![]() | 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 |
Egypt has announced that it will not allow any criticism of its army by the press eg http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world/middleeast/01egypt.html God, isnt that awful? Shouldn't it say how much better we are? **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.225.228 ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that this article does not have a NPOV.It reads like an advert for the IDF, they could have written it themselves and parts they probably did in their spare time.There is hardly any criticism in the entire piece and when some is put in it is deleted or trimmed down and changed to a more positive view of the IDF.It is clear that the IDF have not been without criticism in their history but it certainly does not show up in this article.The piece lacks any balance at all.I have tried to added factual evidence into this article which has been reverted with feeble excuses every time.It sure looks like there is a campaign by pro Israeli editors to keep this article from reflecting anything bad about the IDF. Owain the 1st ( talk) 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The alleged POV of this article, especially the lack of a criticism section, was already brought up on this page countless times, most recently here. The arguments I provided there still stand, as does the proposal that someone prepares a draft. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Obviously this page is not worth the effort of editing as the pro Israel editors are not interested in any factual information that criticizes Israel.They are editing this page with no good reason whatsoever but to push their political agenda.It is a shame that wikipedia allows this and it will reflect badly on it.Anyway it is not going to do the pro Israeli crowd any good as wikipedia is already known as being run by pro Israeli editors in these areas.At the end of the day all you are doing is making more people realize what Israel and its supporters are all about and that is a good thing.This kind of pushing of the Israeli line is one of the reasons that the Israeli propaganda machine is working against its aims.The falling support for Israel just goes to proves this point.So carry on the propaganda work as it is working against you not for you. Owain the 1st ( talk) 07:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I see that there is edit warring over the human sields information and that it's been removed repeatedly. I don't have an opinion about whether this is the right place for it although it is certainly reliably sourced. Instead can I please appeal to everyone's sense of objectivity. Go to the Hamas article and search for "human shield". Ask yourself whether the rules you use to make content decisions/reverts etc are based on policy or whether they are based on which side of the conflict the belligerent happens to be on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment The German and Vietnamese wikipedia certainly do not think it is a problem having criticism of the military on them as shown here [3],Tội ác [4], the Vietnamese one has a summary and then a link to another page covering the subject.The German wikipedia also has a criticism section on the IDF as well (Kritik) [5] as does the French one [6].If they have them then I can see no good reason why they cannot be in this one.It is also in the Spanish wikipedia as well [7] Owain the 1st ( talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
<- I'm disappointed that no one advocating the removal of the information has addressed the issue of the presence of similar information in the Hamas article. I don't believe that my spelling it "human sields" invalidates the argument very much. Surely if we are going to use comparison arguments based on other articles for inclusion/exclusion decisions, the articles about the belligerents in the conflict, IDF, Hamas etc is just as good a set for comparisons as the set of national armies ? Anyway, how about moving it to the human shield article and having a simple inline link or a 'See also' link to that from some highly summarised sentence about all the novel techniques the IDF uses to legitimately defend the Land of Israel/brutally oppress displaced Jordanians or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I see that the section you added has already been deleted, so we are back to square one yet again. 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI - I just looked up the article for Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the United States Armed Forces and they both happen to have a criticism section. Yet neither of them has a "code of conduct" section. In fact I am certain that every military in the world has a rosy code of conduct which is used primarily for propaganda (every country has at least one line stating they do not attack civilian targets or conduct torture despite the fact that most do). So I think the argument, made several times by some editors here that no other army has a criticism section, is not only false, but totally backwards. This article's entire structure is POV in the IDF's favour. Poyani ( talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The more I look into this topic the worse it looks. The Hezbollah page has a list of crimes that the group has been accused of being involved in by the western media. Some of these crimes happen to have occurred before the group was founded. Yet in the IDF article, it is a battle just to state facts that are unanimously agreed on by every major international human rights organization (such as the IDF's use of human shields, of which there are even videos widely available online). Could you imagine if the IDF article followed the same guidelines as the Hezbollah article? It would include a list of crimes the IDF has been accused of committing by the Arab media.
The IDF and Hezbollah should not even be comparable on similar grounds. The IDF is the military of a state which has signed on numerous articles and conventions stating explicitly that it would not commit the crimes it is accused of committing by the human rights groups. [Owain the 1st]'s criticism section is incredibly mild. There should be absolutely no controversy over this issue. I think the editors who object to the section are misinterpreting the NPOV rule. It states that the material should represent the sources, not that there should be an equal weight given to both the Israeli perspective and the human rights groups' perspective. What some editors feel about the topic shouldn't even be relevant. The balance of articles and books written on the topic generally lean towards the direction that the IDF has committed war crimes. That is far more notable than their code of conduct or any of their particular strategies or tactics. Their page should reflect that balance instead of removing the criticism section or matching every criticism with an IDF response. Poyani ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, I am going to reiterate my point one more time, as I think you may have missed it. Criticism of the IDF is far more notable and has far many more reliable (English) sources than, say, Minorities in the IDF or the IDF code of conduct. Poyani ( talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello -- PMFJI ; I was bold enough to revamp former « Code of Conduct against militants and Palestinian civilians » sub-section into a (deserved, IMHO) more detailed and better sourced one, about an important and debated perspective on the current IDF doctrine. Best, Ireilly ( talk) 11:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The article´s version in other languages (e.g. German) does not only host a "critique" section but also cites the seruv-movement. As there are not many armies whose soldiers are polically organised in a way to refuse certain service (in the West Bank), this is a fact worth mentioning in Wikipedia, isn´t it? http://seruv.org.il/
Regarding any link of Antisemitism with critique of the IDF, jewish intelectuals like Moshe Zuckerman and non-jews like Slavoi Zizek have pointed out, that the best prevention of Antisemitism is a sincere political critique of Israel, while the inflationary (ab)use of Antisemitism as an imunisation strategy opens the doors for real Antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.120 ( talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Was there ever a consensus for this content? Foreign relations does not belong in this article. Nothing in the section suggests the IDF had relations with the SAFD. Stuff about nuclear weapons would go Israel and weapons of mass destruction and Foreign relations of Israel. I will self-revert if an editor can point me to a consensus about this information. If there is none then let's talk about it here. Wikifan Be nice 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see the foreign policy section at the very top. As I noted there, I have no problem with significantly changing this section. However I believe the Israel's military relations with South Africa are far more notable than say the relationship with India or China. I understand that a relationship with the IDF is not the same as a relationship with Israel. However I believe a military relationship is the same. Note for example that the section for India begins with "India and Israel enjoy strong military and strategic ties. Some analysts have dubbed the alliance between India and Israel as the new ..." Poyani ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Israel army flag.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
How do they get by on that? Do they get food stamps or something? Hcobb ( talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a ref for the extra payments? This doesn't seem to be covered at all here or in the conscript article, hence my asking. Hcobb ( talk) 18:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The numbers in the article at this moment paint that exact picture. There are obviously subsidies in the system that we have overlooked. Hcobb ( talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If I may throw some light on the subject :
for men :
for any soldier : he get 100% subside for city wages (can be up to 300$ in some cities) , gets a subsidy for childcare (taking into account only his wife income).
