Talk:Israel/Archive 64

A Question Concerning an Edit
In the "History" section of this article, in the sub-section entitled "Antiquity," there is a current edit which reads as follows:
 * The early history of the territory is unclear. Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs, The Exodus, and the conquest described in the Book of Joshua, and instead views the narrative as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth.

I wish to suggest a more precise edit, since the above source does not exactly say what is purported in the article, namely:


 * The early history of the territory is unclear. Biblical archaeologists have yet to find archaeological evidence supporting the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs and The Exodus, although archaeological excavations in Israel have disclosed evidence of the conquest described in the Book of Joshua.

Are there objections to this edit, and if so why? Can someone suggest a better edit?

- NOTES:Davidbena (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I think it's absurd to suggest, as your proposed change does, that the Biblical narrative is historically true but archaeologists have not yet found the evidence. The encyclopedia needs to take a neutral tone.
 * Second, the article in Archaeology doesn't say, as your proposed change does, that archaeological evidence supports the historicity of the Book of Joshua. What it says is that finds at Hazor may support some elements of the narrative in that book concerning the Israelites' conquest of that city. It says Yadin was certain the destruction level at Hazor should be ascribed to the Israelites, but "[i]n recent years, some scholars have begun to question" whether the evidence Yadin found supports his conclusion. How can you transform a lack of scholarly consensus regarding Hazor into a consensus that the entire conquest described in Joshua is supported by "evidence".
 * If you want to revise the phrase "national myth", which one of your edit summaries seemed to criticize, I will review the sources and see whether I agree with you. But if you want to rewrite the whole tenor of the paragraph based on misinterpretation of an article in a popular archaeology magazine, I recommend you start an RfC. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It wasn't me who said that "the Biblical narrative is historically true but archaeologists have not yet found the evidence." I have only stressed what the older source stated literally, namely, that there has yet to be found archaeological evidence to support the historicity of the biblical narratives as they touch upon the Patriarchs and the Exodus. The original source cited does not mention, per se, any "national myth." The absence of archaeological evidence, as we all know, is not necessarily a confirmation that certain events did not happen, or that certain personages did not exist. This is common logic. Moreover, a "neutral tone" does not necessarily equate to outwardly maintaining a "tone of skepticism" within that edit space. Rather, in my humble opinion, we should leave it open and let the reader draw his own conclusions.


 * Secondly, the source that I provided from the "Archaeology" Journal at JSTOR says explicitly (on p. 51): "The Yadin expedition also found evidence for the sudden, violent destruction of Canaanite Hazor. On the tels acropolis and throughout the city below, it uncovered debris from a conflagration believed to have taken place in the thirteenth century B.C., when the city's once-impressive Bronze Age fortifications had apparently gone out of use. Yadin claimed that this destruction was evidence of the Israelite conquest of Hazor. The Yadin expedition also uncovered architecture and other finds from the later periods of Hazor's history, during the initial Israelite settlement in the twelfth century B.C., and under the reigns of the Israelite kings of the tenth through eighth centuries." A second excavation party also supported Yadin's claims, insofar that the article goes on to say: "A new expedition to Hazor - the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin - sponsored by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in conjunction with Madrid's Complutense University and the Israel Explo- ration Society, took up the challenge in 1990. Project director Amnon Ben-Tor of the Hebrew University, while a student, participated in the 1950s excavations. In reopening the mound, he unavoidably opened up for reexamination Yadin's major findings, particularly his association of Joshua with the city's destruction. By concentrating hidestruction. By concentrating his efforts on the main Canaanite palace and on structures at the northern edge of the acropolis, Ben-Tor has unearthed new evidence of the city's splendor and violent destruction, as well as later periods of its history under the Israelite kings."


 * To rectify what the article says later on, namely, that "in recent years, some scholars have begun to question whether Yadin's discoveries at Hazor justify his conclusion, etc." we can reword the last clause to read: "...although some archaeologists claim to have found archaeological evidence of the conquest described in the Book of Joshua, a matter that remains disputed."


