This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Another article has recently been started:
Israel-United States military relations. That great page covers some of the same material in
United States military aid to Israel. But it does not have the detailed weapons lists. And it is not as detailed in some areas of the funding info, tables, and notes. I would like to see more info on the controversial weapons such as
land mines,
cluster bombs,
flechette bombs and tank rounds,
depleted uranium rounds, etc.. This is not a partisan POV desire to focus criticism on Israel or the USA. It is an ongoing controversy worldwide concerning these and other weapons being used, sold, traded, or given away to any nation from any nation. I would also like to see articles on
Iranian military aid to Hezbollah. There is a small section about this in
Military and economic aid in the 2006 Lebanon War. I would like to see a spinout article on it.
I would also like to see
United States military aid to Colombia. There is the article,
U.S.-Colombia military relations, but I could not find anything so far in my quick skim of the page about specific weapons. The overall article called
United States military aid could be used to catalog some of the funding and weapons to various nations. One nation per subheading. Spinout articles can be created if needed for some nations if any subsection becomes too big. --
Timeshifter 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
There is some related info at
Arms industry, but it is more of a general article, and does not have much of a breakdown for individual nations, and bilateral transfers. --
Timeshifter 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
List of weapons transferred
Tewfik
blanked a large part of the article with this edit summary:
Lists are common on wikipedia. Certain kinds of lists are OK. See:
WP:NOT#DIR (emphasis added):
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations,
aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project
Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example
Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
This site search, and
this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables.Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see
List of locations in Spira for an example.
The list of weapons is not "loosely associated". It is a very specific list. --
Timeshifter 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Why does everything have to be an edit-war with you? The "list" has no source tying it to anything, much less the topic of this page. TewfikTalk 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't do mass reversions as you do. I give people a chance usually before deleting stuff. Unless it is vandalism or really inflammatory unsourced stuff, I usually ask on the talk page for citations, references, etc. before deleting stuff. There is a reference section to the article. It looks like the list was taken from those references. It needs to be clarified, though. Maybe the other editors of this page can explain. --
Timeshifter 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Tewfik, you again blanked the same large part of the page with this edit summary: "rmv unsourced information; the burden is on the user 'inserting' the information". Here is the [
diff]. You did not bother to check the reference section before blanking. So the material was sourced. If this blanking continues I will report you to
WP:ANI. Did you know that some editors have been banned from editing certain topics on wikipedia? Your habit of mass reversions of sourced material could cause this to happen to you. Just a friendly warning as required by wikipedia
dispute resolution before escalating to other levels of dispute resolution such as
WP:ANI, etc..--
Timeshifter 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, your source does not say that this list of materiel was aid, hence it is OR at best. I request here, as I have elsewhere, that you stop the threats and "friendly warnings". 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You;ve included the list of weapons again. The appendix is titled "U.S.-SUPPLIED WEAPONRY" and has no reference to aid. You'll need to produce such a reference to include this information. TewfikTalk 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a quote from that same reference PDF. It shows that it is aid. Concerning warnings - As I have said before I am only following wikipedia protocol. Go to the warning template chart and see the many levels of warnings given:
If the U.S. supplies these weapons to Israel it's military aid, isn't it? Or don't these weapons aid Israel in some way? --
Kendrick7talk 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No. Only weapons supplied as
military aid are "military aid", and we do not define every purchaser of weapons to be subject to such aid. The list makes no claim of being the result of such aid. TewfikTalk 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But if the U.S. is giving Israel the money with the understanding the Israel is going to go right out and spend it to buy these weapon systems from U.S. contractors (?) that's no different than the U.S. buying the weapons and giving them to Israel. I haven't looked at this particular source, but from the sources I have seen, that's the impression I've gotten as to how this aid-system works; we shouldn't wish to hide the reality behind fancy accounting tricks.... --
Kendrick7talk 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You are correct. I think the latest quotes make the accounting involved in this military aid more clear. The 2 PDF files cover it in great detail. --
Timeshifter 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The source specifically doesn't say that this list is the result of aid. That conclusion is OR. Part of the reason they can't make that claim is because the Israelis pay for a portion of US weapons out of pocket. TewfikTalk 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Point taken. The quotes now make it clear that the bulk of the weapon system costs is borne by the USA. --
Timeshifter 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Even if I accepted that, we cannot include a specific list, much of which could have been, but some of which you admit was not. TewfikTalk 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes we can, because the quotes now make it clear. --
Timeshifter 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
None of the sources you have presented say that the list is
military aid. The quotes imply that some of it may be. We only include verifiable information, and not "maybe". TewfikTalk 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I just clarified the list further after reading your last comment. I also changed the section title. --