109.226.54.190 ( talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) an ex carrier soldier
a person could not afford to live with this kind of salary: renting a room in the perphria of IL will be around 75$ for a month in very poor neighbourhood (the type where you can buy drugs in the streets in the middle of the day). food for a single only for two weekends can be lowered to 100 NIS (25$) (to have three vegeterian meals per day for each weekend). but the amount of soldiers that will choose this kind of life is extremly low
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.226.53.223 (
talk)
15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, under the heading of "foreign suppliers" a slew of countries, who contribute less than insignificant amounts to the IDF, are noted. Only the major suppliers such as the United States and perhaps Germany and the U.K. should be noted. I propose we eliminate the rest. It's kind of silly to list Bosnia and India as arms suppliers for the IDF. I don't know of any weapons platform in use by the IDF that comes from Brasil or Serbia.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Should the Depth Corps be mentioned here or in a more in-depth article? Hcobb ( talk) 06:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Recently there has been much talk about the refusal of some religious Jewish male soldiers to follow orders that they feel that are against their beliefs, e.g. hearing women sing in army ceremonies. Adding to that the refusal of some Religious Zionists to take part in forced evacuations of Israeli settlements on religious grounds - and the support some of them get from Rabbis, which is related to the whole "taking orders from commanders or rabbis" debate, and I think there's a sufficient basis for a separate article with said headline ("Religion in the IDF" - Judaism section) while of course including a reference to it in this article (service section or controversies?). There's currently a section dealing with the singing in the Women in the IDF article, but since it has little to do with female soldiers than with religious males, I feel that a separate article dealing with the entire aspect of religion would be best. I'll try to come up with something... meanwhile I'd appreciate any input you may have. PluniAlmoni ( talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that the section pertaining to Israel/South African military relations has been deleted in this edit. I recall that this is actually in contradiction of the consensus which was reached on the talk-page. Would anyone object to it being reintroduced? Poyani ( talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jabotito48, you added an incomplete source here [9] when I click on it it doesn't direct me to any book or other source. Could you please say what source it is and provide a direct quotation from the source here. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Jabotito48, the sentence currently says: "During the Israeli Independence War, many Druze soldiers and officers on the Arab side deserted and joined Israel." I checked the two sources and could not find any info that any Druze who fought on the Arab side, deserted and joined Israel. Could you please point out where in the sources this is? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The formatting at the top of the page is broken, but I don't known how to fix it (something to do with ref tags), so I've flagged it for cleanup so someone who knows more than I do can fix it - Camundongo ( talk) 23:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
exact translation would be "israel army of defense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.139.130 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. My literal translation would be, "Defense Army for/to Israel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.113.39 ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"and has no civilian jurisdiction within Israel." What does this mean? Does it mean that Israel is not a military dictatorship? Does Wikipedia say this about the armed forces of other democratic states? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone help link to this orphaned article? Gbawden ( talk) 08:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious that pro-israeli editors wrote this article; what is even more blatant, the selection of photos supplied to illustrate the "benevolent" nature of IDF smacks of the Nazi hypocracy, "Arbeit macht frei". Not a single photo of killed and mutilated Palestinian children (more than 300 by most conservative estimates during this year 2014). SHAME on wikipedia and this article!!! — Precedng unsigned comment added by 186.9.167.17 ( talk) 01:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does this article exclude any mention of atrocities carried out by the Israel Defense Forces? The Hamas article does not exclude violent acts associated with Hamas. Why doesn't this article talk about this aspect of the IDF? By excluding this aspect of the IDF, this article reeks of a Pro-Israel bias. I think that this should be promptly addressed. 72.174.6.46 ( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC) i
What exactly do you feel is missing? Can you provide some examples? — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Try this link for accounts of terrorist activities carried out by the IDF http://thenakedtruthinaconfusedworld.blogspot.com/2010/12/idf-atrocities-former-israeli-soldiers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.222.56 ( talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the history section. Seems a bit odd that there is no mention of "occupation" given that has been one of the main activities of the Israeli army since 1967. More generally, the whole history section (6 paragraphs) only has two citations and the parent History of the Israel Defense Forces is also largely unreferenced. Dlv999 ( talk) 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there should be a controversy section added to the article, given the numerous UN law infractions committed by the IDF on the Palestinians alone. This should be worthy of mention because, as stated above, Hamas's page has listed its controversies, I believe that to be fair and balanced, the IDF page should also include the negative things associated with it in addition to the positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.34.194 ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am happy with that. Yaakov Franklin ( talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
What about adding the following sentence to the end of the history section: "The IDF has also participated in a number of air strikes and bombing operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; many of these attacks have been criticized as human-rights outrages"? 2.96.126.160 ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
When I looked at the websites for the IDF or the British Army the images that I saw were informative action, training or similar shots. The same is true for the British Army page. The IDF page has a number of posed shots as in present time edit here. One of the images was captioned, "Israeli "Netzah Yehuda" recon company in full combat gear prepare for a night raid in the West Bank". No they're not. They're posing for a photo. I recently removed the cute young girl image from the demography section of the State of Palestine article and am arguing that the similar image be removed be removed from the Israel article. WP:PILLARS presents the primary concept that encyclopaedic (informative) content be presented "warts and all". Articles are not the place to be presenting Editor inspired PR or social media type images. This isn't Saatchi & Saatchi or Facebook. Greg Kaye 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Should we add one to mention events such as when Israel has taken (more) Palestinian land for the IDF? Danotto94 ( talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Idf is an extremely controversial entity, I'm shocked that there's no controversy section on this article.
