Talk:2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

Requested move 21 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2023 Israeli anti-Judicial reform protests. Per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, anyone who object to the closer's choice should simply make another move request *at any time*. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Tel Aviv protests → 2023 Israeli protests – Protests are also taking place in Haifa and Jerusalem. Might be better to use a more specific name, like 2023 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu, or 2023 protests against the thirty-seventh government of Israel. Would love to hear other potential ideas. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The name certainly needs an update. Could also be "2023 anti Judicial reform protests" or "2023 anti judicial revolution protests" given that that seems to be the main issue being protested against. "2023 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu" makes the most sense to me, to be consistent with the 2020–2021 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu page. Danido9 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I live in Israel and people are protesting all over Israel from eilat to rosh pina, and are planning to protest even outside of israel.

Therefore, I recommend "2022-2023 anti Judicial reform protests". אקסינו (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the best option, although these protests didn't start in 2022 as far as i'm aware. I think "2023 Israeli anti-Judicial reform protests" is an accurate and descriptive name. Although "2023 Israeli protests" or "2023 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu" might also be good options since the protests might evolve to include other issues, such as the potential defunding of Kan 11. Totalstgamer (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well there is no reason for the name not to be changed Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

But what should it be changed to? Totalstgamer (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably "2023 anti-Netanyahu protests" or "2023 anti-Judicial reform protests" as Danido9 suggested, those make the most sense in my opinion. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support The protests, which by the way are now larger than the page states ([yesterday figures were 130,000 in Tel Aviv alone] -- over 30% of the city's population), have now spread to other cities, even right-wing strongholds like [Beersheva] (this is not to say that the majority of the population there necessarily supports the protests, but they are present). There were actually protests in Haifa even in late December [[1]], so even the idea that they started in Tel Aviv is not entirely clear. It's not "a Tel Aviv thing". --Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Fully support move. "2023 Israel constitutional crisis" or similar would be much, MUCH more appropriate. It's a national crisis, with the protests being one major aspect, and truly not restricted to Tel Aviv. Arminden (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article expansion

Shouldn't the page be larger? It needs more attention as well. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was going to add a background section last week but i couldn't find the time. I'll try and write one today. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh great! I'll start working on an events section. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like, i'm doing my draft at User:Totalstgamer/Article Incubation. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What should we do about the number?

The current information displayed on the "number" section of the protest only applies to the one that took place on January 14th. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably remove it, since the numbers fluxuate and it'll take time until the protests end and we can even consider calculating an average. We could replace it with a list of leading figures like in 2011 Israeli social justice protests, maybe a list of parties to the civil conflict like in 2020–2021 protests against Benjamin Netanyahu. We could also not replace it, but we should discuss this in more detail before making any changes. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We could add every protest individually since currently there were only 5 of them in total, although this solution is only temporary because the protests will go on for quite some time I assume.. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That'd make the infobox gigantic. As of now, we'd need five seperate lines, plus the protest on Saturday, and the one on Monday, and any other protests that take place throughout this crisis. It's unviable to the point in which itd be preferrable to just delete the numbers outright. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

True, so do you think we should replace the numbers with the list of political leaders? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Only if we can formulate a good one. Otherwise, we should remove it outright. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So maybe on the anti-government side we'll show people like Orly Barlev, but on the government's side who should be displayed? Benjamin Netanyahu or the entirety of the thirty-seventh government? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If this page was based on a broader topic (like its hebrew equivalent), we'd just mention the thirty-seventh government. But since its exclusively about the proposed judicial reforms, we should focus on those in government most clearly pushing for it, people like Simcha Rothman and Yariv Levin, alongside Netanyahu himself. What we need is good sources though.

Of note, i'll be removing the number of protestors from the infobox tomorrow, I figured i'd mention that in advance in case anyone stumbles onto this conversation and wants to object. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't seem like a problem for now.. On every news website detailing the protests they mention the celebrities that took part in them, for example: Ynet states Ron Huldai's appearence in the February 4th protest Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Celebrities aren't necessarily protest leaders. We need to use reliable sources that cite individuals (or organizations) who are intimately and consistently involved with the protests, not to mention take some formal or informal part in organizing or leading them. Totalstgamer (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh well there is a movement called "The Black Flags" that organizes most of the protests Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a view from outside Israel: The protests seem to be happening very organically. Though there must be people who are doing organising, I don't see any who could be described as leaders of the protests. One point I'd like to raise is that it looks as if Monday's protest(s) will be very different from the weekly protests to date, as they will involve strikes. (I know that some or all of them won't be real strikes as people will be taking annual leave or will have permission from their employers.) I hope that Monday's protests will be described on this page. If so, the sentence "The protests have taken place on a weekly basis ..." will need a bit of tweaking. Misha Wolf (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we've already talked about that, we'll be sure to cover any significant protests even if they're not on a saturday. Totalstgamer (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So what will replace the number infobox? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think nothing at this point. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright.. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the protests on February 13th in the Events tab

The protests on February 13th weren't a part of the weekly ones, although they amassed a large number of demonstrators. Should they be included? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Monday protests outside the Knesset in Jerusalem

Hi @Pdhadam, the series of protests taking place on Mondays outside the Knesset in Jerusalem is quite different from the series of protests taking place on Saturdays, primarily in Tel Aviv. The Monday protests are accompanied by widespread strike action, unlike the Saturday protests which take place on a weekend evening. I don't agree with your removal of the distinction. Misha Wolf (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pdhadam, the statement "The protests have taken place on a weekly basis, starting on 7 January in Tel Aviv and other cities" is incorrect for two reasons: (1) the Monday protests cannot be said to be taking place on the same "weekly basis" as the Saturday protests, (2) the Monday protests are taking place in Jerusalem and other cities, not in Tel Aviv and other cities. Misha Wolf (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pdhadam, I have restored the information about the two series of events. If you disagree with its inclusion, then please explain your reasoning here rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead figures

The info box shows Yair Lapid as a (the) lead figure of the protests. I'm not in Israel and am getting all my information about the protests online, but I see no evidence of this being true. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not. The protests are decentralized and mostly led by various activist organizations. Using Netanyahu is also weird, since he's legally barred from promoting the reforms for the most part due to his conflicts of interest. I'm removing both his and Netanyahu's names right now. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding - Crime Minister? T576318722bb (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Supported by

Shouldn't Kahol Lavan be included under "Supported by"? And what about Tikva Hadasha? Misha Wolf (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically, the list should also include the aNational Unity Party and Yisrael Beitenu, it depends on whether their support is notable, we should also consider including Meretz. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Israeli spring?

I've done some searching and have found only one use of the term "Israeli spring" to describe the current protests, namely the article currently cited in this article's intro. OTOH, I found four uses of the term "Israeli spring" from 2011/2012: The Israeli Spring, The Israeli Spring, An Israeli Spring? and An Israeli spring?. So I don't consider that the use of this term to describe the current protests is justified and I think that the redirect from "Israeli spring" to this article should be removed. What do others think? Misha Wolf (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Events" tab getting too large

What should be done when the "events" section becomes too big? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ozerkatanmeod, we could do something like 2011 Israeli social justice protests and Timeline of the 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should either split them by day of the week (Monday protests and Saturday protests), or by date (earlier protests and later protests). Totalstgamer (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Which aspect are you concerned about? The size of the table of contents or the size of the article?