 * So, how does that sound?Davidbena (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * More equivocation, the God of Gaps argument, mixed with selective primary sources, here like you've been trying on Intelligent Design? I was trying to AGF but I was getting the feeling you were quietly pushing a biblical literalist POV, while being civil as hell. I invite editors far more knowledgeable about Judaism than me to take a peak at Jewish etiquette as well. The lede makes the claim that what follows was historically "universal" based on a primary source that seems pretty ahistorical to me. Capeo (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Capeo, Actually, the sources were there before I came along and suggested a better edit. Secondly, the one source that I did bring down is NOT a primary source by the author himself, but rather by a secondary source. Anyone looking at this edit can see that I have corrected an error in the original edit, and made it conform more to the sources that were provided. Lastly, I disagree with your assessment that I have made use of "equivocation" or ambiguous language to conceal the truth. Be it far from me to do such a thing! Rather, we ought to be faithful to the sources, rather than "read into them" what we like or want to hear. Davidbena (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, Davidbena, it doesn't sound any different. Also, to repeat myself again, Archaeology is not a journal, it's a popular magazine. Your inability or unwillingness to discern the difference is disturbing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're entitled to your opinion. The "popular magazine" Archaeology (magazine) is still a bi-monthly journal, published by a reliable and recognized institution, Archaeological Institute of America (AIA). A "journal" by definition can also be "any publication issued at stated intervals, such as academic journals (including scientific journals), etc." Therefore, it is still a valid source. The point here is that the current edit is misleading and inaccurate, and does NOT appear to be supported by the source cited.Davidbena (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is misleading and inaccurate about it specifically? Does this help - I think the current version is fine, we don't need to change it to be as critical as the sources I posted, but I think this discussion might be better suited for another article as it seems to be controversial.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Seraphim System, you asked me, "what is misleading with the current edit?" Please note that the current edit cites as its source a book written by William G. Dever. In it we read: "For centuries the Hebrew Bible has been the fountainhead of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Today, however, the entire biblical tradition, including its historical veracity, is being challenged. Leading this assault is a group of scholars described as the 'minimalist' or 'revisionist' school of biblical studies, which charges that the Hebrew Bible is largely pious fiction, that its writers and editors invented 'ancient Israel' as a piece of late Jewish propaganda in the Hellenistic era. [] In this fascinating book noted Syro-Palestinian archaeologist William G. Dever attacks the minimalist position head-on, showing how modern archaeology brilliantly illuminates both life in ancient Palestine and the sacred scriptures as we have them today. Assembling a wealth of archaeological evidence, Dever builds the clearest, most complete picture yet of the real Israel that existed during the Iron Age of ancient Palestine (1200 600 B.C.)." [END QUOTE] As you can see, our article has stressed only the negative aspect, namely, by those who challenge the biblical narratives, without showing that Dever has actually shown, through archaeological discoveries, that the biblical narrative can be substantiated by such finds. While there may not be archaeological evidence to back-up the Exodus or the lives of the Patriarchs, there is, however, archaeological evidence to back-up the conquest of Canaan by invading armies.Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Davidbena asks why we don't pay more attention to Dever's views. The answer is simple: WP:NPOV. Malik Shabazz has already answered in detail, but just to make things clear about NPOV: while Dever is indeed an expert in the field, he is also controversial and so much in the minority among academics as to border on being fringe. Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to make it clear what the mainstream view is, not to replace it with a minority view. It's as simple as that. Dewer's views could very well be mentioned in more specialised articles on Biblical history, as he really is WP:RS, but for this article, where ancient history is only a part, it makes more sense to give the NPOV position, ie the academic majority view. Jeppiz (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, if that's the case, why cite Dever at all?! Let's find a better source. And while at it, we should not expunge from this section the archaeological discoveries of late, which confirm Joshua's conquest of Canaan. Moreover, if the matter is questioned as being conclusive, it should be stated as such, but not as a "fact."Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Davidbena, you have not cited a single source that confirmed Joshua's conquest of Canaan. No archaeologist is likely to ever confirm Joshua's conquest of Canaan, even if every word of the biblical book of Joshua is true, because archaeology is not in the business of "confirming" the bible, and without a written record, archaeology cannot confirm the existence of a "Joshua" who led the "Israelites". All you have cited is a single sources in a popular magazine that says there is mixed opinion about whether the ancient destruction of a site believed to be biblical Hazor is consistent with the biblical account of Joshua's destruction of that city. Nothing more. Not all of Canaan. Just one city. Please stop misrepresenting what the article says.
 * I'm truly sorry that you can't tell the difference between a magazine and a scholarly journal. The Archaeological Institute of America publishes one of each: a popular magazine ("for the general public") called Archaeology, which you cited, and a peer-reviewed scholarly journal called the American Journal of Archaeology. They are two different animals. Look at their websites: Archaeology and AJA. Look at the contents of their latest issues: Archaeology and AJA. You're making a jackass of yourself insisting that Archaeology is a learned journal when it's not. Enough already. Your POV pushing and original research are too much. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, your language is offensive and inappropriate on Wikipedia. No one is pushing WP:POV, except perhaps those who insist on the current edit. The edit claims, in general terms, that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Israeli conquest of Canaan --- which is wrong, even if only one or two cities were confirmed to have been conquered. Secondly, no one claims that the entire country of Canaan was conquered, not even the Hebrew Bible, which admits that Jerusalem among other places were not conquered by the invading Israelites. Do you think that we should submit here a RfC to get a wider view of opinions?Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, no Israeli ever conquered Canaan. Ever. You mean Israelite.
 * Second, you have cited nothing that indicates that archaeological evidence supports the idea that the "Israelites" conquered any part of Canaan. There may or may not be a consistency between the archaeological evidence of burning at the site believed to be biblical Hazor and the biblical account of the burning of Hazor. Well-meaning professional archaeologists disagree about the interpretation of the evidence. Even if they all agreed that it was consistent, it wouldn't establish that a group called the Israelites were responsible for burning the city. You are misrepresenting what the source says. The fact that you don't realize that you are misrepresenting what the source says is more troubling than the misrepresentation itself, which is pretty damn troubling.
 * Finally, please feel free to start an RfC if you wish to make an ass of yourself in front of a larger group of Wikipedia editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even you admitted earlier that the cited article states that "finds at Hazor may support some elements of the narrative in that book concerning the Israelites' conquest of that city." So have you changed your mind? As for your manner of debating, it should be done with civility. Otherwise, you give the wrong impression of yourself.Davidbena (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Today, however, the entire biblical tradition, including its historical veracity, is being challenged. Leading this assault is a group of scholars described as the 'minimalist' or 'revisionist' school of biblical studies, "