Further, the history section seems very whitewashed, with no mention that a founding organization of the Idf (lehi) was a terrorist organization that intentionally targeted civilians (see "the Stern gang" for more information).
I implore that a controversy section be added, as the Israeli border dispute and Israeli conflict are extremely contentious and controversial topics.
I'm able to provide Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of respectable references to back up this claim. ~~Harrisberg
It's obviously a tremendously well written page, with excellent sources for its various paragraphs. I notice however an absence of a "controversies/criticism" section. May I suggest that this oversight be addressed? Something along the lines of "The IDF takes criticism seriously and does its utmost to follow the rules of law" etc etc. Glen Gormley ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently Israel News Company of Channel 2 (Israel) released a series of free-license videos as a contribution to Wikipedia. One of them was about the Israel Defense Forces. The film contains no text nor speech (other than the title "צה"ל") and mainly shows the various units of the IDF training or maneuvering, and shows some of the weapons, gear and combat vehicles of the IDF. The relevant aspect of the video is clear and central. These footage are clearly neutral and carry no emotional charges. However, it was removed with the explanation "Remove propaganda video" even though I proved that the video is informative, neutral and adheres to the WP:NPOV policy. The video should be kept in the article because of its informative value. MathKnight 18:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The full name of the IDF in Hebrew, by the Israeli Basic Law: The Military is צבא הגנה לישראל (Tsva Hagana le-Yisra'el) and not צבא ההגנה לישראל (Tsva ha-Hagana le-Yisra'el). In the Hebrew Wikipedia page they had a talk about it, and decided to use the correct name, צבא הגנה לישראל. If someone can edit the page, please do so.
85.64.113.49 ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"IDF Wordpress Blog – news and updates from the field" - It's linking to Idaho Falls' spokesperson website. Wrong IDF? :) 87.68.49.46 ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello . Is it non-Jews or Jewish-related citizens, in the section that concerns minorities . BatmobileFire ( talk) 12:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Missing discussion of Samaritans in the IDF, a small but significant group. [3] Dfink ( talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's an extra space here above the new "Technological development" section. Also I think that section should be merged with " Weapons and equipment". It has repeated weapons and was copy-pasted from Israel#Military, probably to show more pictures of Israeli inventions.-- 186.137.184.20 ( talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
How long was the Lebanon War? Seraphimsystem ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted Avaya1 recent re-addition of his "Technological development" section ( this edit). I had removed the section several weeks ago as it covered the same subject as the long standing "Weapons and equipment" section, and was furthermore located in a completely unreasonable location in the article, before both manpower and organization sections. Nevertheless, I had not removed it outright, bur rather amalgamated the two, migrating most of the section and photos to the section below. The recent restoration of this section was not only unnecessary, but rather caused even further unnecessary duplication of content. Poliocretes ( talk) 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like if someone removes the link "safe space" made in this edit, since it has nothing to do with religion or haredim, but the term is used for gay people. Also there's a grammatical error for the "Religious Zionist seor", which should be changed for sector.-- 186.153.52.240 ( talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Has the IDF modernized Deuteronomy 24:5? It speaks specifically about a recently married recruit being required to spend at least 1 year with their newlywed. Twillisjr ( talk) 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think this edit should be reverted. Sure, IDF might be considering buying some Hyundai boats, but it's not a significant supplier, not certanly like Germany or the US.-- 190.31.182.138 ( talk) 16:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a small grammatical mistake at the end of the first paragraph in this section. It should say: , and provide it with its initial manpower and doctrine. (there's an "s" missing)-- 181.90.193.72 ( talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are sections on such obscure minorities as vegans, but nothing on the Christian minority. That glaring omission ought to be rectified. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007134943/israels-new-video-game-executions.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a lie, see Tal Law. Is this article writte by the IDF? - 91.10.1.207 ( talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "...operational nuclear weapons capability since 1967..." to 1966, as the article states.
TH3 M0554D (
talk)
10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article contains the following statement:
This should be either removed or changed to:
This has been discussed above but no formal request has been made to change this. The current version is unacceptable, because the sources provided are an IDF page and an unreliable source called GlobalSecurity.org BeŻet BeŻet ( talk) 08:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this line needs to be removed or significantly reworked: The number of wars and border conflicts in which the IDF has been involved in its short history makes it one of the most battle-trained armed forces in the world.
Currently, it is sourced to globalsecurity.org but from their list of sources it seems this language of "most-battle trained" is copied from the IDF directly. In fact, it is in their documentation, which the second cited source.
It is not usual practice for us to state an organization's self-description in Wikivoice. The second issue is that the current phrasing misrepresents the source, which is talking about only major wars. It does not seem to be including something like Operation Protective Edge, which is very different from something like the Yom Kippur War, and I don't think this was the intention of the sources (or even the IDF) for it to be misrepresented this way. Please consider a removal or an appropriate way to rephrase this. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a large number of photos in the article and some are included without context, like "IDF soldiers rescue an eighty year old Lebanese woman". I'm not questioning whether the rescue mission actually happened, but I think the overall number of photos should be reduced to reduce the "weight" of the article, and we should probably start with these "random" photos that could potentially be seen as some form of propaganda, especially since they are placed in the "Doctrine" section. BeŻet ( talk) 13:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "File:Badge of the Israel Defense Forces.svg" to "File:Badge of the Israel Defense Forces.new.svg" as it is the new version. Tal ( Ronaldinho The king) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The ones I have seen so far include:
There is plenty to do here for those who want to improve the article. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The emblem of the IDF as it currently appears in the article is very outdated. The new logo:
Nmbeden ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Bus stop:@ Sir Joseph: Unfortunately, many people believe that contrary to the IDF’s stated mission, it is actually going out of its way to oppress Palestinian people. I personally do not believe that, but Wikipedia needs to do what it can to remain neutral. Adding the word stated is not false, as the source does come from the IDF itself. It is not from an impartial historical analyst that has determined what the IDF’s mission is based on its previous actions.
