This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Curry7524 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by
Mosbug1 (
talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Why is there not a human rights violation or war crimes section?
It does not seem difficult to surfance trivial evidence of this.
69.249.205.180 (
talk) 14:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Check the "see also" section, and you will note that there is an entire article dedicated to the subject. It does not need to be duplicated here. --
OuroborosCobra (
talk) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes there is the page
Israeli war crimes, but I do think a section on this article about IDF war crimes and criticism would be reasonable.
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk) 18:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It is one good example of undue weight section. And all content if relevant should be included in the body of the article and not to create undue weight sections.
178.222.28.123 (
talk) 03:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
RFC Removing photography taken and published by the IDF
I feel like using photography published and distributed by the IDF from their Flickr is not really the purpose of Wikipedia and does not really feel NPOV to me - what do other Wikipedians think about removing these images and replacing them with other creative commons images?
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
(Saw notice at
WP:NPOVN) I think it depends on each specific image, how it's used in an article. and whether there is a better alternative available in each instance.
Schazjmd(talk) 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
they tend to all have some kind of light vignette filter and/or a portrait blur. additionally, I don't know how many "action" images we need especially when those action images are produced by the armed forces rather than a journalist.
my concern is specifically images like these rather than images of equipment or vehicles specifically:
On the technical aspects: while I do perceive a vignette on the smaller versions of the first two images, when looking at the enlarged versions it is more likely just darker objects at some of the corners; the background blur is likely just a shallow depth of field, produced by a larger aperture lens, rather than an effect (e.g. from the EXIF data, the third image is shot at 50mm (75mm full frame equivalent) f2.2, which would be expected to produce this type of blur).
Rotary Enginetalk 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value. But that's just my opinion as a reader. I'm not familiar with this article's history or how it came to this state.
Schazjmd(talk) 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes I agree that they are duplicitous.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 23:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree that the numbers of images is probably more than is necessary, and more than is useful to the reader.
Rotary Enginetalk 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Depends on use in context, per Schazjmd. Oppose a blanket ban. No objection to the removal or replacement of some images.
Rotary Enginetalk 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Also with "I don't think the source is the issue so much as the value those images add to readers' understanding of the article. I just took a quick glance through the article and there are a lot of photos. They don't all seem to add value." And with the RfC opener's general issues with these three in particular. But that doesn't translate into a ban on the image source. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
True - but it's not just those three images... I've been trying to figure out exactly what/how to describe the photos I take issue with and it is pretty much "soldier aiming down gun at nothing" type of photo. I think using IDF photos are fine for vehicles/dress uniform type imagery but there are so many photos of "drills" that I think some are redundant and others could utilize actual combat images that are from journalists or civilians. I don't want to hold a trial for every image so maybe tomorrow I will go through and bebold.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I think those are fine and should only be replaced based on quality where applicable, not for NPOV reasons (except in areas where they obviously cannot be used without attribution).
FortunateSons (
talk) 11:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with OP. These seem to be training/recruiting photos.
Tom Reedy (
talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd tend to agree that these look promotional in nature (especially the last one, but all of them to an extent.) Using a bunch of images from the same source (especially a clearly
WP:BIASED / non-independent source) also raises
WP:BALANCE and
WP:DUE issues. We should find other sources and shouldn't cite so many published by the article's subject. --
Aquillion (
talk) 15:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with removing most—if not all—of their photos. They give off a sense of promotional materials and definitely are not value-adding. The only one I might say keep is
this one. signed, SpringProoftalk 05:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Per
WP:IMGCONTENT the purpose of an image is to enhance readers' comprehension of the article's subject matter. The origin and intent behind the images are irrelevant. In general, using photos provided by a company or organization is extremely common on Wikipedia.