Several sections of the Bible are contradicted by available archaeological evidence. So-called Biblical minimalism is the view that almost all major works in the Bible were written between the 5th and 2nd century BC, are pretty much useless as sources, and that some of the findings in Biblical archaeology are forgeries. Proponents insist that the Tel Dan Stele is a forgery, because it includes a reference to a royal dynasty that might be the House of David. (The Stele does not confirm that David existed, but if genuine confirms that there were royals claiming descent from him).

William G. Dever belongs to an opposing historical school. He views the Biblical narratives as propaganda, but thinks they still preserve genuine historical information that matches well with the archaeological findings. He denies that he is a "Biblical maximalist" but rejects most of the views of the minimalists. Similarly, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman hold the view that some key books of the Bible were written as royal propaganda in the 7th-century BC Kingdom of Judah, and are much older than what the minimalists believe.

With Tel Hazor, the findings are without a confirmed context. There is enough evidence that the city was once destroyed by fire, but it is unclear if the destruction was the cause of foreign invasion, local warfare, civil strife, or the city burning once its trade network collapsed (the fate of several Bronze Age settlements). There is also enough evidence that someone rebuilt the city and built a number of administrative buildings, but it is unclear who and when. The city was apparently destroyed again in the 8th century BC, but this time it is rather clear that it was the Assyrians who did it. Dimadick (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Israel military image choice
What image shall we used for the IDF section. Bearing in mind that we already have an image of Iron Dome, and it might be better to only have one image or to remove that one? Feel free to nominate more images and then afterwards we could vote when we've added everyone's suggestions.

I'll start with some suggestions: Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the notion that showing gender diversity in the picture is considered a bad thing. Please feel free to nominate your own images though, we don't have to use just these ones. Avaya1 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the weaponry in this picture is American (M4 carbine, M16 rifle), while the current picture shows Israeli-made IWI Tavor. And if gender isn't considered and this image is shown, a reader would think that women are full-fledged participants on the battlefield, which is not the case. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Women in Karakal are 'full-fledged participants on the battlefield' which is their border sector. This idea that we have to choose a picture where there are no women is really making little sense to me, and appears to be a borderline sexist criteria.


 * As for the stuff about the rifles - these are still the most frequent rifles in the country (also these are not M4 Carbines, but CAR-15s that have modified over the years to M4 style using some domestically manufactured parts. It's only really in Magav that there are many genuine M4s). I agree with you that it would also be good to show a Tavor in the picture, but I don't think it's the most important consideration. Showing either M16 or Tavor is a good representation.


 * Overall on gender, showing some more diversity of the country in the pictures is a good thing, not a bad thing from most perspectives. We have one picture with a woman, for example, in the entire Israel article. This is about image for the military, in which women now comprise 30-40%. Avaya1 (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avaya and I don't think an otherwise good photo of a female soldier (not in extra tight pants like many of the photos of women soldiers) should be excluded because the photo is of a woman. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My arguments against it are not "because the photo is of a woman". I'm saying that "we should show more women" is not a good argument. First, the current photo is showing Israeli-made weapon, unlike Avaya1's. And second, if we consider gender, it should be representative of reality, not trying to bring diversity. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * >"I don't think an otherwise good photo of a female soldier (...) should be excluded because the photo is of a woman"
 * In fact, it's Avaya1 who's trying to exclude the photo because of the depicted gender. First he replaced it with a photo of women, then a beach, and now he's just removing it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not siding with Avaya1, but I agree that the Tavor is not the most important consideration (for me) - it should be discussed in the technology section or some other article, which I am sure it already is. I am just offering my opinion on which picture I think is the best photo. You will have to discuss Avaya1's views with Avaya1. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Avaya1, maybe that's because women are better in ballet. But when it comes to war, the boys win by far. Sorry, but usually women in society don't contribute like men (check parliaments in different countries, for example). Deal with it... PATRIARCHY! Lol. The same way Jews contribute to society much more than non-Jews percentagewise (no, it's not a conspiracy by "the joos", the same way there's no such thing as a patriarchy, it's called NATURE). By nature, men tend to be better fighters. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure any of those female soldiers in Karakal would beat the hell out of me, but they only represent a minority of combat soldiers in the IDF (or any other country, for that matter). And if you compare a female combat soldier to a male one, I bet you that the guy would destroy her. For God's sake, I even saw how the skinny "not gay" Jared won in arm wrestling against a big and muscular woman who is all day in the gym. I guess biology triumphs over political correctness.

