-wise and that perhaps it should be mentioned sonewhere (but not in the lead and maybe not at all). The IP has raised the issue of the IOF term and I think it merits further dispassionate investigation of its usage. WP:NPOV is quite clear, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." For me, it's a bit like the section in the Viet Cong article which says "American soldiers referred to the Vietcong as Victor Charlie or VC. "Victor" and "Charlie" are both letters in the NATO phonetic alphabet. "Charlie" referred to communist forces in general, both Vietcong and North Vietnamese." We just need to look at enough reliable sources to see whether IOF is something we need to deal with or not. According to the discretionary sanctions we are supposed to be providing "neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Personal feelings and opinions about the term don't come into it unless they interfere with the process in which case editors are urged to simply walk away. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

well, this has been reverted, im putting it back, i hope that if its reverted again (by someone who thinks this is vandalism, to notified by the above discussion). --213.6.13.226 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear wikifan12345, i assume you also have the discussion page watched, i noticed you reverted these changes although there is a discussion here that shows that in accordance with Wikipedia policy, mentioning this name (IOF) should be. if you do not like the current place this information was put (it was also removed twice before, at least one of them despite of the above discussion), please lets discuss it here, where would you like to have it in the article? but please just do not enforce your POV, whilst you even took place in the discussion. im putting it back, if you wish to dispute it, please do it here ! - anon by choice --213.6.13.226 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon, please stop vandalizing the article. You have provided no compelling policy-based argument to include the information in question in the article. The fact that you're using the talk page is commendable, but you also need to provide reasoning for your edits. You have claimed that "there is a discussion here that shows that in accordance with Wikipedia policy, mentioning this name (IOF) should be." I see no such thing. If anything, there seems to be consensus against this. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how i am vandalizing the article? but lets not get drifted off the topic here, i will quote "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.", the last post in the discussion (before my responses regarding the discussion) was by Sean.hoyland, i confirmed to the constructive input that shows that no one but i agrees that the term IOF should be used in the intro, it is clear that this term is not welcomed by some editors, and seems offensive to some, never the less, it still represents a major perspective that the article is completely ignoring! regardless whether we agree on it or not! in that sense the article is not balanced, although i would say that as far as i can see, it does not introduce false information, but it defiantly shuts off a whole perspective of it! the article is POV, i was denied multiple times to try to balance it, i did so while discussing it on the discussion page. if the tone of my edits was not neutral ( this is how X is called by Y ), or if my attempt to clarify the reasoning of (X) why it/they use this name were offending, then that should be discussed on this page or modified accordingly in the article! but it was removed and the removal reasoning was not clarified here and the discussion was left open because chose not to take part of the discussion! frankly I'm offended by you calling my edits vandalism! but i would rather keep the discussion revolving around the core issue of this discussion. -- anon by choice, --213.6.13.226 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be represented. The "IOF" label does not represent a significant viewpoint and is a pejorative label, which should especially be avoided (see also my example with Bush/Dubya above). Sean Hoyland provided a number of links, which:

1. Do not prove that it's a significant viewpoint

2. Do not even use the term. They refer to Israeli forces as occupiers, but do not use the term Israeli Occupation Forces (notice the capitalization) as an alternative to Israel Defense Forces (you are trying to insert a passage into the article which says that the IDF is also called IOF by some, which is not supported by Sean Hoyland's articles, and is well-known to represent a fringe point of view—see WP:FRINGE).

In general, when trying to insert an alternative term for any article name, this needs to have some official or mainstream credibility, and the guidelines are more stringent than for representing two opposing viewpoints in the article's content. We will need some mainstream sources that use, or discuss the use, of the IOF as an alternative name to IDF, not sources that accuse IDF of occupation, which is a completely different issue.

Lastly, you are vandalizing the article because you are inserting content against consensus (or at least, without one), not to mention the little effort that was apparently put in to proper spelling and capitalization in the edits. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous Nuclear Weapons

Though I have no direct links/refs. I have been told by reliable sources that Israel developed their own nuclear weapons. I heard this from my dad. Yes. I know how that sounds. My dad works for a technology company that is getting funding from JIDO and Tank Command for an explosives detection system. He is in washington 12 weeks out of the year, has one of the higher security clearances possible for a contractor, and has been to plenty of briefings. He has also worked in the defense industry prior to this (he worked for GRC for 10+ years). He worked with a man named Arseny Berezin (a nuclear physicist who worked at high levels in the USSR), and has been to Oak Ridge National Labs 5 times in the past year to pick up materials for a neutron source and detector.