Timeshifter 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That section looks like a bad case of OR. Some systems were developed jointly. What does it mean, "Weapon systems" or "U.S.-supplied weapon systems"? Are we publishing similar rosters for all armies or singling out Israel only? And where did the number 362 F-16 come from? ←
Humus sapiensну? 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)reply
See my comment below to Tewfik. Feel free to clarify things, and to create similar articles for other nations. --
Timeshifter 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
We don't include information with the "clarification" that some of it is untrue. The source does not say that that list is aid, and including it is simply OR. TewfikTalk 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a list of U.S.-supplied weapon systems. As the title of the section explains. That is clear now. The quotes at the beginning also explain that most of it is purchased with U.S. military aid money. That is also now clear. If you have further problems, clarify the section, don't delete it. This page survived an AFD. See the top of this talk page. Tewfik, you are trying a roundabout way of deleting the page in parts. If you delete the list again, I am reporting you to
WP:ANI. --
Timeshifter 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
"It is a list of U.S.-supplied weapon systems" - exactly, and the sources do not claim that it is a list of things given as
military aid, which is the topic of this page. Hence including the list is original research. Feel free to report me to wherever you like, as you even admit that your sources do not make that claim. TewfikTalk 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The info below is from the introduction to the list in the section currently titled "U.S.-supplied weapon systems". The quotes clarify the list. Further clarification, not deletion, may be needed. Can we not be civil here, Tewfik? Introduction begins:
(this is not a comprehensive listing)
The list below is from Appendix 1 of "U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel: U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military." A
World Policy Institute Issue Brief. By Frida Berrigan and
William D. Hartung. July 20, 2006.[1]
Appendix 1 is titled "U.S.-Supplied Weaponry in Israel’s Military Inventory"
From that report: "The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S.
military aid programs."[1]
From another report (January 2006): "Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel. Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF [Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)] funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment."[2]
So the above info is in the current introduction.--
Timeshifter 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
OR with a disclaimer is still OR. You are explicitly saying that your source does not call that the list
military aid. It only says they came from the US. TewfikTalk 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It is not original research. Everything is sourced. Follow the footnote links in that section of the article.--
Timeshifter 08:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I've read through and I agree it it is
OR. The sources say it is supplied by the US, but do not say through aid. They even say that not all israeli weapons are from aid. In other words, the fact Israel has american weapons doesn't mean it's from aid. Actually, Israel both imports and exports weapons. Israel has financial aid which then Israel obligates to buy weapons from the United States so it comes back to American economy + there's regular trade. We can't do these leaps. In fact, there's a great deal of misinformation about the issues. Aid to Israel is not very large and has been cut in recent years. Is there an article described the even greater
American Aid to Egypt - and if so it should be made in the same form.
Amoruso 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
All the info in that article section is sourced. Just below is a link to the last intact revision of the article before you blanked a large section of sourced material from the article, Amoruso.
Some editors are trying to delete the weapon systems list from this article. It is the main part of this article. Here is the last revision of the intact article:
The list below is of U.S.-supplied weapon systems paid for from funding provided by the USA, by Israel alone, or by a combination of funding from both nations. The list is from Appendix 1 of "U.S. Military Assistance and Arms Transfers to Israel: U.S. Aid, Companies Fuel Israeli Military." A
World Policy Institute Issue Brief. By Frida Berrigan and
William D. Hartung. July 20, 2006.[1] Appendix 1 is titled "U.S.-Supplied Weaponry in Israel’s Military Inventory". From that report: "The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S.
military aid programs."[1]. From another report (January 2006): "Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel. Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF [Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)] funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment."[2]
Open to other ideas, too. --
Timeshifter 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I removed the list from here: this is a talk page. You were asked earlier not to crosspost long paragraphs of the same text to many places. Repeating OR doesn't make it less OR and the Delrev does not endorse your OR either. BTW, I have asked you about the number 362. Where is it from? ←
Humus sapiensну? 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I returned the suggested changes. Editing other editor's comments on talk pages is against
WP:TALK. We are discussing changes to the article. It is common to post suggested changes to talk pages. If this talk page deletion continues I will post another report to
WP:ANI or
WP:AN. --
Timeshifter 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I missed the fact that
USer:Humus Sapiens deleted the section you added almost immediately. My edits afterward were not an endorsement of this move, but I am unsure how to return the material now. Could you restore the list you would like to see included to the talk page again (I notice he just deleted above). It would be helpful so that others can reinsert it when it is summarily deleted without rhyme or reason so that you don't end up violating 3RR fighting this kind of editing (the deletion of sourced, reliable and relevant information) which really constitutes vandalism.