I feel, that since this word is not false, there is no reason to remove it based on the arguement Of course the Israel Defense Forces are forces that defend Israel. What else would they be? Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"Adding the word stated is not false". It is superfluous. Bus stop ( talk) 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"many people believe that contrary to the IDF’s stated mission, it is actually going out of its way to oppress Palestinian people."Why would the IDF want to oppress the Palestinian people? In my opinion the Israeli military's mission is little different from that of any other country. Bus stop ( talk) 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The English terms used to describe "צבא הקבע" in the article is incorrect. "Permanent service" is a wrong naive translation from Hebrew. I suggest replacing it with either one of the following:
I further suggest using the term "mandatory service" for "שירות חובה" (instead of "regular service") — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobiGilburd ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear editor: what about adding a section on IDF Art ? This page proposing already 4 paintings by the artist Dan Groover on IDF https://israelmodernart.com/shop/by-discipline/painting/by-theme/israel-defense-forces-idf-tsahal-54
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.33.197 ( talk) 12:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The age of the recruit is eighteen, not seventeen. Citizens may recruit at the age of seventeen in case they finished school and informed the recruitment division about it before, but it never happens. 147.236.152.83 ( talk) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the target of this redirect to:
#REDIRECT [[Israeli Ground Forces]]
This is because we now have an article about the "Israeli Army"/Ground Forces. Sildemund ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure how else to articulate this. The Israeli Ground Forces are the Israeli equivalent of the United States Army. Please look at the Israeli website which I linked to above - they list the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. Refusing this request is similar to saying that US Army should point to United States Armed Forces. Sildemund ( talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Why does the name use American English? NeverLeftOhio ( talk) 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t clear, I was wondering if anyone knew why the official name as created by the Israeli government uses the American spelling. Thanks for the assistance though. NeverLeftOhio ( talk) 05:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The Israel Defense Forces is the military of the State of Israel nableezy - 20:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister and replace him with Naftali Bennett. Uzenaes ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[2] [3] [4] [5] RPBAYHaLevi ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the old emblem (logo) to the new one. DirtyPotatoEditor ( talk) 08:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the late reply. The IDF has changed its emblem recently and it has to be updated on the English wikipedia. Here is the new emblem that is already on wikimedia commons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Badge_of_the_Israeli_Defense_Forces_2022_version.svg/1200px-Badge_of_the_Israeli_Defense_Forces_2022_version.svg.png Thanks DirtyPotatoEditor ( talk) 20:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The military age is 18 years and not 17(even though in rare cases draft at that age is permitted with special permission) 2A00:A040:183:76A:5D6F:20EC:DF64:76F7 ( talk) 15:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Page: Israel. Please correct the Gini index *48* is wrong! Please change it to medium! Tamar274 ( talk) 21:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence in the fifth paragraph of the "Main developments" section starts with "Israel is known to have developed nuclear weapons," by misrepresenting its source and implying that Israel having nuclear weapons is a fact. Since the source does not say that Israel is known to have nuclear weapons, I suggest the aforementioned sentence be changed either to [citation needed] or to say "The United States is convinced that Israel has nuclear weapons," in order to accurately represent the source's claims. The truth is the source states "the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a 'public secret' by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons." The United States being "convinced" that Israel has nuclear weapons does not equate to "Israel is known to have developed nuclear weapons." Not only does the source state that Israel denies this allegation, but it also admits that its own analysis is based entirely on speculation, suspicion, hearsay, unconfirmed allegations, and educated guesses. Furthermore, the authors explicitly mention that to date, no evidence has ever been found to prove that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
While The discussion of speculation regarding nuclear development is valid, until such a time as it can be proven, it is important to keep it to speculation. The opening statement to this section is biased and misrepresents the truth.
Mrabinovsky ( talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The quote at the beginning of the following section seems excessive...
/info/en/?search=Israel_Defense_Forces#Doctrine
What do you think? -
Daveout
(talk)
03:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It says in Wikipedia that the age of enlistment in the IDF is 17. This is not true. There is no uniform enlistment age, there are soldiers who enlist at the age of 18, 19 and 20. Most of them are at the age of 18. There are a few who enlist at the age of 17. Lemobsxuizi ( talk) 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Military Age claims to be 17, however it is at the minimum of 18 and can be until 29 for man or for unmarried woman between the age of 18-26. Source in Hebrew: חוק שירות ביטחון (mitgaisim.idf.il) ~ the official IDF website. 87.68.115.169 ( talk) 16:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
— מקף⁻ ණ (Hyphen) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As of today the chief of staff is Herzi Halevi and not kochavi. https://www.timesofisrael.com/herzi-halevi-becomes-idfs-23rd-chief-of-staff-in-handover-ceremony/ SaarF ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The conscription length in the IDF is 24-32 months, and not 24-34 months. In addition, the military age is 18. Yuval092 ( talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
After 1945 many criminals, rapists, murders walked free, lived, sang, drank unpunished... Why are you fighting holy war with Palestine? Your holy war is to turn the Siberian tiger's head to the West. The Charité camps are still holding hostages. Free Lina, J.H. non-aryan. 94.225.153.245 ( talk) 13:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence should be in the active voice:
Cyprus, as a former S-300 air-defense system operator, was speculated by Greek media to have assisted Israel...
Please change it to:
Greek media speculated that Cyprus, as a former S-300 air-defense system operator, had assisted Israel..."
Also, the sentence is completely unsourced, so please add {{citation needed}} at the end of the sentence. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Until the draft of July 2015, men served three years in the IDF. Men drafted as of July 2015 and later will serve two years and eight months (32 months), with some roles requiring an additional four months of Permanent service.