Though I previously separated the Saturday protests and the Monday protests, I no longer consider that to be a good idea. The individual protests need to be placed correctly within their continuously evolving context. If we separated the Saturday protests and the Monday protests then the link between their descriptions and the historical context would be broken. Misha Wolf (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Israeli spring" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israeli spring has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25 § Israeli spring until a consensus is reached. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of arrests

Hi @Ozerkatanmeod, the info box says 39 (in total). Yesterday's Haaretz says that 53 were arrested on that day (1 Mar) alone: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-03-02/ty-article/.premium/dozens-arrested-as-israelis-intensify-protest-against-netanyahus-judicial-overhaul/00000186-9f0a-d3d5-a7e7-9f0fb2400000 Misha Wolf (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll change it to 53 arrested. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israeli spring" disambiguation page

The term "Israeli spring" was used in 2011/2012 by some commentators to refer to the 2011 Israeli social justice protests. It is now being used by some commentators to refer to the 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests. To enable Wikipedia users to get useful results when searching using that term, I've created the disambiguation page Israeli spring. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Title change

I believe the title should be changed from "2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests" to "2023 Israeli anti-judicial overhaul protests". Using the term "reform" is slightly biased since its official definition is "make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.". Overhaul feels more neutral. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ozerkatanmeod, I agree that the word "reform" seems incorrect, but I see a number of problems with the proposed change of name and, indeed, with any change of name:

• I suspect that any name we choose would seem biased to one side or another.
• The name of this article needs to harmonise with the name of article 2023 Israeli judicial reform. If we changed one, we would need to change the other.
• When I search the Web for the meaning of overhaul (as a noun), I get "a thorough examination of machinery or a system, with repairs or changes made if necessary". Note the words "if necessary". There isn't broad agreement on whether the proposed changes are necessary. Wiktionary gives the definition "A major repair, renovation, or revision" but gives the example "The engine required a complete overhaul to run properly". Does the Israeli judicial engine currently "run properly"? There isn't broad agreement on whether it does or does not.

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, however the name is still a problem. What do you suggest be done? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere and others, please could you let us have your input. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Protests against 2023 judicial changes in Israel", "2023 judicial changes protests in Israel"? François Robere (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. If we used one of those titles for this article, would we also need to rename 2023 Israeli judicial reform to "2023 judicial changes in Israel"?

Another possible pair of names would be "2023 Israeli judicial changes" and "Protests against 2023 Israeli judicial changes". Misha Wolf (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Totalstgamer too Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Overhaul is in my opinion not a good name. It implies a complete transformation of the Judicial system, which is in its own right biased, its not a frequently-used term, and it doesn't line up with the judicial reform article. I originally wanted to rename the article to "protests against the thirty-seventh government of Israel", back when it was first written and people were also protesting, for example, efforts to Defund the Israel Broadcasting Corporation, but those have since died down.

The current name should stay, at least in my opinion. Totalstgamer (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"protests against the thirty-seventh government of Israel" is actually a pretty solid title. Many left wing groups' and organizations' members also attend the protests with differing goals. So the protests' motive isn't entirely the judicial reform. Other factors like the occupation drive people to attend the protests. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. People's ideologies vary but the ultimate goal of most notable protests (such as the Kaplan protests and 'National Distruption day') is the cancellation of these planned reforms. Im not aware of any substantial protest movements related to other issues, but they might deserve their own articles if they do exist. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

69 Squadron

Hi @Dabberoni15, apologies for removing the item you added to this page regarding the 69 Squadron, but this kind of content belongs in the main article (2023 Israeli judicial reform). Indeed, there is a paragraph there about this specific issue, in section "Statements by reservists". If you consider that that paragraph needs additional information, please feel free to edit it. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Military service refusals

Hi @Reenem, apologies for removing the section you added to this page, titled "Military service refusals", but this kind of content belongs in section "Domestic reactions" of the main article (2023 Israeli judicial reform). If you consider that that section needs additional information, please feel free to edit it. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The scope of this article is (evidently) not clear

For the second day running, I've removed text that other editors had put a fair amount of work into, as it doesn't belong in this article. The scope of this article is (evidently) not clear. How can we fix that? Misha Wolf (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article intro in an attempt to make this clear. Any comments? Misha Wolf (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision. I think these articles can have overlap, that's not inherently wrong. If a reaction constitutes an act of protest (or includes one), its likely to fit into this article. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I find that surprising. What do others think? Misha Wolf (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: If the same protests are described in two different articles, surely that is confusing for both editors and readers. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That depends on the way in which they're detailed and woven into a text. I don't think anyone's shocked by the prospect of seeing the same information in, for example, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Operation Overlord. An article needs to be a complete package that accurately represents its subject matter, regardless of overlapping information. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a good comparison. Those two articles describe a person and a military operation, respectively. Here we have two articles, describing very closely related current events. Section "Public" in article 2023 Israeli judicial reform, which talks about street protests, has a "main article" link to this article. If the military service refusals were to be described in both articles, which would be the "main" article for that content? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They'd be described in more detail (without a direct referral) in the Reactions article, but hypothetically its not particularly relevant. Articles providing a clear picture matters more than avoiding overlap. Both those articles describe the same event with a varying emphasis, you could also compare Dwight D. Eisenhower and Winston Churchill in that sense, two articles tackling the same event from a different perspective. For example, a version of events that treats the reservists letter as a reaction would also emphasize people's condemnation of the event, while one treating it as an act of protest would emphasize the refusal to arrive for a day of reservist service. I think we'll disagree, but for now we should just remove all references to the reservists letter and the referral you added to the lead, and await another opinion. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, I've done some investigating.

If I type "protest meaning" (without the quote marks) into my browser, I get "a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something".

Looking at Wikipedia article Protest, I see that:

A protest [...] is a public expression of objection, disapproval or dissent towards an idea or action, typically a political one. Protests can be thought of as acts of cooperation in which numerous people cooperate by attending, and share the potential costs and risks of doing so. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations."

Both of those definitions include everything we have in section 2023 Israeli judicial reform § Reactions opposing the changes within section 2023 Israeli judicial reform § Domestic reactions.

We currently have two articles about the judicial reform and will shortly have three. I consider that it is essential for both editors and readers to know where to go for the type of information they are interested in. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd summarize that actions fit in the protests page and statements (expressions of disapproval) fit in the reactions page. Should information be treated as relevant in both ways (aka if targeted action directly escalated from a statement) by reliable sources, it fits in both articles, and such is the case with the reservists. Totalstgamer (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, your summary does not align with the dictionary definition I quoted, nor with the extract I provided from the Wikipedia Protest page. If we select material for each article based on an ad hoc criterion which is not in line with general usage, how are editors and readers to know which article to go to? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your definition would mean it fits in both. If a protest is a public expression of objection, this page needs to be 100,000 bytes larger. Editors and readers will know which article to go to because different issues are at hand? if you want to read about the protests, you'll look for them. I doubt anyone is going to look for a reactions page, but they'll find it from the reform page.

Regardless, we're going to disagree. As mentioned, we should just remove all references to the reservists letter and the referral you added to the lead, and await another opinion on this article's exact scope. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, I hope to reply later, but for now, I've removed the sentence about the reservists from the intro. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, I don't object to handling the reservists' actions differently from actions by, say, members of the legal profession or economists or historians, etc (yes, I'm aware that the reservists might be legal professionals or economists or historians, etc) but we would need to discuss how to do such a thing.

