Talk:Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

Untitled

The official name of the organization, as provided by the company, is:

RAFAEL Armament Development Authority, Ltd.

RAFAEL is an Hebrew acronym (thus the difficulty in translation), and so to avoid confusion, should we move the title to 'RAFAEL' as opposed to 'Raphael'? I have rarely seen Raphael used in technical literature compared to Rafael or RAFAEL.

Forgot to sign the above comments... Joshbaumgartner 16:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I see no problem to moving it, but not to its long corporate name. IZAK 16:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then again, why not, but minus the "Ltd" at the end. IZAK 16:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page moved

Moved page to its better known corporate name at RAFAEL Armament Development Authority. IZAK 16:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who cares what they change it to? Its got the coolest name anyway

RCWS and OWS redundancy?

Why are they separated? The description seems redundant.

Investments in Brazil

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] talks about the will of this Israeli company to invest in Brazil.Agre22 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Problem with date 1954 or 1958?

In my source, EMET was rename RAFAEL or Raphaël or Rafael ( this is the translation of רפאל - מערכות לחימה מתקדמות בע"מ, : RAFAEL Armament Development Authority) in 1954 but the article It was finally reorganized as Rafael in 1958.[3]

SO? some help with that? Alfad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Wallbuster

Why does "Wallbuster" redirect here? This article doesn't mention Wallbuster.

Wallbuster is an early HESH warhead developed in Britain during WWII. It has nothing to do with Israel or Raphael Defence Systems.

I would simply remove the redirect, and leave "Wallbusters" as a redline wikilink, but I've never done that before. I may figure it out in the fullness of time, but hopefully someone will step in and save me the trouble.

MrDemeanour (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pufferey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery

Many of these IDF/IM articles contain a lot of PUFFERY. The embellishment and silly claims of how great things are.

I removed much of this many times - see edits. I am totally trying to create an NPOV tone - I am sure many products are great - but claims of 'GREATEST' 'THE BEST' - or 'CLASSIFIED' - why the editor keeps stating ALL projects are classified adds zero encyclopedic value = have no place in an encyclopedic article - could folks not add this PUFFERY. It reads a lot more NPOV when you do not do this. BeingObjective (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Intro.

The intro - now simplified. Likely was a tad repetitive. BeingObjective (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)