This is badly out of date, since July 2015 was eight years ago. Please change "drafted as of July 2015 and later will serve" to "drafted since July 2015 serve". 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Stated values of the IDF" section, the capitalisation is unusual, e.g. "Defense of the State, its Citizens and its Residents". Please redo the capitalisation so that it matches normal English capitalisation, e.g. "Defense of the state, its citizens and its residents". We don't need to worry that this change would deviate from the original, since Hebrew, the language from which these are translated, doesn't have capitalisation at all. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Egypt has announced that it will not allow any criticism of its army by the press eg http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world/middleeast/01egypt.html God, isnt that awful? Shouldn't it say how much better we are? **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.225.228 ( talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that this article does not have a NPOV.It reads like an advert for the IDF, they could have written it themselves and parts they probably did in their spare time.There is hardly any criticism in the entire piece and when some is put in it is deleted or trimmed down and changed to a more positive view of the IDF.It is clear that the IDF have not been without criticism in their history but it certainly does not show up in this article.The piece lacks any balance at all.I have tried to added factual evidence into this article which has been reverted with feeble excuses every time.It sure looks like there is a campaign by pro Israeli editors to keep this article from reflecting anything bad about the IDF. Owain the 1st ( talk) 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The alleged POV of this article, especially the lack of a criticism section, was already brought up on this page countless times, most recently here. The arguments I provided there still stand, as does the proposal that someone prepares a draft. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Obviously this page is not worth the effort of editing as the pro Israel editors are not interested in any factual information that criticizes Israel.They are editing this page with no good reason whatsoever but to push their political agenda.It is a shame that wikipedia allows this and it will reflect badly on it.Anyway it is not going to do the pro Israeli crowd any good as wikipedia is already known as being run by pro Israeli editors in these areas.At the end of the day all you are doing is making more people realize what Israel and its supporters are all about and that is a good thing.This kind of pushing of the Israeli line is one of the reasons that the Israeli propaganda machine is working against its aims.The falling support for Israel just goes to proves this point.So carry on the propaganda work as it is working against you not for you. Owain the 1st ( talk) 07:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I see that there is edit warring over the human sields information and that it's been removed repeatedly. I don't have an opinion about whether this is the right place for it although it is certainly reliably sourced. Instead can I please appeal to everyone's sense of objectivity. Go to the Hamas article and search for "human shield". Ask yourself whether the rules you use to make content decisions/reverts etc are based on policy or whether they are based on which side of the conflict the belligerent happens to be on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment The German and Vietnamese wikipedia certainly do not think it is a problem having criticism of the military on them as shown here [3],Tội ác [4], the Vietnamese one has a summary and then a link to another page covering the subject.The German wikipedia also has a criticism section on the IDF as well (Kritik) [5] as does the French one [6].If they have them then I can see no good reason why they cannot be in this one.It is also in the Spanish wikipedia as well [7] Owain the 1st ( talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
<- I'm disappointed that no one advocating the removal of the information has addressed the issue of the presence of similar information in the Hamas article. I don't believe that my spelling it "human sields" invalidates the argument very much. Surely if we are going to use comparison arguments based on other articles for inclusion/exclusion decisions, the articles about the belligerents in the conflict, IDF, Hamas etc is just as good a set for comparisons as the set of national armies ? Anyway, how about moving it to the human shield article and having a simple inline link or a 'See also' link to that from some highly summarised sentence about all the novel techniques the IDF uses to legitimately defend the Land of Israel/brutally oppress displaced Jordanians or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I see that the section you added has already been deleted, so we are back to square one yet again. 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI - I just looked up the article for Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the United States Armed Forces and they both happen to have a criticism section. Yet neither of them has a "code of conduct" section. In fact I am certain that every military in the world has a rosy code of conduct which is used primarily for propaganda (every country has at least one line stating they do not attack civilian targets or conduct torture despite the fact that most do). So I think the argument, made several times by some editors here that no other army has a criticism section, is not only false, but totally backwards. This article's entire structure is POV in the IDF's favour. Poyani ( talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The more I look into this topic the worse it looks. The Hezbollah page has a list of crimes that the group has been accused of being involved in by the western media. Some of these crimes happen to have occurred before the group was founded. Yet in the IDF article, it is a battle just to state facts that are unanimously agreed on by every major international human rights organization (such as the IDF's use of human shields, of which there are even videos widely available online). Could you imagine if the IDF article followed the same guidelines as the Hezbollah article? It would include a list of crimes the IDF has been accused of committing by the Arab media.
The IDF and Hezbollah should not even be comparable on similar grounds. The IDF is the military of a state which has signed on numerous articles and conventions stating explicitly that it would not commit the crimes it is accused of committing by the human rights groups. [Owain the 1st]'s criticism section is incredibly mild. There should be absolutely no controversy over this issue. I think the editors who object to the section are misinterpreting the NPOV rule. It states that the material should represent the sources, not that there should be an equal weight given to both the Israeli perspective and the human rights groups' perspective. What some editors feel about the topic shouldn't even be relevant. The balance of articles and books written on the topic generally lean towards the direction that the IDF has committed war crimes. That is far more notable than their code of conduct or any of their particular strategies or tactics. Their page should reflect that balance instead of removing the criticism section or matching every criticism with an IDF response. Poyani ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy, I am going to reiterate my point one more time, as I think you may have missed it. Criticism of the IDF is far more notable and has far many more reliable (English) sources than, say, Minorities in the IDF or the IDF code of conduct. Poyani ( talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello -- PMFJI ; I was bold enough to revamp former « Code of Conduct against militants and Palestinian civilians » sub-section into a (deserved, IMHO) more detailed and better sourced one, about an important and debated perspective on the current IDF doctrine. Best, Ireilly ( talk) 11:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The article´s version in other languages (e.g. German) does not only host a "critique" section but also cites the seruv-movement. As there are not many armies whose soldiers are polically organised in a way to refuse certain service (in the West Bank), this is a fact worth mentioning in Wikipedia, isn´t it? http://seruv.org.il/
Regarding any link of Antisemitism with critique of the IDF, jewish intelectuals like Moshe Zuckerman and non-jews like Slavoi Zizek have pointed out, that the best prevention of Antisemitism is a sincere political critique of Israel, while the inflationary (ab)use of Antisemitism as an imunisation strategy opens the doors for real Antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.120 ( talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Was there ever a consensus for this content? Foreign relations does not belong in this article. Nothing in the section suggests the IDF had relations with the SAFD. Stuff about nuclear weapons would go Israel and weapons of mass destruction and Foreign relations of Israel. I will self-revert if an editor can point me to a consensus about this information. If there is none then let's talk about it here. Wikifan Be nice 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see the foreign policy section at the very top. As I noted there, I have no problem with significantly changing this section. However I believe the Israel's military relations with South Africa are far more notable than say the relationship with India or China. I understand that a relationship with the IDF is not the same as a relationship with Israel. However I believe a military relationship is the same. Note for example that the section for India begins with "India and Israel enjoy strong military and strategic ties. Some analysts have dubbed the alliance between India and Israel as the new ..." Poyani ( talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Israel army flag.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
How do they get by on that? Do they get food stamps or something? Hcobb ( talk) 20:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a ref for the extra payments? This doesn't seem to be covered at all here or in the conscript article, hence my asking. Hcobb ( talk) 18:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The numbers in the article at this moment paint that exact picture. There are obviously subsidies in the system that we have overlooked. Hcobb ( talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If I may throw some light on the subject :
for men :
for any soldier : he get 100% subside for city wages (can be up to 300$ in some cities) , gets a subsidy for childcare (taking into account only his wife income).