Do you want more women in article? Ok, if you find the image of an Israeli woman ironing or taking kids to school, add it to article. I won't object. Also, in case you didn't know, the Tavor is replacing M16 and M4 in all IDF units. I believe the main infantry brigades have already the Tavor as the standard assault rifle (Givati, Nahal, Golani). Seriously, just drop it. Those three soldiers walking with the Micro-Tavor is a good picture. Cheers.
 * Seraphim System: So why do you think the current picture should be excluded just because the photo is of men?--Mariolis MG (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

So, so far, there are two users in favor of the Micro-Tavor picture, and two users in favor of the Battalion Karakal picture. We need some more users to input - unless someone can nominate more pictures. Avaya1 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nominating images for the tourist section
We also had an edit war over the tourist section. I'm not sure the current situation is great. There are many possible images we could nominate (and later vote one) - I wonder if anyone has any suggestions? Avaya1 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Avaya1 disruptive editing
to not understand simple things about consensus regarding pictures in 'Literature' section.

At the same time, he a noncontroversial picture of soldiers from 'Military' section again. He's doing it under various pretexts for almost two years now, first edit-warring with, and  , and now with me.

He's also removing parameters from infobox with no good reason (see my explanation above).

Avaya1 is pushing his whims over and over regardless of common sense and other opinions, and I urge editors who watch this page to pay attention. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You continue to waste my and everyone else's time with this stalking, even after reporting twice on the administrator's notice board, where every other editor was baffled with your claims - and noted that your edits were disruptive. The issue here is that there is no consensus for the image that you keep on inserting. If you want to insert it, then at least try to get a consensus. Avaya1 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't really need consensus to add an image unless there is some kind of dispute - I don't see any problem with it off hand except it creates a text sandwich and this should be avoided. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , This can be solved by aligning it to the right. The images still would appear next to the text they illustrate. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "every other editor was baffled with your claims - and noted that your edits were disruptive"
 * Lie.
 * And there is a consensus to include this photo, I just listed editors who agree. You shamelessly removing it against majority opinion and blatantly lying. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please I think you should both calm down first and try to understand each other. I tried to understand this short talk; but the thumb rule is that consensus is sought for what should be added if it is likely to be challenged. But if editor after being bold, it is removed (thus challenged) it shouldn't be re-added again until consensus is clear, for which whoever is not favored must comply or seek for further remedy in other venues. Then, claim "there's consensus" to include while claim there's not, and this is very unlikely. Please can you link to the consensus (or lack of) to this section?. To the it seems you're more enraged, but please you should soften your words, descriptions like "shamelessly", " lying blantantly" are clearly uncalled for and only further assist in escalating dispute &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two years ago, this, or similar, photo was favoured over Avaya1's replacements by,   and  . Both versions were repeatedly reverted by  (see diffs above). , meanwhile, replaced all of those with his own . After almost half a year of edit-warring, Avaya1 removed it without replacement. Next year, he put a photo of a beach in that place , although the section is about military. I replaced it with the relevant photo. Since then, there's edit-warring between us, while no one else seems to care.
 * Essentially, he wants to remove a picture of Israeli male soldiers, and replacing it with a picture of either female soldiers or beaches, and giving different rationales which contradict each other. When he replaced it with the photo of a girl, one of the summaries was . But later he's replacing it (armed male soldiers) with the photo of a beach that shows no equipment at all, with the summary "rmv aggressive img" . --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this personally but "rmv aggressive image" is a very strange rationale to remove the image. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and all the points you raised. Now we have to wait for to give his own side of the story. And I hope we can reach compromise on this page amicably at the end. Thanks &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

has recently opened two complaints on the Administrator's board about me after he rejected a consensus here about including an image of Amos Oz. His complaints included hours of his own time stalking my edits on unrelated pages. In both cases, the administrators could not understand what he was complaining about (neither could I), or why he was obsessed with me, and it was suggested that his own edits could be reviewed.