Were we to remove them from the other reactions, we could either create a separate article about them or place them, as you have suggested, in the Protests article.

Were we to do the latter, I don't think the actions of the reservists should be intermingled in chronological order with street protests. The reservists' actions are a developing drama, with its own dynamics, and all information about them should stay together. So, were we to take this approach, we would -- I think -- need separate sections for (a) the street protests and (b) the reservists' actions.

What do you think about this? Misha Wolf (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer and others, what are your thoughts re the above? Misha Wolf (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, do you have a view about what we should do with the "Reservists" section? Should we: (1) leave it where it is, (2) place it in a separate article, (3) place it in a separate section of the "Protests" article? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The core issue is one of sorting and grouping: "Reactions to" is grouped by profession or specialty, while this article is sorted by date, since most protests weren't "specialized" but open to the public. The question is: do the reservists deserve a grouping? I think we have two options:

1. ATM this article is a "timeline of protests", where "protest" is read as a "public demonstration", so it has a place here for a subset of reservists' actions. If there's doubt, we can rename this article to make the distinction clearer.
2. We're quickly heading to the point where, as suggested by MarkBen1984 in a previous discussion, we could be splitting Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Members, reservists and retirees of the security services into something like 2023 Israeli military service crisis. In that case, we can probably avoid those mentions here, while linking with {{see also}} to the other article. François Robere (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions to "Caused by"

"Caused by" in the infobox now shows "2023 Israeli judicial reform", "Police brutality" and "Corruption". Judging by the news coverage I've seen, the last two may well be live issues but should not be listed as causes of the protests. What do others think? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone has fixed this. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

16 March and 18 March protests

Is anyone planning to add the 16 March and 18 March protests? We currently have a photo from 16 March but that's all. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added both, as no-one else had. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi @Pdhadam, I don't think that Haaretz matches the definition of a Primary source and, as far as I can see, no primary sources are cited in this article. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Haaretz is the best and most reliable journal writing in Israel, and they are the most involved in the protest. אקסינו (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What??? 185.182.71.18 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether Haaretz is the best or most reliable, but it certainly is a good, reliable source by most standards. And its certainly not a primary source (a primary source would be, for example, estimates from protest leaders, which appear in the article sporadically and with attribution). Totalstgamer (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, true, information from primary sources is (contrary to what I wrote above) used in the article now and then, but (as you say) when this is done, it is made clear. One example is the number of protesters on 25 March. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Article's name change

I see that @Brandmeister has changed the article's name from "2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests" to "2023 Israeli judicial reform protests". It's not good to do that without discussion.

We need to decide whether to stay with the new name or revert to the old one. If we stay with the new name, we should change all instances of the old name, including those in this article. Though the old name redirects to the new one, it's not good practice to leave an old article name in use. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The current title might sound weird. It should be reverted Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Misha Wolf, generally, links to an old page name do not need to be fixed, see WP:NOTBROKEN. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind reverting, but combining anti- with protest may look like a tautology. Brandmeister^talk 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Category:2023 protests, 2023 Chinese healthcare reform protests and 2023 French pension reform strikes are similar to the current name. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TSventon, I appreciate that that is the case generally. However, here we have a rapidly evolving (real world) situation described in four heavily inter-related articles, and many readers will wish to dip repeatedly into them. The user-visible article names associated with links to this article should be made consistent with what the users will see when they arrive here. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: That was a reply to "generally, links to an old page name do not need to be fixed". Misha Wolf (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Misha Wolf, I added generally to allow for exceptions to the general rule. As you are aware of the general rule, I am happy to leave you to argue whether it should apply here or not. TSventon (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The protestors, and most of the media, refer to the events as "judicial overhaul". The term "reform" and is used only by the extreme right wing (though they perceive it as an overhaul against the deep state). Guy Hed (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against moving to overhaul, but reform is very much a reasonable term to use. Feel free to open a move discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli judicial reform. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to propose a title change, please re-read § Title change above.

Central side

Maybe we should add a "central side" - president Herzog and former defence minister Galant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Galant (who is technically still defense minister) and Herzog aren't protestors. This discussion should be moved to Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform or 2023 Israeli judicial reform Totalstgamer (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As @Totalstgamer writes, the appropriate place to discuss this is Talk:Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. I will just mention that Herzog's statements on this matter have been placed in a separate section of article Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, not grouped with reactions supporting the changes, nor with reactions opposing the changes. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The number of supporters of judicial reform at Monday's event

Hi @Totalstgamer, following the conflicting edits to the number of supporters of judicial reform at Monday's event, I've just taken a look at the cited ynet article (via Google Translate) and it says "More than 15,000 demonstrators expressed support for the legal revolution in Jerusalem". Misha Wolf (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

All good, my bad. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm now thoroughly confused.

We have a statement in the "Background" section, saying that over 100,000 demonstrated for the legal changes on Tuesday 28 March. This sentence has a (Now 14) citation which says "over 100,000". I'm looking at it courtesy of Google Translate and am not at all sure that it really refers to 28 March. It might be describing the 27 March event. Please could someone who reads Hebrew check the original story.

We have a statement in the "27 March" section, saying that approximately 20,000 demonstrated for the legal changes on Monday 27 March. This sentence has 4 citations, which give differing figures for the numbers of demonstrators:

• Times of Israel: "tens of thousands".
• Ynet: "more than 15,000".
• Now14: "over 100,000". Please could someone who reads Hebrew check the original story.
• JNS: "more than 100,000".

Misha Wolf (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Idk what JNS is but Now14 is hardly a reliable source on anything to do with the coalition. I think "more than 15,000" or "over 15,000" is the most accurate label. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it. Now what about the statement in the "Background" section? Misha Wolf (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep changing it; I read hebrew and Now14 which is Israel's Channel 14 and is actually the second most watched TV station in Israel; has written that there was over 100,000 protestors at the march. I believe that they are the most reputable source in this. 185.182.71.29 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The JNS is the Jewish News Syndicate and you can check them up as well; an extremely reputable source 185.182.71.29 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is Now14 not a reliable source; as it is the essentially the most prominent news source in Israel; with the fastest growth of any TV Station. 185.182.71.29 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure why i changed it. I also read hebrew, and traffic is not an indication of reliability. For all intents and purposes, the general number from more veteran sources is somewhere in the tens of thousands. Per Misha wolf's above post, Ynet estimates over 15k, while Times of Israel estimates a number in the tens of thousands.

Some other sources of varying reliability include:

Israel Hayom (Link:https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/politics/article/13874745) - "Tens of Thousands"

Srugim (Link:https://www.srugim.co.il/778487-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%A8) - "Tens of Thousands"

So on so fourth. I think the best language to use might just be "Tens of Thousands". Its vaguer, but more loyal to the sources i could find, which are admittedly mostly ones affiliated with the political right. Regardless, the 100,000 figure is virtually unsubstantiated. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Now14 not considered reliable enough for Wikipedia? 185.182.71.29 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Its reliable enough (even if not the most reliable), i've used it myself on other articles, but it contradicts virtually every other reliable source in this case. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to the use of "tens of thousands" as a description for the number of protestors, and to Times of Israel as a source, please express them so we can avoid an edit war. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Protests against the proposed creation of a National Guard

I've added an item about the protests against the proposed creation of a National Guard. Though the National Guard isn't within the scope of article 2023 Israeli judicial reform, and so is not nominally within the scope of this article, I can't see where else such protests could be described. I also suspect that the next large protests against the judicial changes will include protests against this initiative. Any comments? Misha Wolf (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer and others. I see that an anonymous editor has deleted the "29 March" section I created on 30 March, describing protests against the proposed creation of a National Guard. S/he wrote in the edit summary "This protest has absolutely nothing to do with the judicial reform protests and doesn't belong on this page. The writer can request a separate page to include protests about Itamar Ben Gvir's National Guard". What do you think? Shall we broaden our idea of what constitutes the "2023 Israeli judicial reform" to include other controversial proposed laws such as the one setting up the National Guard? I don't think that creating a separate article for protests against the National Guard is a good idea. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the anonymous editor is right. The content should be removed, and if you want, we can hold an official move discussion on a move from "2023 Israeli judicial reform protests" to "Protests against the thirty-seventh government of Israel" or a similar name. I'll personally oppose it, but i'm sure there'll be varying opinions and it might be worth a shot.