109.226.54.190 ( talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) an ex carrier soldier
a person could not afford to live with this kind of salary: renting a room in the perphria of IL will be around 75$ for a month in very poor neighbourhood (the type where you can buy drugs in the streets in the middle of the day). food for a single only for two weekends can be lowered to 100 NIS (25$) (to have three vegeterian meals per day for each weekend). but the amount of soldiers that will choose this kind of life is extremly low
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.226.53.223 (
talk)
15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, under the heading of "foreign suppliers" a slew of countries, who contribute less than insignificant amounts to the IDF, are noted. Only the major suppliers such as the United States and perhaps Germany and the U.K. should be noted. I propose we eliminate the rest. It's kind of silly to list Bosnia and India as arms suppliers for the IDF. I don't know of any weapons platform in use by the IDF that comes from Brasil or Serbia.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Should the Depth Corps be mentioned here or in a more in-depth article? Hcobb ( talk) 06:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Recently there has been much talk about the refusal of some religious Jewish male soldiers to follow orders that they feel that are against their beliefs, e.g. hearing women sing in army ceremonies. Adding to that the refusal of some Religious Zionists to take part in forced evacuations of Israeli settlements on religious grounds - and the support some of them get from Rabbis, which is related to the whole "taking orders from commanders or rabbis" debate, and I think there's a sufficient basis for a separate article with said headline ("Religion in the IDF" - Judaism section) while of course including a reference to it in this article (service section or controversies?). There's currently a section dealing with the singing in the Women in the IDF article, but since it has little to do with female soldiers than with religious males, I feel that a separate article dealing with the entire aspect of religion would be best. I'll try to come up with something... meanwhile I'd appreciate any input you may have. PluniAlmoni ( talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that the section pertaining to Israel/South African military relations has been deleted in this edit. I recall that this is actually in contradiction of the consensus which was reached on the talk-page. Would anyone object to it being reintroduced? Poyani ( talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jabotito48, you added an incomplete source here [9] when I click on it it doesn't direct me to any book or other source. Could you please say what source it is and provide a direct quotation from the source here. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Jabotito48, the sentence currently says: "During the Israeli Independence War, many Druze soldiers and officers on the Arab side deserted and joined Israel." I checked the two sources and could not find any info that any Druze who fought on the Arab side, deserted and joined Israel. Could you please point out where in the sources this is? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The formatting at the top of the page is broken, but I don't known how to fix it (something to do with ref tags), so I've flagged it for cleanup so someone who knows more than I do can fix it - Camundongo ( talk) 23:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
exact translation would be "israel army of defense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.139.130 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. My literal translation would be, "Defense Army for/to Israel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.113.39 ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"and has no civilian jurisdiction within Israel." What does this mean? Does it mean that Israel is not a military dictatorship? Does Wikipedia say this about the armed forces of other democratic states? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone help link to this orphaned article? Gbawden ( talk) 08:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious that pro-israeli editors wrote this article; what is even more blatant, the selection of photos supplied to illustrate the "benevolent" nature of IDF smacks of the Nazi hypocracy, "Arbeit macht frei". Not a single photo of killed and mutilated Palestinian children (more than 300 by most conservative estimates during this year 2014). SHAME on wikipedia and this article!!! — Precedng unsigned comment added by 186.9.167.17 ( talk) 01:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does this article exclude any mention of atrocities carried out by the Israel Defense Forces? The Hamas article does not exclude violent acts associated with Hamas. Why doesn't this article talk about this aspect of the IDF? By excluding this aspect of the IDF, this article reeks of a Pro-Israel bias. I think that this should be promptly addressed. 72.174.6.46 ( talk) 00:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC) i
What exactly do you feel is missing? Can you provide some examples? — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Try this link for accounts of terrorist activities carried out by the IDF http://thenakedtruthinaconfusedworld.blogspot.com/2010/12/idf-atrocities-former-israeli-soldiers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.222.56 ( talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the history section. Seems a bit odd that there is no mention of "occupation" given that has been one of the main activities of the Israeli army since 1967. More generally, the whole history section (6 paragraphs) only has two citations and the parent History of the Israel Defense Forces is also largely unreferenced. Dlv999 ( talk) 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there should be a controversy section added to the article, given the numerous UN law infractions committed by the IDF on the Palestinians alone. This should be worthy of mention because, as stated above, Hamas's page has listed its controversies, I believe that to be fair and balanced, the IDF page should also include the negative things associated with it in addition to the positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.34.194 ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am happy with that. Yaakov Franklin ( talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
What about adding the following sentence to the end of the history section: "The IDF has also participated in a number of air strikes and bombing operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; many of these attacks have been criticized as human-rights outrages"? 2.96.126.160 ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
When I looked at the websites for the IDF or the British Army the images that I saw were informative action, training or similar shots. The same is true for the British Army page. The IDF page has a number of posed shots as in present time edit here. One of the images was captioned, "Israeli "Netzah Yehuda" recon company in full combat gear prepare for a night raid in the West Bank". No they're not. They're posing for a photo. I recently removed the cute young girl image from the demography section of the State of Palestine article and am arguing that the similar image be removed be removed from the Israel article. WP:PILLARS presents the primary concept that encyclopaedic (informative) content be presented "warts and all". Articles are not the place to be presenting Editor inspired PR or social media type images. This isn't Saatchi & Saatchi or Facebook. Greg Kaye 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Should we add one to mention events such as when Israel has taken (more) Palestinian land for the IDF? Danotto94 ( talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Idf is an extremely controversial entity, I'm shocked that there's no controversy section on this article.