Tiamut 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry thanks. I see it now. Will just copy and past it back in myself.
Tiamut 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not any of the sources make a connection between the list, in whatever form, and
military aid. that is your own logic, your own OR. TewfikTalk 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Would someone please care to quote the lines in the included references that say that that list of weapons is
military aid? What I see is an appendix listing many of the weapons included (some of them aren't even mentioned there, like the small arms) title "U.S.-SUPPLIED WEAPONRY" - ie, some probably were aid, some were purchased, with no distinction. The WPI report says "The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs" - ie some is not, in addition to not specifically mentioning what was and what wasn't. Under "Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel", the CRS report says "Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF [Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)] funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment." - that has no relevance at all, since in addition to not tying the money to any specific products, it doesn't even say what part of the purchase is is FMF. TewfikTalk 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You just answered your own question. The list makes no claim to be a list of strictly 100% military-aid-paid-for weapon systems. --
Timeshifter 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It makes no claim of any aid for any part of it. While it is likely that parts of it have aid involved, drawing that connection without explicit sourcing is OR. TewfikTalk 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
It is in no way novel to list US munitions in the report cited above as forming part of the US military aid program. The report itself states that The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs. In other words, the information is contextualized and while there may be one or two items in the list that were not purchased directly using military aid, the prefacing of the remarks as such does not mislead the reader, nor does it in any way constitute original research.
Tiamut 09:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That discussion is already being held
here. TewfikTalk 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But that's the wrong place for it, isn't it? This is the article that would be turned into a redirect if they were merged. —
Ashley Y 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I think that it is appropriate to merge it now, it was a fairly weak article when it was standing alone. I knew the basic details outlined in this version, but I learned a bunch of stuff I didn't know by reading through
Israel-United States military relations (an article that I expect to be expanded significantly as we don't yet have a proper time-line of the unfolding of events.) --
70.48.68.155 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Given that it's only been a few days since its AfD/DRV and associated drama, we should probably give it awhile to see if anyone objects -- in particular, people who voted "keep". —
Ashley Y 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm against a merger for now, particularly when those supporting it are the ones gutting the article.
Tiamut 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
To clarify: I would be for a merger if it retains all sourced and relevant material from this article not currently included in the other.
Tiamut 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I've now moved across the sourced and relevant content into
Israel-United States military relations. If people are happy with the merger, I'll go ahead and turn this article into a redirect. --
ChrisO 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks like the main stuff has been merged. Any other remaining relevant sourced info can be found in the revision history here and in the talk page here. So as long as those are kept after the redirect, it is OK by me to redirect. --
Timeshifter 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Gutting the article
See this diff:
[1]. Isarig and Tewfik have in four edits, cut down this article's length by half, removing sourced and referenced information on the most spurious on bases. Isarig didn't either bother to discuss his deletions, while Tewfik repeats the same old WP:OR argument over and over without understanding that WP:OR does not apply here (See my comments above).
Tiamut 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
We can save all the gutted links. I have no problem merging this article with
Israel-United States military relations if all the references are used in some way in the new article, and if all the U.S.-supplied weapon systems are listed in the new article. All the tables are already in the other article, I believe. Not sure. Someone can check. So feel free everybody to add to this list below of citation/reference links and external links found in various revisions of the article. These are additional links beyond those used for references for the list of U.S.-supplied weapon systems higher up on this talk page. Feel free to duplicate some of those below if you can add additional reference link details. It would probably be wise to save this talk page to your own PC, in case it gets deleted after the probable merge.--
Timeshifter 10:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I explained my edits in my edit summary. the title of this article is "United States military aid to Israel. A US law that makes complying with an Arab economic boycott of Israel illegal may be helpful to Israel, but is not "military aid". Ditto for the factoid that Israeli companies deal directly with American companies. The claim that the US underwrote R&D for the Merkava project, a project begun and for the most part completed years before large scale US aid to Israel was available, is dubious and unmentioned in the
Merkava article itself. The claim is sourced so I have not removed it, but clarified that this is a claim, not established fact.
Isarig 14:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
US funding of Merkava development sources
Isarig, I don't know what source you were originally concerned about regarding the Merkava/Lavi - US funding link, but it is establish fact and there are many of reliable references to back it up. Here is a sentence snipped from the Israeli-based MERIA journal:
"The United States also agreed to fund indigenous development of weapons by Israel, including the Merkava tank and the Lavi combat aircraft. Before the project was canceled in 1987, the Americans provided $2 billion towards the Lavi program."
[2]
Here is part of a State Department report on the matter:
"In addition to the foreign assistance, the United States has provided Israel with $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow anti-missile missile (an ongoing project), $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing), and other military projects."
[3]