Of note, if we decide on this move, we also need to introduce paragraphs on the Kan 11 protests back in January. Totalstgamer (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the move would be a good idea. The protests are mostly against the judicial reforms. Though we may also include a brief text regarding the judicial reform protests into a broader title like suggested above, if it's decided to have a broader-in-scope page. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sections

The article has a rather brief section on background followed by a very long section on the events time-line. Nothing else. I suggest adding 'General impact and analysis'. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What would that section include (especially when it comes to Analysis)? I'm not against the idea, i just wanna make sure we have a clear definition of what that section would entail. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am actually inspired by a similar section in 2023 French pension reform strikes. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of impact there, but i'm still not sure what the definition of analysis is. Regardless, we should probably write a draft of the new section. Totalstgamer (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The semi-protected status of this article

Why is the editing of this article closed off. I would like to add an even that took place today; where tens of thousands protested in support of the reform with this ref https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/370000 InLizWeTruss (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has been given semi-protected status for a period of 3 months because it was subjected to persistent vandalism (7 incidents today, during a 10-minute period). Misha Wolf (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have searched the Web for sources which would corroborate the statement "Tens of thousands at nationwide pro-judicial reform demonstrations" made in the Arutz Sheva article you cited, but could find none. The statement doesn't align with the information provided in other sources. If you are aware of corroborating articles, please reply, giving links. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @InLizWeTruss, I forgot to mention you. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I have quoted the statement from the Arutz Sheva article, balancing it with a statement from The Times of Israel. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The protests where held in Jerusalem, Kfar Saba, Petah Tiqwa and Kiryat Bialik. I have posted the link below to the Hebrew Language Channel 14 website. https://www.now14.co.il/%d7%9c%d7%90-%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%95%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%a4%d7%97%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%97%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9e%d7%94%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%9b%d7%95%d7%93-%d7%99%d7%92%d7%99%d7%a2%d7%95-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%a4%d7%92/ which also states a corroborating account to Arutz Sheva. InLizWeTruss (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @InLizWeTruss, thanks for the link. So the situation is as follows:

• The Arutz Sheva article's headline is "Tens of thousands at nationwide pro-judicial reform demonstrations".
• The headline of the Channel 14 article you have now linked to states "Thousands in demonstrations of support for the reform throughout the country". That's thousands, not tens of thousands.

Misha Wolf (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added also the figure given by Channel 14. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Its completely ridiculous; this whole situation with the Israeli judicial reform protests since every single newspaper in Israel has different figures and statistics of every single protest; how do you decide which ones to follow InLizWeTruss (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Where reputable sources differ, the best thing to do is to give the various numbers, stating where they come from. For example, the description of the 1 April protests says:

• "The protests against the judicial changes continued, with between 165,000 (according to Channel 12) and 230,000 (according to the organizers) protesters in Tel Aviv ..."

Misha Wolf (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is an avid follower of Israeli politics; I have come to understand that any left wing news source (the majority) are going to inflate the left wing protests i.e. the anti-judicial reform protests. and any right wing news source (the minority) will inflate the right wing protests i.e. the pro judicial reform InLizWeTruss (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-04-19/ty-article/.premium/hundreds-of-right-wingers-protest-outside-former-supreme-court-presidents-home/00000187-9ad9-d6e9-a997-9edfed650000 Can you add the protest held today outside Aharon Baraks house in support of judicial reform InLizWeTruss (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Weekdays

Hi @Pdhadam, I see that you've reverted my "other days of the week from time to time" to "selected weekdays". Ignoring the fact that the latter wording is more elegant, the reason why I had changed it to the former is that, though we haven't as yet recorded any protests on Fridays, I imagine that such an event is not out of the question. Fridays are, I believe, considered to be weekend days in Israel, is that not so? Misha Wolf (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf That is correct, but in English Wikipedia it's better to refer to weekdays as how they are in most countries (aka Monday to Friday). Pdhadam (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Pdhadam, that seems reasonable but it leaves us with the problem that the protests seem to take place on all 7 days of the week. The large protests sparked by Netanyahu's announcement that he would be firing Gallant took place on a Sunday (26 March). Using the English definition of "weekday" would exclude Sundays. Maybe we should simply remove the mention of days of the week (including Saturdays) from the Intro. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf That's a fair solution. Pdhadam (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Today's edit to the last sentence of the Intro

Hi @Brandmeister, I've undone your edit as the information provided was untrue. Article Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, (unsurprisingly) lists reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. It does not list reactions to protests against the judicial reform. Please could you explain what outcome you have in mind. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Misha Wolf, I've probably missed it, but my concern is that it's an odd abrupt sentence, because an average reader would not be interested in reservists' reaction. My suggested correction is "The proposed judicial reform was met with various reactions". Brandmeister^talk 15:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Brandmeister, in the light of your comment, I've now removed the original sentence. I accept that it was, as you say, an odd abrupt sentence. By including it, I was trying to help those readers who are interested in the protests by IDF reservists, described at Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform § Reservists. A broader link to Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform appears at the start of the Background section. It'll have to suffice. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ordering of the 22 April events

Hi @InLizWeTruss, I had ordered the day's events by their size. You swapped them without any discussion, which is not acceptable. Please do not do it again. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not discuss. The numbers at the anti-reform protest are clearly not reliable especially since they come from the organizers who are politically motivated. Since the pro-reform protest was first mentioned in Israeli media; I thought it appropriate to mention first. InLizWeTruss (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @InLizWeTruss, the figure of 100,000 at the Tel Aviv protest came from the police. The order in which the events were mentioned in Israeli media is not relevant to this article. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Channel 14 as a source

Channel 14 is known for being an extremely biased channel. Why was it used in a citation for the amount of protesters in the April 22 pro-reform demonstration? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @InLizWeTruss, please could you respond to @Ozerkatanmeod's question. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for late response; but actually Channel 14 is the second most watched TV network in Israel and is trusted by a significant portion of Israeli society; those people would argue that Ha-aretz, Channels 12 and 13 are biased; and therefore all should be given a proper platform on Wikipedia InLizWeTruss (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a really weird way of looking at things. Viewership figures don't determine reliability, the factual accuracy and relevance of content does. I haven't done any research on the journalistic standards of Now 14, but Channels 12 and 13 are managed by Veteran news companies (The Israeli News Company and the Channel 10 news company respectively), not to mention that Haaretz is Israel's Newspaper of record. They can certainly make mistakes, but we generally understand that the information they report (whether biased or not) is factual and accurate.

