Talk:Elbit Systems

"Divestment" section

I've removed the "Divesment" section per WP:NOTNEWS, as these types of investment companies regularly boycott defense firms for varios reasons. It's just news to report they have boycotted Elbit, and really has nothong to do with the copmay itself. Also, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a Palestinian organization that boycotts many Isreali companies, so it's not nteworthy that they boycott this one either. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly this has nothing to do with Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, where are you getting that from ? Secondly, we don't get to decide what is noteworthy. The sources do that for us. The divestment by the Norwegian Government (not an investment company) resulted in the director general of the Foreign Ministry summoning the Norwegian ambassador in protest. It received a lot of coverage in the Israeli press and elsewhere. Danske Bank, is the largest financial group in Denmark. Then there's the divestment by Sweden's largest pension funds which hasn't been included yet covered in this JPost report. This material is notable, pertinent, reliably sourced, specifically addresses the subject of this article and its inclusion is entirely policy compliant. These divestments from Elbit have received significant, in-depth coverage in diverse reliable sources both within Israel and elsewhere over an extended period of time. The divestments have resulted in statements and actions by the Israeli government. WP:NOTNEWS won't cut it I'm afraid. What is lacking from that section is information about how both Elbit and the Israeli government have responded. That is required for NPOV compliance in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding "and really has nothong to do with the company itself", that is plainly wrong. It has everything to do with the company itself. The sources themselves make this clear and specifically address Elbit. The divestments result from the specific activities, that in the eyes of the investors, violate international standards and therefore fail their investment criteria, such as involvement with Israeli settlements and the West Bank barrier. The reasons Elbit doesn't meet the investment criteria are specific to Elbit, they are a direct result of the companies activities. Regarding "it's not noteworthy that they boycott this one either", as I said, this has nothing to do with Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions so it is not "they" that are doing anything. These are governments and financial institutions making decisions based on their own compliance rules. You appear to have misunderstood both the nature of this material and how it is directly related the subject of this article. Consequently neither of your reasons for reverting are valid. I am restoring the material. Please address the points I have raised if you have further concerns. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The mention of BDS, ehich you've also restored and edited, is in the section, hence I've mentioned it as part of why I removed the section. So of course it's relevant here, as BDS is not a government or financial institution. Frankly I'm flumoxed on that one. Second, the bank investors say the same things about every company the boycott, which is why this is not unique to Elbit itself. That's why this falls under NOTNEWS. Investors are free to boycott whom they wish, but WP should not be advocating for their issues, or covering it outside of their own articles.

You appear to have misunderstood both the nature of this material and how it is directly related the subject of this article. Consequently none of your reasons for restoration are valid. I am removing the material once I've passed the 24h period for reverting. Please address the points I have raised if you have further concerns. (Sounds awfully snotty when reapted back to you, doesn't it? Well, it sounded that way the first time too!)

Finally, do not confuse Dyslexia with Ignorance, and repeating a person's errors it is rude, no matter what the reasons they made them are. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really snotty. Sorry if I came across that way and I didn't want to fix your typos. It seems rude to me to do that. I don't care about typos. Not important. This has nothing to do with BDS campaign. There is nothing about BDS in the sources discussing these divestments. These divestments have no connection to BDS whatsoever. I am going to remove that sentence until such time that someone makes the effort to describe the BDS campaign against Elbit with sources. WP is not advocating for anyone. The material is policy compliant. You have no policy based reason to remove it. I shall post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues to try to get some more editors involved. Having said all that, I do think this material could be summarised. Please assume good faith on my part, I am trying to clean the article up, remove advocacy, unsourced info, remove bullshit ext links and increase policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the NPOV tag is fine by me. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for my reactions. And I did assume good faith, it's just the attitude I reacted too.