Further, the history section seems very whitewashed, with no mention that a founding organization of the Idf (lehi) was a terrorist organization that intentionally targeted civilians (see "the Stern gang" for more information).
I implore that a controversy section be added, as the Israeli border dispute and Israeli conflict are extremely contentious and controversial topics.
I'm able to provide Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of respectable references to back up this claim. ~~Harrisberg
It's obviously a tremendously well written page, with excellent sources for its various paragraphs. I notice however an absence of a "controversies/criticism" section. May I suggest that this oversight be addressed? Something along the lines of "The IDF takes criticism seriously and does its utmost to follow the rules of law" etc etc. Glen Gormley ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently Israel News Company of Channel 2 (Israel) released a series of free-license videos as a contribution to Wikipedia. One of them was about the Israel Defense Forces. The film contains no text nor speech (other than the title "צה"ל") and mainly shows the various units of the IDF training or maneuvering, and shows some of the weapons, gear and combat vehicles of the IDF. The relevant aspect of the video is clear and central. These footage are clearly neutral and carry no emotional charges. However, it was removed with the explanation "Remove propaganda video" even though I proved that the video is informative, neutral and adheres to the WP:NPOV policy. The video should be kept in the article because of its informative value. MathKnight 18:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The full name of the IDF in Hebrew, by the Israeli Basic Law: The Military is צבא הגנה לישראל (Tsva Hagana le-Yisra'el) and not צבא ההגנה לישראל (Tsva ha-Hagana le-Yisra'el). In the Hebrew Wikipedia page they had a talk about it, and decided to use the correct name, צבא הגנה לישראל. If someone can edit the page, please do so.
85.64.113.49 ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"IDF Wordpress Blog – news and updates from the field" - It's linking to Idaho Falls' spokesperson website. Wrong IDF? :) 87.68.49.46 ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello . Is it non-Jews or Jewish-related citizens, in the section that concerns minorities . BatmobileFire ( talk) 12:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Missing discussion of Samaritans in the IDF, a small but significant group. [3] Dfink ( talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's an extra space here above the new "Technological development" section. Also I think that section should be merged with " Weapons and equipment". It has repeated weapons and was copy-pasted from Israel#Military, probably to show more pictures of Israeli inventions.-- 186.137.184.20 ( talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
How long was the Lebanon War? Seraphimsystem ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted Avaya1 recent re-addition of his "Technological development" section ( this edit). I had removed the section several weeks ago as it covered the same subject as the long standing "Weapons and equipment" section, and was furthermore located in a completely unreasonable location in the article, before both manpower and organization sections. Nevertheless, I had not removed it outright, bur rather amalgamated the two, migrating most of the section and photos to the section below. The recent restoration of this section was not only unnecessary, but rather caused even further unnecessary duplication of content. Poliocretes ( talk) 17:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like if someone removes the link "safe space" made in this edit, since it has nothing to do with religion or haredim, but the term is used for gay people. Also there's a grammatical error for the "Religious Zionist seor", which should be changed for sector.-- 186.153.52.240 ( talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Has the IDF modernized Deuteronomy 24:5? It speaks specifically about a recently married recruit being required to spend at least 1 year with their newlywed. Twillisjr ( talk) 17:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think this edit should be reverted. Sure, IDF might be considering buying some Hyundai boats, but it's not a significant supplier, not certanly like Germany or the US.-- 190.31.182.138 ( talk) 16:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a small grammatical mistake at the end of the first paragraph in this section. It should say: , and provide it with its initial manpower and doctrine. (there's an "s" missing)-- 181.90.193.72 ( talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are sections on such obscure minorities as vegans, but nothing on the Christian minority. That glaring omission ought to be rectified. Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Israel Defense Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007134943/israels-new-video-game-executions.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a lie, see Tal Law. Is this article writte by the IDF? - 91.10.1.207 ( talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "...operational nuclear weapons capability since 1967..." to 1966, as the article states.
TH3 M0554D (
talk)
10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article contains the following statement:
This should be either removed or changed to:
This has been discussed above but no formal request has been made to change this. The current version is unacceptable, because the sources provided are an IDF page and an unreliable source called GlobalSecurity.org BeŻet BeŻet ( talk) 08:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this line needs to be removed or significantly reworked: The number of wars and border conflicts in which the IDF has been involved in its short history makes it one of the most battle-trained armed forces in the world.
Currently, it is sourced to globalsecurity.org but from their list of sources it seems this language of "most-battle trained" is copied from the IDF directly. In fact, it is in their documentation, which the second cited source.
It is not usual practice for us to state an organization's self-description in Wikivoice. The second issue is that the current phrasing misrepresents the source, which is talking about only major wars. It does not seem to be including something like Operation Protective Edge, which is very different from something like the Yom Kippur War, and I don't think this was the intention of the sources (or even the IDF) for it to be misrepresented this way. Please consider a removal or an appropriate way to rephrase this. Seraphim System ( talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a large number of photos in the article and some are included without context, like "IDF soldiers rescue an eighty year old Lebanese woman". I'm not questioning whether the rescue mission actually happened, but I think the overall number of photos should be reduced to reduce the "weight" of the article, and we should probably start with these "random" photos that could potentially be seen as some form of propaganda, especially since they are placed in the "Doctrine" section. BeŻet ( talk) 13:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "File:Badge of the Israel Defense Forces.svg" to "File:Badge of the Israel Defense Forces.new.svg" as it is the new version. Tal ( Ronaldinho The king) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The ones I have seen so far include:
There is plenty to do here for those who want to improve the article. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The emblem of the IDF as it currently appears in the article is very outdated. The new logo:
Nmbeden ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Bus stop:@ Sir Joseph: Unfortunately, many people believe that contrary to the IDF’s stated mission, it is actually going out of its way to oppress Palestinian people. I personally do not believe that, but Wikipedia needs to do what it can to remain neutral. Adding the word stated is not false, as the source does come from the IDF itself. It is not from an impartial historical analyst that has determined what the IDF’s mission is based on its previous actions.