What we really need to do, preferrably soon, is open a discussion on this matter somewhere like the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions and engage in a more thorough discussion. This question will come up very often in the next couple of years, and i think it needs to be settled, preferrably as quickly as possible.

Mentioning User:InLizWeTruss, User:Ozerkatanmeod and User:Misha Wolf for good measure, since they'll likely want to be involved in this discussion. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should completely exclude Channel 14. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

While it is definitely true that Channels 12 and 13 are more established in recent years due to the increased polarisation of Israeli politics with the left and right going to extremes, their platforms have become far more opinion based than just regular news. Additionally I lice in the UK l, though originally from Israel; and here I could hardly imagine excluding such a big News Channell like Sky News for example from Wikipedia precisely because it is trusted by so many; the same goes for Channel 14 InLizWeTruss (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is frankly not a valid point. Firstly, because a network's bias does not determine its reliability, and secondly, because we exclude big channels all of the time. If we take, for example, the list of perennial sources (frequently used ones, available at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, we see that plenty of large networks are marked as dubiously reliable. Fox News, for example, or HuffPost, or Xinhua News Agency. A source's notability is not relevant to its reliability, otherwise we'd consider InfoWars reliable. The question at hand is whether the facts Channel 14 disseminates are accurate or not, and i think both you and Ozerkatanmeod need to discuss that aspect when determining the channel's reliability.

Since i want to either bring this to a noticeboard or reach a consensus, i did a little bit of reading into Now14's factual accuracy. I couldn't find any sources mentioning Now 14's articles. I found some instances of on-air misinformation (such as the recent instance where two soldiers were murdered on the Egyptian border, or the story they aired claiming the protestors were ideological Anarchists), but they aren't directly related to the articles. On the other hand, there is no indication that Now 14 is notable. Its the newest channel in Israel, and also undoubtedly the one with the most vested political interests. It seems to me like Now 14's status should remain as a secondary source - used in the absence of other sources, and not in the citing of figures about the number of protestors in any given demonstration. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, this article looks like crap

It looks like a summary of a news feed with day by day updates. This whole thing needs to be rewritten, merged and sectioned.

I would recommend splitting off the current events into something like a timeline/list article that gets linked to and trying to make this, the main article, into something more in line with a usual article DarmaniLink (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DarmaniLink, the corresponding main articles are 2023 Israeli judicial reform and Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree that this article needs to see a rework. I originally wanted to work on some sort of reformatting in mid/late march, but im not really able to work on it. I absolutely think there should be some sort of rework project 'on the side' while this article continues to be updated.

What is important is that this article should absolutely not be split, there's not enough notable information for the article to be split in half, and the biggest issue is easily formatting. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution and any downstream rework will be missing information from this article.

I think that someone should just Template:In Use this and start merging things together to form a rough draft and later be organized, and maybe move this into a timeline section DarmaniLink (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DarmaniLink and @Totalstgamer, I do not know what kinds of changes either of you has in mind. Please do not make any major changes to the article without them being explained here, discussed, and (preferably) agreed. The article has averaged over 3,000 daily pageviews over the past 20 days. I would strongly oppose any action which would leave the article in a mess for some transitional period. Yes, I know that @DarmaniLink considers it to already be a mess. I don't agree with that view. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, no changes would be implemented unilaterally. We'd open some sort of project page (maybe in userspace) and rework the page. Right now, its way too based on dates and not built around clear, multi-date prose. We should start building it and see if enough information gets omitted to warrant an article split. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Very true. The article needs to be like its Hebrew version and we should make a separate article for the timeline. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ozerkatanmeod, please could you provide a link to the Hebrew version, so I can take a look at it (via Google Translate) to see what you have in mind. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

http://he.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%90%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93_%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A2 Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ozerkatanmeod. I see that the Hebrew article incorporates some of the information which we have placed in article Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. Is there also a Hebrew equivalent of that article? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't. Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Either this article needs writing up properly with normal headers and proper blocks of prose, or it need to just be reclassified as a list, because that's all it is at the moment: a list of protests without context or any weighting. It doesn't even distinguish protests from counter protests. As an encyclopedic reference page summing up events it is indeed borderline useless (except as a raw list). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I consider that a chronological list (ie a timeline) is essential for a good description of these events, as it allows the reader to see how one thing led to another. For example:

• The protest outside Aharon Bark's home on 19 April was followed by a supportive gathering on 20 April.
• Various actions and statements by members of the governing coalition were closely followed by protests against those actions or statements.

So maybe we should formally make this article into a list, calling it, eg, "Timeline of 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests".

I also agree that a prose description would be useful and think that a good place for that would be in article Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, which already contains prose about the reactions of Officers and commanders, Reservists, and so on.

If we did that, we might want to include, in this Timeline, some of the other actions described in the Reactions article, eg the statements by Reservists. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have drafted a revised version of the events section, available at This userspace page. The section has been condensed, ive reduced the number of sub-headings, removed most organizer estimates, and condensed the number of repetitive, dubiously notable details (who spoke at each rally, precise weekly number counts, etc). Id love some feedback on this proposal, since id love to use it as a replacement for the events section. Feel free to edit the page to implement changes, or discuss the draft on the userpage's talk page. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, also, let me just mention the appropriate people. @Misha Wolf: @Ozerkatanmeod: @DarmaniLink:. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, it looks fine to me. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You can probably fit the dates into the prose and remove the subsections entirely. Then it would be perfect. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Current Event?

I am not very experienced with wikipedia editing, but why is this not marked as a current event? MangoBenjamin361 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Same, I don't know too. But I believe Israel found Russia. There is a problem with Russia. I think we must update. But if there is a protest event only here, we can't tell the discussion about other countries on Wikipedia. JimiDragon (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

POV langauge

Just glancing through, I see four recent events describing the protests as protesting a "plan to weaken the judiciary". Of course, those in favor of the plan wouldn't call it that, those protesting it would. Is there a more NPOV way to say this? TuckerResearch (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV needs more than just the local far-right and protestors; international opinion is a big voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tuckerresearch, I don't believe that there is anything contentious about the phrase "plan to weaken the judiciary".

• The override proposal would drastically weaken the Supreme Court vis-a-vis any governing coalition.
• The proposed changes to the Judicial Selection Committee would greatly increase the power of a governing coalition to determine the membership of the Supreme Court.
• The government's proposals include weakening the ability of the Supreme Court to review legislation. The bill approved by the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on 13 February 2023, explicitly states "the non-justiciability of basic laws, stipulating that a [court] holding adjudication power by law, including the Supreme Court, will not address, directly or indirectly, a question regarding the validity of a basic law, and no ruling on such a matter will be valid."
• The proposed changes will abolish the use of "unreasonableness" as grounds for review of administrative decisions, so greatly curtailing the power of the Supreme Court.
• The proposal to abolish the seniority principle would allow a government to choose the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Then there are other parts of the proposals which would reduce the power of the AG and government legal advisors, but those are not part of the judiciary, so they're not covered by the phrase "plan to weaken the judiciary". Misha Wolf (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not Worthy of a Front Page Article