I say all of that to explain why his knowledge, through aquaintances and acquired knowledge, is legitimate and can be trusted, despite being a 2nd hand account.

According to him, it is easier to develop a fusion bomb than a fission bomb and that essentially every single country that has ever attempted to build a fusion bomb has successfully achieved it.

keep in mind that many of the scientists working on the manhattan project were jewish, and many emmigrated at their first opportunity

my point? I would actually say that a claim of an indigenous nuclear weapon is probably safe enough to be given without reference, as it is almost certainly a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all that personal information. I can tell you that it has not enhanced your credibility at all. It's the internet, anyone can claim their father is nuclear scientist. Anyway, please read WP:V and WP:RS. --Shuki (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that Israel possesses Nuclear weapons. The UK paper The Guardian has published extracts from an upcoming book by Polakow-Suransky detailing Israel's offer to furnish Nuclear arms to Apathaid-era South Africa. Additionally, The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates Israel’s arsenal at about 200 nuclear warheads, which would make Israel the sixth-largest nuclear power. These warheads can be launched by air, by ground (mid-range ballistic missiles such as the Jericho II) or by sea. Some arms control specialists say Israel’s nuclear arsenal includes missiles capable of reaching Libya, Iran or Russia. According to a 2006 report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), it is also believed Israel retains at least 100 laser-guided bunker-busting bombs, or “mini-nukes”, capable of penetrating underground targets such as nuclear laboratories or storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction.

This information can be culled from legitimate sources throughout the political spectrum. FAS, CFR are just two sources.

Just because the Official line is that they are not saying, does not put an end to the discourse I am afraid.

Best regards,

18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.130.26 (talk)

israeli use of illegal weaponry?

so why is there no section about this? references are all over the place.

www.naturalnews.com/News_000651_Israel_Gaza_white_phosphorous.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}

http://www.alternet.org/story/39628/

hell: http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=israeli+use+of+illegal+weapons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.171.165 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad they didn't use nukes!!--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Facebook photo section

Regarding this edit, related edits and the reasons for removal, rather than express a view on this issue, I would like to point out that the way this is being handled here is inconsistent with the way information about Marc Garlasco was handled in the Human Rights Watch article. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more explicit? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Both the IDF and HRW are large organizations with long histories. Both organizations are involved in a very wide range of activities despite both having organizational objectives that could be summarized in a few words e.g. defend Israel, improve human rights. Both organizations routinely appear in the media for all sorts of reasons. In both cases 'bad' behavior was addressed in the media by the organizations and others. However, when a member of the IDF does something 'wrong' and it's widely reported it is treated as non-notable, ONEEVENT etc etc whereas when a member of HRW does something 'wrong' and it's widely reported it is treated as notable and not covered by ONEEVENT etc etc. The notability and weight of an event in relation to an organization depends on coverage of the event in reliable sources rather than the nature of the individual. It looks like policy is applied differently for the IDF and HRW. I assume this is because many editors make decisions based on their personal opinions of these organizations and are either unable or unwilling to apply policy in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting we insert the latest scandal into the article because it was covered by HRW? United States armed forces, British Armed Forces, Saudi Armed Forces, etc..etc...make no mention of alleged-human rights violations or controversies. Those belong in their own unique article, or military history. I doubt the facebook incident qualifies as "military history." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gay soldiers

I don't understand what the sentence "Israel is a nation surrounded by its enemies and the possessor of one of the world's most battle-tested, successful armies." has to do with people being gay and in the IDF. Any thoughts ? It's almost as if it has an implicit and invisible "..therefore X, Y, Z" or "despite X, Y, Z" at the end. Would that sentence be there if the section was talking about secular Jewish soldiers in the IDF, soldiers with eyeglasses, chubby soldiers etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[domestic] politics