Marokwitz (
talk) 11:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with Schazjmd, i.e. I would oppose a blanket ban but depends on the context the photos are being used. As an example, the use of IDF photography for posters on
martyrdom in Palestinian society was contentious, until Wikipedians found other articles discussing similar posters in independent news articles, and it was decided that the pictures were appropriate. –
GnocchiFan (
talk) 10:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree with ban. Every wartime photo source is potentially problematic and must be viewed with exceptional care, including that of reputable photojournalists. (I remember several controversies of disingenuous photojournalism came up during the US-Iraq War, and not related to
embedding). Any officially vetted source of photos is also going to have elements of propaganda (basically by definition). As others have pointed out, such photos should be selected to clearly illustrate or supplement well-referenced information in the article. They should not be chosen as (as in the photojournalism controversies I remember) artistic expressions or generalizations of events. This is analogous (identical?) to how we use
WP:PRIMARY sources during controversial events.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 20:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless the images are actually showing something that adds information or value, like depicting a certain armament in use, the images should go. Promotional military imagery is not encyclopedia-suitable material, it is just
WP:PROMO and
WP:DECOR stuff.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Typo of "systen" that should be "system". I can't edit but grateful if someone could correct please.
Health tech nerd (
talk) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SamuelRiv: Is it really encyclopaedic to include what vegans receive as vaccination on a military's WP page?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 19:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's encyclopedic to include what accommodations a military makes to a minority group that go beyond what would be trivial or expected for militaries in general worldwide. As I note in my edit summary, excusing vaccinations and leather boots would be an extraordinary accommodation for other major militaries, namely the US and UK. Another hypothetical example: accommodating Sikh soldiers to wear beards is not administratively a big deal, and is the kind of thing done by many militaries worldwide, so would not be worth mentioning; but making special helmets for turbans and uncut hair, or allowing foregoing of helmets altogether, would be an extraordinary accommodation in a modern military, and well worth mentioning because other militaries drawing from populations with large Sikh minorities would never do this.
I was completely shocked when I read the paragraph -- maybe it's less surprising in the context of universal conscription? (
Switzerland notably makes little to no accommodation;
South Korea just introduced more dietary options, but I'm not sure about clothing, which is like half of veganism.) (It's also very useful context for other sections in that IDF has a history of accommodating unusual populations into its military.)
SamuelRiv (
talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Joe Biden
President Joe Biden has called for immediate ceasefire. How do we add it?
LinkCaleb Ndu (
talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
According to reports, the U.S. is planning to blacklist the elite IDF unit for alleged human rights violations committed against Palestinians in the West Bank. Netanyahu denounced the reported sanctions, stating that the “IDF must not be sanctioned” as its soldiers are “fighting terrorist monsters. Analyst believe Biden Administration is under pressure from Pro-palestinian domestic audience and attempting to do fine balancing before elections by distancing itself from right wing elements of Israel regime.
Israel Condemns Reported U.S. Sanctions on IDF Battalion Accused of Human Rights Violations
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior government officials have strongly condemned a reported move by the Biden administration to impose sanctions on the Netzah Yehuda battalion of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
“The intention to impose sanctions on an IDF unit is the height of absurdity and a moral nadir,” Netanyahu said in a statement on Saturday night. He vowed that the Israeli government “will act with all means against these moves.”
Other Israeli ministers, including Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, also strongly condemned the reported U.S. sanctions. Ben Gvir called the move a “red line” and urged the Israeli Defense Minister not to submit to the “U.S. diktat.”
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich went further, claiming that the sanctions are part of a “planned move to force the State of Israel to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state and to forsake Israel’s security.”
The harsh reactions from the Israeli government underscore the sensitivity surrounding the treatment of the IDF, which is widely revered in the country. The reported sanctions on the Netzah Yehuda battalion, which is considered elite by the IDF, have been described as an attack on the integrity and capabilities of the Israeli military.
As the details of the U.S. sanctions plan continue to emerge, the diplomatic tensions between Israel and the Biden administration are likely to intensify, with both sides doubling down on their respective positions on the issue of human rights and the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians.
https://globalfinserve.com/biden-goes-after-israel-to-please-domestic-audience-before-elections/Aniljaswal1881 (
talk) 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure how you want this incorporated article also I don't think Global Finserv is a reliable source.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk) 19:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024