In contrast to the other topics that are usually listed as "ongoing" events, I would consider this event much, much less dramatic. As of right now, for instance, it's placed ahead of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine and the Sudan conflict. This event happens to be an overblown political drama that the media is hyping up. Certainly nothing remotely compared to the events it's listed next to. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Accipio Mitis Frux, I strongly disagree with your statement that these protests are "an overblown political drama that the media is hyping up" but fully agree that this item should not be placed ahead of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Sudan conflict. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Misha Wolf, thank you for your response. We can disagree as to what degree this topic is media driven, but in any case since we seem to agree that this is at least not worthy of being listed ahead of the Russian Invasion and Sudan Conflict how do we move things forward? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. :( Misha Wolf (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs expansion

The article should follow the format of other articles about protests, like 2023 French pension reform unrest and Mahsa Amini protests. Right now, it's just a tiny background section and a timeline. In particular, I think this article needs:

• A longer lead section
• A longer background section, with more info about what the judicial reforms actually are
• Analysis section
• Reactions section

Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think all of what you seek is in the linked article on the reforms themselves. It might be difficult to have a balanced summary of the matter, though it would be worth a try. Making an inline link to the article would be a start. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform article, but it seems like it only includes statements about the judicial reform itself, not the protests. I found a Washington Institute article (yes, I know it's biased but it is a potentially useful source), a BBC article about Israeli Arab reactions to the protests, and an Arab News opinion piece arguing that the protests could bring peace to the region. It's not much, but it should be enough for a small reactions section. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reform!

Change it to the right description , which is Judicial Coup 2A0D:6FC2:4C90:5300:390A:340D:70C:EDF1 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles can quote sources which make non-neutral statements but text written by Wikipedia editors should be neutral. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Any update about many protesters(?)

Hello, we need to know how many protesters are there today or past times. There is The last article in "Event" on 28th April. If you found a new research update, tell us. :) JimiDragon (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JimiDragon, the most recent anti-reform demonstrations mentioned in the article took place on 3 June, and the most recent pro-reform demonstrations mentioned in the article took place on 27 April. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this line relevant facts or an editorializing description?

Therefore Netanyahu, who was on trial for corruption-related charges before as well, had to withdraw him.

Is this line factually relevant? It sounds more like an editorial. 204.128.182.35 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Netanyahu's indictments are undoubtably relevant. Feel free to recommend a place where it fits better, though, since its current placement is very much inadequate. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A heads up

Continuing on #The scope of this article is (evidently) not clear, we're inching closer to a point where an article on the IDF, reservists and combat readiness will be due. I'm reading a lot of commentary on how the damage "has already been done", and how the model of the "people's army" is already disintegrating. I don't think we can write it just yet, but bear it in mind when you're reading the news. In the meanwhile, I moved some of the text on reservists to the "reactions" article, since this article focuses on street protests and demonstrations. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Symbolism section

"The primary complaint was one of relevance - what relevance does the use of the term "Kaplanists" have? or the "you fell on the wrong generation" line? Its not encyclopedic imo" ~ @Totalstgamer This part is important to establish what symbols were used within the protests. you can clear specific things you think are too miniscule but the usage of the israeli flag, or kaplan street are at the center of public discourse around the protest, 1. what relevance does the chant "bread and the Constitution of 1793" has in this article? 2. What relevance does the term "zapatista" has in this article? Asafg8 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The protest has certain symbolistic, geographic and demographic characteristics that we ought to cover. We should address the symbolic reclamation of the flag; the perceived "awakening" of the Israeli liberal and/or secular wing; the involvement of youth and the role of adults; the centrality of Tel Aviv and the distribution of protest; and the tools that it employs, along with the authorities' response. François Robere (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly disagree with parts of this. I think the symbolism is dubiously notable, and the involvement of youth isn't especially notable, both because the press coverage is limited and because youth being involved in a protest movement isn't really news. I do agree that demographic and geographic characteristics need to be covered, but:

1. We need to write the paragraphs in a talk page / draft before inserting them
2. At least some of it should just be integrated into the lead/background
3. The mention of Tel Aviv as a prominent protest hub should just be a sentence in the lead.

Totalstgamer (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Totalstgamer

I agree about the involvement of youth, its isn't very notable.

I strongly disagree about the place Kaplan street and the Israeli flag has in the protests.

both are recognized by both sides to be prominent features of the protests.

Kaplan street:

- Kaplan force -https://www.calcalist.co.il/local_news/article/rkkmyoeo3

- Changing the name of the junction to "democracy square" - https://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Pages/MainItemPage.aspx?WebID=3af57d92-807c-43c5-8d5f-6fd455eb2776&ListID=81e17809-311d-4bba-9bf1-2363bb9debcd&ItemID=2172

- The calls on the gallant firing night to head up to kaplan - https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/politics/article/13873554

Israeli flag:

- Gidon dokdov - Makor Rishon(Right wing pro-reform journal) Saying the protestors are trying to reclaim the israeli flag

https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/605807/

- a rise of 30% was recorded in buying israeli flags - https://www.mako.co.il/news-business/news/Article-3a816d78e99e681027.htm

- idan eretz talking about how the israeli flag took its place in the protests - https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001444706

also similar section exists on the Belarus protests Asafg8 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The existence of citations doesn't prove that its worth covering. That comes from the existence of varied, consistent citations, which i don't think exist for the Flag. As for Kaplan, its notability could be summarized as "the largest protest in any given demonstration is in Kaplan", which would be better covered in a single sentence in the lead. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

A short search would give many more citations about the flag.

I stopped at three cause I assumed this would be enough.

If you'll lookup photos from protests done by the Israeli left over the past 20-30 yrs you'll see little to no Israeli flag. On this set of protests literally every photo is filled with Israeli flags.

This thing has been addressed both by protest prganizers and opponents And by-standers(like Idan deretz)

About the Kaplan street I agian strongly disagree.

This has become a symbol.

No other protest has been done in this location and it's very unique to this set of protest, also this location is what led to the mass blockade of ayalon. Protest organizers last week have published ads saying "This is the most important Kaplan" using Kaplan as if it was describing "protesting in Kaplan", opponents are calling protests organizers "the ones from Kaplan".

This is not minscule or something to be left aside. Asafg8 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the flag, i think that's fair, but i nonetheless think its a weird inclusion for an article about the protests. Maybe on a page about the protest movement, or even the flag itself, but its fairly inconsequential for the protest itself. As for Kaplan:

-The name-change to democracy square is hardly notable, its a momentary event with no significance to the protests. Neither does it matter to the prominence of Kaplan as a symbol.

-As for the rest, is there a substantial number of articles that cover its relevance as a symbol? Totalstgamer (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Prominent Groups Section

Following @Totalstgamer undo of my addtion i move the discussion in here. I think covering the groups leading and orchestrating the protests is really important. This protest is lead by many different often opposing factions, and recognizing them and giving a bit of background about each group separately is hugely important. Asafg8 (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about the need for an entirely seperate section. This could work as a sentence in the lead, or even as a seperate article (though that would require its own discussion imo), but individual organizations (for the most part) don't matter much for a page that's about the protests themselves, especially since the protests are on some level decentralized, with a large number of local chapters leading individual protests alongside the main one in Kaplan. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think emphasizing the different factions is crucial to show how decentralized it is. For example I wanted to add also a part about "the people against occupation"(הגוש נגד הכיבוש) and note the fight they have had with the ones from brother in arms, even though it's a minuscule event it does illustrate that these protests are not homogenous. Asafg8 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it crucial? I think you could expand it into a section about intra-protest conflicts (between various groups within the movement), but that'd need to be substantial in its own right. The movements themselves aren't relevant to any aspect of the protests, neither do they get sustained coverage (the movements, except maybe for brothers in arms, aren't consistently brought up, nor are their stunts/struggles frequently covered). Eitherway, for both these discussions, we should wait for the input of a third party to adopt some sort of consensus. Totalstgamer (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Protest activities outside of Israel