I feel, that since this word is not false, there is no reason to remove it based on the arguement Of course the Israel Defense Forces are forces that defend Israel. What else would they be? Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"Adding the word stated is not false". It is superfluous. Bus stop ( talk) 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"many people believe that contrary to the IDF’s stated mission, it is actually going out of its way to oppress Palestinian people."Why would the IDF want to oppress the Palestinian people? In my opinion the Israeli military's mission is little different from that of any other country. Bus stop ( talk) 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The English terms used to describe "צבא הקבע" in the article is incorrect. "Permanent service" is a wrong naive translation from Hebrew. I suggest replacing it with either one of the following:
I further suggest using the term "mandatory service" for "שירות חובה" (instead of "regular service") — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobiGilburd ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear editor: what about adding a section on IDF Art ? This page proposing already 4 paintings by the artist Dan Groover on IDF https://israelmodernart.com/shop/by-discipline/painting/by-theme/israel-defense-forces-idf-tsahal-54
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.33.197 ( talk) 12:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The age of the recruit is eighteen, not seventeen. Citizens may recruit at the age of seventeen in case they finished school and informed the recruitment division about it before, but it never happens. 147.236.152.83 ( talk) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the target of this redirect to:
#REDIRECT [[Israeli Ground Forces]]
This is because we now have an article about the "Israeli Army"/Ground Forces. Sildemund ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure how else to articulate this. The Israeli Ground Forces are the Israeli equivalent of the United States Army. Please look at the Israeli website which I linked to above - they list the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. Refusing this request is similar to saying that US Army should point to United States Armed Forces. Sildemund ( talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Why does the name use American English? NeverLeftOhio ( talk) 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t clear, I was wondering if anyone knew why the official name as created by the Israeli government uses the American spelling. Thanks for the assistance though. NeverLeftOhio ( talk) 05:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The Israel Defense Forces is the military of the State of Israel nableezy - 20:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister and replace him with Naftali Bennett. Uzenaes ( talk) 20:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[2] [3] [4] [5] RPBAYHaLevi ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the old emblem (logo) to the new one. DirtyPotatoEditor ( talk) 08:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the late reply. The IDF has changed its emblem recently and it has to be updated on the English wikipedia. Here is the new emblem that is already on wikimedia commons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Badge_of_the_Israeli_Defense_Forces_2022_version.svg/1200px-Badge_of_the_Israeli_Defense_Forces_2022_version.svg.png Thanks DirtyPotatoEditor ( talk) 20:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The military age is 18 years and not 17(even though in rare cases draft at that age is permitted with special permission) 2A00:A040:183:76A:5D6F:20EC:DF64:76F7 ( talk) 15:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Page: Israel. Please correct the Gini index *48* is wrong! Please change it to medium! Tamar274 ( talk) 21:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence in the fifth paragraph of the "Main developments" section starts with "Israel is known to have developed nuclear weapons," by misrepresenting its source and implying that Israel having nuclear weapons is a fact. Since the source does not say that Israel is known to have nuclear weapons, I suggest the aforementioned sentence be changed either to [citation needed] or to say "The United States is convinced that Israel has nuclear weapons," in order to accurately represent the source's claims. The truth is the source states "the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a 'public secret' by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons." The United States being "convinced" that Israel has nuclear weapons does not equate to "Israel is known to have developed nuclear weapons." Not only does the source state that Israel denies this allegation, but it also admits that its own analysis is based entirely on speculation, suspicion, hearsay, unconfirmed allegations, and educated guesses. Furthermore, the authors explicitly mention that to date, no evidence has ever been found to prove that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
While The discussion of speculation regarding nuclear development is valid, until such a time as it can be proven, it is important to keep it to speculation. The opening statement to this section is biased and misrepresents the truth.
Mrabinovsky ( talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The quote at the beginning of the following section seems excessive...
/info/en/?search=Israel_Defense_Forces#Doctrine
What do you think? -
Daveout
(talk)
03:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It says in Wikipedia that the age of enlistment in the IDF is 17. This is not true. There is no uniform enlistment age, there are soldiers who enlist at the age of 18, 19 and 20. Most of them are at the age of 18. There are a few who enlist at the age of 17. Lemobsxuizi ( talk) 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Military Age claims to be 17, however it is at the minimum of 18 and can be until 29 for man or for unmarried woman between the age of 18-26. Source in Hebrew: חוק שירות ביטחון (mitgaisim.idf.il) ~ the official IDF website. 87.68.115.169 ( talk) 16:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
— מקף⁻ ණ (Hyphen) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As of today the chief of staff is Herzi Halevi and not kochavi. https://www.timesofisrael.com/herzi-halevi-becomes-idfs-23rd-chief-of-staff-in-handover-ceremony/ SaarF ( talk) 12:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The conscription length in the IDF is 24-32 months, and not 24-34 months. In addition, the military age is 18. Yuval092 ( talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
After 1945 many criminals, rapists, murders walked free, lived, sang, drank unpunished... Why are you fighting holy war with Palestine? Your holy war is to turn the Siberian tiger's head to the West. The Charité camps are still holding hostages. Free Lina, J.H. non-aryan. 94.225.153.245 ( talk) 13:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence should be in the active voice:
Cyprus, as a former S-300 air-defense system operator, was speculated by Greek media to have assisted Israel...
Please change it to:
Greek media speculated that Cyprus, as a former S-300 air-defense system operator, had assisted Israel..."
Also, the sentence is completely unsourced, so please add {{citation needed}} at the end of the sentence. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Until the draft of July 2015, men served three years in the IDF. Men drafted as of July 2015 and later will serve two years and eight months (32 months), with some roles requiring an additional four months of Permanent service.
This is badly out of date, since July 2015 was eight years ago. Please change "drafted as of July 2015 and later will serve" to "drafted since July 2015 serve". 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israel Defense Forces has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Stated values of the IDF" section, the capitalisation is unusual, e.g. "Defense of the State, its Citizens and its Residents". Please redo the capitalisation so that it matches normal English capitalisation, e.g. "Defense of the state, its citizens and its residents". We don't need to worry that this change would deviate from the original, since Hebrew, the language from which these are translated, doesn't have capitalisation at all. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)