As for this current discussion. There is no consensus for the image that wishes to include, as there was not for my suggestions either. I suggest that we put up a number of potential images, and vote on which image to include. Avaya1 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also suggest we do a Rfc on the Oz image issue.Avaya1 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My request at WP:AE was closed with no action simply because admins decided the issue was not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And my request at WP:ANI didn't receive attention, with the only editor who responded,, said he think we both engaged in edit-warring. That's it. Everybody understood why I was complaining, nobody said anything about "obsession". Don't pretend I was found guilty in those cases somehow.
 * I just listed three other editors from 2016 who supported to include the image in 'Military' section. That's 4 against 1. Consensus is on my side.
 * As for 'Literature' picture, you continue to cite a year-old consensus in your favour when there is a new one against you. Consensus can change. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that this is a common issue with you to think that consensus is whatever you think is right. In the past, you've been reported at WP:AE with the following conclusion:
 * "Avaya1 is subject to a zero revert restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. If Avaya1 wishes to change or revert another user's edit (which does not unquestionably fall within the standard exemptions) they must propose the change on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus. Avaya1 should not be the one to determine whether a consensus exists."
 * The only lesson you've learned is that it's OK to edit-warring as long as it's not within 24 hours. Examples: AN3, ANI.
 * --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What are your objections to this image? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

After I a photo outside of the Green Line from 'Tourism', and put a photo of the Dead Sea, Avaya1  it with a photo of Akko saying it's "better", despite Akko is not nearly as notable as a tourist site as the Dead Sea and the photo is no way "better". The Dead Sea photo is just perfect. Why everyone is silent about his disruptive editing? He's clearly not here to improve the article but to undermine my contributions.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

isn't funny anymore. I'm asking for a topic ban on Avaya1 at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

1948 war results
It is strange that the article doesn't mention that Israelis, both Jewish and Muslim, lost access to their holy sites in East Jerusalem after the war. The loss of Western Wall was so important that when a new Knesset building was constructed in 1966, it had a replica of the Western Wall behind the chairmen desk, so that members of Parliament always remember that the Wall was occupied by enemy. -- A man without a country (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on military photo

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After previous discussion split between these two pictures (with just four people participated), I'm asking for more editors to weigh in to end the edit-warring.

Survey (military photo)

 * 2014 photo, for two reasons: 1. It shows Israeli-made weapons (IWI Tavor) while the other shows American M4 carbine and M16 rifle. In the Military section of the Israel article, preference must be given to equipment made in Israel. 2. All-male photo is more appropriate for illustrating armed forces than all-female photo, because women make up just 7% of the fighting ranks in the Israeli military. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2012 photo, per . Bolter, you forgot to sign. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2012 photo, per reasons give by, and also a better composed picture (if that matters). Jeppiz (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2012 photo, it's a good picture and shows different infantry weapons.--Mariolis MG (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2012 photo --Ravpapa (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If I'm allowed to vote for two: I put in either for 2007 Battalion Karakal picture or 2012 - both professional-style photos. (We could potentially nominate more though as can upload anything from the IDF flickr account, where they have hundreds?) Avaya1 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (military photo)
Dislike both. The 2007 for the reasons you gave, and the 2014 shows Nahal Reconnaissance Company soldiers walking in their base posing to the camera.

I find this picture much better:

This is a picture from a Squad Commanders' Training exercise. You have the Israeli made IWI Negev, the Israeli made IWI Tavor and an M16. It shows people from possibly all brigades and battalions, with both Israeli and American weapons and unlike the 2014 picture, they also have a standard clothing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll add a vote for it as it is a professional-style photo, which is probably a good idea. Avaya1 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would nominate this photo of an Ethiopian woman to show the diversity of Israel and the IDF - not sure how to upload it to Commons  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Header edit request
Transliteration for the Hebrew and Arabic names, would go as such:

Israel (יִשְׂרָאֵל; إِسْرَائِيل), officially the State of Israel (מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל; دَوْلَة إِسْرَائِيل)

יבריב (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That information is already in the article, in the "Etymology" section. I'm not sure it would be a help to most readers to add more information to the parenthetical interruption in the first sentence of the article. What do other editors think? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah. I had not noticed that. יבריב (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)