This is a relatively minor issue, however it is worth mentioning protest activities by Israelis and other supporters abroad. One important example is the protests in the Philadelphia metro area against Arthur Dantchik, the main donor to the Kohelet Forum, which caused him to announce that he's stopping his donations. Given the Kohelet Forum's central role in drafting and advancing the reform, and the fact that Dantchik's donations reportedly account for 93% of Kohelet's budget, this should be mentioned in my opinion. Links to news reports in Hebrew (the latter of which cites the 93% figure):

https://www.calcalist.co.il/local_news/article/r1snv45ih

https://www.calcalist.co.il/local_news/article/bk11ukjhih

Most other protests, organized by UnXeptable, are small scale. One could mention a march across the Brooklyn bridge, involving reportedly 1000 participants:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hundreds-of-anti-overhaul-protesters-march-across-new-yorks-brooklyn-bridge/ 2A00:A040:199:59EB:ACD9:D8DA:68CE:1FF1 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, i feel like it should be mentioned in relation to the "shaming" protests, as most notable protests abroad happend during a visit or against a prominent figure. Asafg8 (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Judicial Overhaul Protests?

The article name as well as the relevant article about the overhaul itself should be titled "Judicial Overhaul"; this is the common term in most Non-Israeli media. It makes no sense to use the right-wing oriented Israeli term instead of the internationally commom one. 109.52.197.207 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This is highly unusal the name "reform" is a propaganda term used internally in Israel. Asafg8 (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room?

There is almost nothing in this article about the underlying reason for these proposed reforms.

"The ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population" (Tharoor, Ishaan (2023-08-11). "Analysis". Washington Post., quoting this letter written by 1,400 academics)

1,400 academics have published a letter which explains the subtext to these proposed reforms. Our article currently says almost nothing on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't ethnic cleansing standard policy for Israeli governments? Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Among protest leaders it usually refferedto as a three pillared reason for the reform/overhaul.

1.netnyahu currption charges

2. The ultra Orthodox need for the new conscription law

3. The religious zionists push for annexation of west bank and legislating an aparthaid state

Those three parts are each of the big players reasons to support the judicial overhau/reform. Asafg8 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians

Control F and not a single mention of the words: occupation, apartheid, settlements and Palestinians! Words that are increasingly being discussed as lacking in the Israeli protest discourse, including criticisms leveled by Jewish and Israeli academics and figures. [2] as one example. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE.--Fagerbakke (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about protests over the statuatory powers of the Supreme Court of Israel. This has nothing to do with the topic you are discussing. The article you link from the Jerusalem Post didn't contain anything that I could find that may suggest that this will have an effect on "apartheid" or "occupation". If you have an idea that is on-topic to the article, you are more than free to suggest it, but it needs to actually have a connection to the protests. EytanMelech (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a connection when you look closer. There are dozens of sources discussing this, and I will be adding them soon. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. This article is about the protests, and we should and do mention the connection between the protests and the Palestinian issue - whether it's the letter of American academics, or Youth Against Dictatorship statement. However, this is not the place to write about everything this letter contains and add lengthy quotes. The statement that Jewish American leaders were criticized for paying insufficient attention for the "elephant in the room: Israel’s longstanding occupation has a very tenuous relationship with the protests. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement literally states by saying that the judicial overhaul's aim is to annex Palestinian land and ethnically cleanse the occupied territories. The statement made the connection to the opposition to the judicial overhaul, which is within the scope of this article. The reporting RS also made the connection, including Times of Israel, Haaretz and multiple other sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added points that highlight how relevant the statement is to the protest movement. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Only just seen the newly added paragraphs, but i frankly think their notability is at best dubious. While there's a clear presence of left-wing movements in the protests, the issue's direct relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is minimal given that they're a domestic event, which is evidenced by the relative lack of notable events to boot (two letters by academics and one protest by 250 students in Tel Aviv). For now i've shortened the paragraphs and moved them into an 'issues' section, but there needs to be a more expansive discussion regarding the inclusion of specific issues (Such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also including other relevant issues like efforts to defund Kan 11 or the protests that took place in Bnei Brak and were more about religious issues than the overhaul). Totalstgamer (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Symbolism

I want to add a section about the symbolism used in the protest. This is a good way to differentiate it from other protests in Israel over the yeras. The symbols that comes to mind: 1. Reclamation of Israeli flag 2. The handmaid tale customes, the hand tail marches, putting the costume on the statue at habima, the backlash from the religious right over this symbol. 3. Miltaristc symbols: brother in arms, various army veterans for democracy( tankists for democracy, navy for democracy etc), the failed attempt of stealing the memorial of TEL saki. Etc, the protests agianst ultra Orthodox exemption, the pilots 4. The scroll of independence - this is still an ongoing event, but notebly various signing on it, calls for legislating it as a basic law by tzipi livni etc... 5. Lgbt symbols - uses of various Israeli variations on the pride flag, the protets in tlv and jlm pride, the protests Infront of the cheif rabbinate in tel Aviv Asafg8 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not our role to differentiate protests, but symbolism could be a relevant part of the protests. I suggest you draft those sections (with sourcing that demonstrates the symbolism's notability) and post them here for us to work on. Also no. 3 is definitely not notable. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Again lede is a summary of body including most prominent controversies. There is no such thing as "not lede material". I have rephrased the summary relating to the Palestinian issue to make it more general, and re-added to the lede. Improvements are welcome. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Not Lead Material" is to imply that its not a notable enough controversy for inclusion in the lead. What notable instances of this controversy are included in the article? Even the section you introduced (which is about 40% quotes) consists of two petitions and one, 250-man protest in Tel Aviv. In what way is that a notable controversy?

I won't touch the lead since we don't have consensus, but i will be re-trimming the section in the body of the article, which is very much not condensed. I'll also be reintroducing the "issues" section in anticipation of future additions. Please don't revert these changes until we achieve consensus regarding this dispute. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Two petitions signed by thousands of Israelis including prominent academics, historians, and former speaker of the Knesset. It was notable enough to have been reported on by dozens of reputable newspapers in standalone articles. Quotes can be rephrased and still used in the article. Instead of "the statement said: 'the goal is...'" it could be rephrased into "the statement charged that the goal is to". But just trimming for the sake of removing information is something else, particularly the quote by one of the students interviewed by Haaretz. As long as there are no "future additions", the "issues" section is not useful. Please don't revert any of these changes yourself until consensus is achieved. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't make any further changes to the article, and i ask that you don't either until some sort of consensus is reached, but this needs to be discussed. There are dozens, if not hundreds of petitions signed by prominent personalities, which get substantial coverage in hebrew and english-language sources. When you count that with the protests and demonstrations it boils down to an issue that warrants inclusion but isn't a front and center issue in or regarding the protests. As for the quotes, they're not 'information', they're quotes. In what way is a quote by a member of a group within a protest notable? and more importantly, what does it add? The quote reiterates that the students are protesting both the reforms and the settlements. When you consider that and the size of this article (109,000 bytes), its not substantial information in its own right, and constitutes an overuse of quotes in my opinion. Totalstgamer (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, quotes (nothing in Wikipedia stands against quotes anyway) can be rephrased to stop being quotes. You can convey information with quotes or without quotes. You just simply removed information about the opinion of one of the students rather than removing the quote. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What information is included in the quote which is not included in the existing sentence? Having re-read it, the only substantial element is that the students argue the occupation and reforms are connected. If you want, you can add that back into the paragraph, but id argue its already mentioned several times and isnt particularly relevant. Ideally, you'd simply reintroduce the line i (accidentally) deleted from the beginning of the section and write something along the lines of "some protestors argue the reforms and occupation are connected" and then remove it from each individual event", since there's no point in repeating a motive for each individual protest/petition that includes it, which increases the article's length and makes it less readable. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International

