Talk:Israel Defense Forces

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

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254[edit]

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?[edit]

See topic 69.249.205.180 (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
@IOHANNVSVERVSOuroborosCobra In fact, WP:SUMMARY style demands that there should be a subsection in the parent article.
Incidentally, just published in the New York Times: "Stripped, Beaten or Vanished: Israel’s Treatment of Gaza Detainees Raises Alarm" Andreas JN466 12:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so who wants to write it LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (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[edit]

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:
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Engine talk 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 Engine talk 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 Engine talk 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, SpringProof talk 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[edit]

Change IDF to IOF it should be Israel Occoquan Forces. 2607:FEA8:51E:1A00:DDB7:74FA:AA7D:E171 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: not the common name. popodameron ⁠talk 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

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]

 Done Nubia86 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]