As to BDS, it was mentioned in the section because BDS boycotts/advocates the boycotting of Elbit, along with most other Israel-based companies, per that article. That's why it was there. It's not directly related to the investment banks, but it was there. Thanks for removing that, as it's primarily a political boycott of all thing Israeli. As to whether or not I have "no policy based reason to remove" the section, that's what this discussion is about. Obviously you disagree, but you're not the sole judge here. Summary declarations that your views are in line with policy and mine are not, and that the info must stay no matter what really aren't that helpful in a discussion such as we should be having here. What will matter is consensus, and that has yet to be decided. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem and fair enough but you're wrong. Just kidding. Well, whatever happens I think that material can be cut down by half pretty easily. The lack of a statement from Elbit and the Israeli gov for balance seems problematic. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree in theory with cutting it down and finding responses to add in. I'll reserve my support until after I see the proposed changes, but I am open to compromise, if we find an equitable solution. ALos, soemone else re-added the BDS comment with a source. I removed it again, but I've not had a chance to read the source for it's reliability. As BDS is apparently boycotting many companies for simply being Israeli, I really don't see the use adding it here. The investment banks situation is different in that it's not strictly national politics. - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You say above that "As to BDS, it was mentioned in the section because BDS boycotts/advocates the boycotting of Elbit, along with most other Israel-based companies, per that article. That's why it was there. It's not directly related to the investment banks, but it was there. " - but the reference I added specifically ties the decision by Scandinavian financial institutions to pressure from BDS. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the banks are responding to pressure from BDS, that is making it more political. Palestinian groups oppose Israel. Period. The reasons aren't relevant here. It's no suprise they would oppose Israeli companines, but that shouldn't warrant a mention in a company article. It should be discussed elsewhere on artidle that deal specifically with Israeli-Palestinian issues. - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason that some of those institutions are divesting from Elbit specifically is that it is heavily involved in the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, this is detailed in sources such as this

“ Norway's Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen said, "We do not wish to fund companies that so directly contribute to violations of international humanitarian law."

Halvorsen said the separation wall had unacceptably restricted the movements of Palestinians on the West Bank, so that an investment in any company involved in the project caused "unacceptable risk of contribution to particularly serious violations of fundamental ethical norms." She added, "The International Court has already ruled that the separation barrier is a violation of human rights."

”

.

So clearly this belongs on the Elbit article, and the rationales given for the disinvestment should probably be clarified so that readers aren't confused. Unomi (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the pov tag, there is nothing pov about adding reliable information. If you need to ad something else contradicting the sources, then ad it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/watchkeeper/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OTC in US or not?

The last paragraph of the intro says Elbit is traded over the counter in the US, but then gives a NASDAQ symbol. The OTC article says that means trading "without the supervision of an exchange", but NASDAQ is an exchange. That's a contradiction, surely. Shouldn't the article just say "traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ"? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right.--JackLaros (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Everysight

insufficient notability for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I got all the details from Everysight about the technology, will update it soon. It surely stands on its own.--JackLaros (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the Above. Everysight has gotten significant coverage independent of Elbit. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing

I miss the money for the book „The Bulgarian Army and the Rescue of Bulgaria's Jews, 1941–1944“. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/holocaust-bulgaria-elbit/ Falkmart (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New section needed: Criticism of Elbit Systems

I am surprised there is no section dedicated to "Criticism of Elbit Systems". Even internet service providers have criticism sections. Here is a list of critical claims made of Elbit Systems by organizations:

1. Human rights violations: Elbit Systems has been accused of complicity in human rights violations against Palestinians. The company produces surveillance systems, weapon systems, and other equipment used by the Israeli military during its operations in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

2. Role in the occupation: Elbit Systems’ products contribute to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, leading to accusations of complicity in war crimes and violations of international law.

3. Profiting from conflict: Critics argue that Elbit Systems’ profits come at the expense of Palestinians who are adversely affected by its products.

4. Lack of transparency: Elbit Systems has been criticized for its lack of transparency in disclosing its business activities in the occupied Palestinian territories.

5. Boycotts and divestments: Activists worldwide have called for boycotts and divestments of the company as part of broader campaigns for Palestinian rights.

6. Use of drone technology: The company has also faced criticism for its use of drone technology in wars around the world. Critics argue that the technology could be used to commit human rights violations and violate privacy rights. spartymantz (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Add info/links about Lanius (micro suicide drone) ?

e.g.

• https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2022-11-18/ty-article/.premium/israels-elbit-sytems-unveiled-micro-suicide-drone-and-it-has-a-mother-ship/00000184-84d2-dd3b-a5bf-c4d6e2880000
• https://elbitsystems.com/product/lanius/
• briefly referenced at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Loitering_munition

Although there doesn't seem to be much public information about its use ...