i think perhaps there should be a section about domestic politics and the constraints thereof. Even historically there would be mention on golda meir's reluctance, netanyahu's insistence vs. the mossad chief at the the time (forget who) during Meshaal in Amaan. And also for one addition i just added, as of the section right now i think its in a good one, but it could be better with a "[doemstic] politics" section.Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers kill in video game style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"gender of the operators has no encyclopedic value"..not sure that I agree with that. It's not relevant in this article maybe but it might be relevant elsewhere in an article about gender roles etc. I thought the source was pretty interesting "...has mostly attracted attention in Israel because it is operated by 19- and 20-year-old female soldiers, making it the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women. Female soldiers are preferred to operate remote killing devices because of a shortage of male recruits to Israel’s combat units. Young women can carry out missions without breaking the social taboo of risking their lives".[8] I wasn't aware that there was a social taboo for woman risking their lives for instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates rather nicely the problem with using a yellow journalism piece such as the Cook article. Virtually everything that's "pretty interesting" in it is simply wrong or exaggerated. When you look at serious sources, you find that Aviation Week for example notes that the system is used by "mainly female soldiers" [9], but it is not 'the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women' as Cook would have it. When you read about the situation of male recruits to combat units in a serious newspaper like the New York Times, you find that there's no "shortage of male recruits to Israel’s combat units", quite the opposite: there's an "undiminished fervor of young men volunteering to fight in combat units, which make up roughly a third of the army. The Golani infantry brigade, for instance, gets 10 applicants for every place". [10]. And there's of course no "social taboo for woman risking their lives" - women have been deployed in combat situations in Israel since the days of its war of independence, and have been deployed to combat roles long before this remote weapon system came into existence [11]. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

House demolitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women

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

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

Budget

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

Neutral Point of View?

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

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

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

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

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

Doctrine section

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Tactics?

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

Foreign relations section

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC/B'Tselem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually this is the second time that you have reverted my work in this thread.[12]Reverting means reverting the work of an editor even in part which you have done twice.I have told you why it should be in the article, that is above your post.I have asked you nicely to self revert, you have failed to do that so it seems you leave me no choice but to advance this debate.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Well that is your choice not to debate this.Your first edit reverted my work, so yes it was a revert as anyone can see here.[13] where you trimmed the piece but the worst one is here [14], you have reverted a whole section that was reputably sourced and included the Israeli point of view.Being as you do not want to discuss this further then you leave me no choice but to advance this further.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

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

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

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

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

Removed

I removed the criticism section rather than tagging it with {{Criticism section}} as it served little purpose in that form. Any "criticism" or allegations etc should be integrated into the text. Leaving a two sentence generalised description of a war crime serves little to no purpose. Integrate any issues into the text and help the article have a NPOV. Woody (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jolly. Do you intend to do the same thing, then, re Israel's military opponents? Do you intend to remove Hamas#Criticism, for example or, indeed, the entire article, since almost all of it is criticism? – OhioStandard (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Woody, this has been discussed on this page and there was an agreement to put that in the article.You were not in the discussion and have just come along and deleted it for no good reason.Owain the 1st (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding {{Criticism section}} tag. Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate., see Wikipedia:Criticism sections. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also removing unsourced The IDF has been accused .... Not sure why we need the BBC source at all, appears irrelevant to this article subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

MFA source is discussing Operation Cast Lead, so maybe it could be integrated in the Gaza War or relevant subsection of this article, despite the fact that it is being a primary source. Appears not too much meat in this section, so I am removing it according to Criticism section recommendations. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Owain, some of the points raised by others here are valid. The section is very dull and general and does not include useful information. I still think there should be a criticism section, but not one which is so general. Here are some articles to work with:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-war-crimes http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-calls-for-war-crimes-probe-into-idf-shelling-of-civilian-occupied-building-in-gaza-1.267832 http://www.zcommunications.org/exterminate-all-the-brutes-gaza-2009-by-noam-chomsky http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes http://mondediplo.com/2009/03/03warcrimes http://www.antiwar.com/cook/?articleid=9407 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4580139.stm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3986365,00.html

There is a lot more to work with. Maybe you should also consider noting that the IDF considers any attempt to take it to court over war crimes to be "legal terrorism". Source:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-war-crime-charges-over-gaza-offensive-are-legal-terror-1.270460 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004591

We may also want to mention that IDF personnel have had to cancel trips abroad because of worries that they would be tried for war crimes. Source:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3221339,00.html Poyani (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kicked off the Internet

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s also far from extraordinary; The US militry also bans the use of “social sites” for Operational Security (OpSec) reasons.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Andy REDDSON