--Bbolker (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fairly sure it is 'disinvestment'

I'm not getting into any debate on this - but I think the term is actually - 'disinvestment' BeingObjective (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

So Ethical 'disinvestment'. BeingObjective (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Consulting Wiktionary, 'divestment' means to sell current assets, and describes 'disinvestment' as a weaker form meaning to reduce investment in or cease making any more investment in something. So 'divestment' seems to be the one needed in the article. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay - not how I interpreted it - I think sticking in EHTICAL might be a good thing - IMHO. BeingObjective (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ETHICAL - oops! BeingObjective (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Rewrote to address advertisement issues

I took a gander at tackling the advertisement warning on the article. The old writeup was honestly atrocious, it read like a copy-and-paste of several press releases. I tried to keep as much of the actual info in there while getting rid of the fluff and puffery, but there were needless details that I went back and then cropped out again because of how forced they were in the first place.

Originally I had planned to do two separate runs, one of for the corporate speak and another for the structure but it was all just too enmeshed and I wound up doing one big revision.. sorry! The content was just all over the place, with recent US stuff jammed into the top but then a separate and longer section on US corporate info and a few military contracts later on in the "global presence" list so I just put everything but Israel in the "global presence" section. Israel stuff was weirdly missing given that this is the largest weapons manufacturer in Israel, so I ended up adding that in as part of the change.

I left the advertising template in there, if you guys think the corporate and pr speak has been sufficiently dialed down, we can yank it.

Mahmoud (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think your edits were very helpful-- thank you. I plan to do a bit more cleanup, but then I plan to take off the tag. There are some issues where corporate/PR sources are the only source for a claim, but those don't necessarily mean we need a tag for the whole article. Wracking ^talk! 05:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finished my edits, which involved a pretty big overhaul of the article's organization. I hope it makes sense, but am aware there is still much room for improvement. Wracking ^talk! 07:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Invalid source/infactual information.

‘In 2024, Elbit announced they were "forced to sell" the 'Elite KL' factory in Tamworth due to losses related to pro-Palestine protests.’

Elbit never announced this, the source listed for this statement states that it is the view and statement of the Palestine Action group, not Elbit themselves. Please fix. MightyPoof (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You're correct, the source is quite clear that those statements are quotes from the group, not statements of fact and our text misrepresented that. I've updated the text in the article accordingly.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

'location' sub-section(s)

The last country on the list, USA, has a sub-section of locations of it's elbit factories. What i'm unsure about is; do we add similar sections to other countries with many factories and locations or do we remove the sub-section under the USA and make it like the rest of the countries? Personally i'm partial to the 'locations' layout as it avoids lots of single line sentences such as '' but i recognise it could make the article a lot 'longer' in terms of spacing potentially. SP00KYtalk 15:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The US has that sub-section because it has enough locations to merit one. The other countries don't, because they don't -- and the UK should not have had one added with minimal content. There's no requirement that says all need to be formatted the same way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, i think we should have some uniformity in format. If not this we should come up with some better method. It's already a ugly page, most of it's formatting is a series 'disjointed statement.\n disjointed statement.\n desjointed statement' vaguely relating to the subtitle. It's, excuse my friench, dogshit ugly, painful to read and makes the idea of editing kind of a headache. SP00KYtalk 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no need for uniformity in format when the substance of each section is going to be significantly different in terms of the number of locations and I'll be honest -- your changes with the UK section were malformed themselves, and made the page worse. The fact that the rest of the page could use unrelated formatting improvements is not an argument for why changes should be made to this section. As for disjointed statements well... bruh. Your comments here are practically unreadable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension is not something i can affect, i'm afraid. The fact remains though that large parts of this page are very badly writted and formated, to the point it's almost a 'listicle', that is what i am trying to address here. Are you going to attempt to be helpful in that, or? SP00KYtalk 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am being helpful -- I'm pointing out that there is no policy based reasoning for making this change, it doesn't improve the article, and that based on your own mangling of spelling and grammar I have very little reason to believe you know what good looks like here. Your assertions that there is something to address here does not make it so. Your proposed changes would make the article significantly worse, your trial edit was malformed, and your defensiveness here and unwillingness to listen is not helpful. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Being helpful would be to make literally any suggestions, all i see you do is whining. You're the one being defensive here. I have read your critique, which you seem intent on repeating, am i disagreeing with it, no? Okay. So what are the suggestions to make this a better page? SP00KYtalk 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, do not remove others talk page comments again. That's a no-no here. Second, I'll advise you to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks such as accusing others of "whining." You're the one seeking to make the change, and thus the onus is on you to gain consensus. Being rude and insulting is not going to get you there. I've already stated my position that no changes to the format are necessary. That's my suggestion. You can choose to listen to that or not, but your current behavior isn't gonna work, and if you can't abide by our policies you'll be shown the door. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Have it your way. Keep it here if you want. I'm not interested though. SP00KYtalk 21:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)