@Totalstgamer: your removal of sourced content from Amnesty International, a reputable and widely respected human rights organization contradicts WP:DUE which states that “Neutrality requires that main-space articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” We have both a very reliable source and prominence has been established as an separate dedicated and detailed article building on years on research in the occupied territories. Please revert yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The viewpoint is notable, the article isn't. Unless the article itself has widespread coverage in other sources, its not notable enough for inclusion, and the opinions it represents are already included in the article. Please don't reintroduce the paragraph until a consensus is achieved. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is reached by referencing Wikipedia guidelines and is not based on wishful thinking and personal preferences. Wikipedia guidelines state unequivocally that due weight is determined by use of reliable sources (such as Amnesty International) in which prominence is demonstrated (as seen by the dedicated article it was given). Provide Wikipedia-based counterarguments or self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wishful thinking? This page is about an event, and the various aspects of it. Wikipedia's guidelines state that inclusion is based on those aspects relevance based on reliable sources. Removing an article that's not notable isn't a "personal preference", its an effort to preserve those notability guidelines. This isn't an argument against the subject or the opinion, but the instance. The article is irrelevant and its inclusion adds nothing. As for due weight, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quite literally the only issue included within the article, and the only issue included within the lead, and there's no counter-arguments present within the article. I'll revert any effort to reinsert the article until a consensus is reached, and will not be self-reverting the change. Totalstgamer (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus won’t be reached when so far zero Wikipedia guideline-based counter arguments have been given. The article is very relevant, in which it supports the subgroup of the protest movements’ claims regarding the motives to the judicial overhaul. You still haven’t referenced any Wikipedia guideline showing how this article by one of the world’s leading human rights organizations is “not notable.” Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think its fair to say i misrepresented my argument. While i hold the editorial opinion that this isnt notable, its more of an issue of due weight on a policy level. This is an article about the protests. weight is assigned to viewpoints in proportion to reliable sources. While the Palestinian issue is substantial, its one of several issues, including the issue of Ultra-Orthodox exemptions, Women's rights and Internal Corruption. If we truly are to make this article proportional, we ought to include them too, in a size similar or even equal to this issue. When considering the fact that additional information needs to be added for them (and for future protests), and Wikipedia's guidelines on article size and readibility, we ought to add minimal peripheral information, especially an article that doesn't include new opinions or events and simply exists to repeat and reinforce information already mentioned within the article.

In another matter, i think it might be wise to fork the issues section of this article into a seperate page, like Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, which we forked from 2023 Israeli judicial reform. That page would include more extensive discussion of these issues, and could go into them in-depth. That'd solve this entire dispute and allow for us to elaborate on these issues without creating a large, unreadable article. I think itd be wise to consider the idea.

Regardless, do not revert my changes until a consensus is reached. If we can't reach one, id propose issuing an RFC or waiting for other editors to voice their opinions on this dispute. Totalstgamer (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Forking is another issue. Since we agree that WP:DUE is the guiding policy here, which states: “Neutrality requires that main-space articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” You still haven’t argued how the inclusion of this content goes against this policy. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I recall that's the first part of what i've written. Other issues/perspectives (regarding the motivations behind the reform, being domestic issues like the Status Quo and corruption) are not represented in the article, which is already getting too big, so elaboration should be minimized, especially with the paragraph adding no substantial new information to the article. That's also what makes forking a good idea, but that is indeed another discussion. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem with the article body and not with the content I am trying to add. I will be restoring the paragraph if this is the only counterargument here. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also stated that i think the paragraph adds nothing, but its clear we won't agree. Any effort to reintroduce the paragraph without consensus will be reverted. Feel free to issue a request for comment. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC

Does this content in the quote belong to the "Connection to the Palestinian issue" section?

I am unaware of any Wikipedia guidelines that prevent the addition of findings by leading human rights organizations. Furthermore, articles about protests in Wikipedia are quite exhuastive, including George Floyd protests, which has dedicated sections for conspiracy theories, public art, and economic impact.

“ On 13 September 2023, Amnesty International published an article arguing that Israel's judicial overhaul has "alarming" implications for human rights, especially for Palestinians. It stated that Israel's judiciary, mainly its Supreme Court, has regularly upheld policies, practices and laws that helped enforce "Israel's system of apartheid against Palestinians". The article named examples of the role the Supreme Court played against Palestinians: upholding administrative detentions, green-lighting the destruction of villages, upholding a law imposing restrictions on family reunification. Amnesty argued that the Supreme Court intervened in protecting Palestinian human rights on few occasions, but if the institution loses power to the government, even this "slim and inconsistent" protection would disappear. ”

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Weak include/support, at least for now. My concern is adherence to due weight; though it does look like that Amnesty is an okay source, I would ideally prefer to see a better supplementary source, and use Amnesty International for potential attributed opinions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment possibly WP:UNDUE due to its single-sourcedness, its length, and particularly the characterization of it as "aparthied" which is probably contentious within RS. If that's the case, then maybe as long as there's counterbalance. JM2023 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The occupation is already characterized as "apartheid" elsewhere in this section. Carleas (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No. There is not a word about *protests* in this quote. This should be added to 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests or Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform instead, if it's not covered there already. Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable criticism of the entire section, though statements like these are arguably a form of protest. Carleas (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that this article's scope is just the physical protests that take place in Israel (maybe also elsewhere), as defined in the lede now. So if the protestors take a position wrt the Palestinian issue, or are criticised for not doing so, this information falls under the scope of the article and may be included if it's satisfies WP:DUE. Not sure if a separate section is needed for that.

On the other hand "findings by leading human rights organizations" should go to the reactions article. If we include it here it would be a duplication, or even POV-forking. Alaexis_¿question? 06:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Comment (see below). The issue here doesn't seem to be whether Amnesty International is a Reliable Source (it is), but whether its opinion is relevant here, because its opinion is the only fact at issue. And compared against "hundreds of Israeli and American academics", "230 Israeli high schoolers", and "3,500 Israeli academics, artists, writers and former officials", I cannot fathom why a statement by a leading international human rights organization would not meet that standard. I might quibble with the specific language, but I see no reason why a description of the statement is not relevant to this section of this article. Carleas (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC); edited 13:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

On further reflection, and per @Alaexis's comments, I would support removing this section completely. All of the content is more appropriate in the Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, and is not really part of the protest (other than as part of the Background).

That said, if the consensus is that the section should stay, the statements by Amnesty International seems as worthy of inclusion as the other statements in this section. Carleas (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The scope of this article is the on-the-ground protests in Israel, not statements by organizations. I agree with @Alaexis that this belongs in Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose or Fork. I know my explanations in the original discussion were narrow and unclear, but i retain my original opinion. Amnesty International is undoubtedly a reliable source, but the article regards the protests themselves, and it doesn't constitute a relevant act of protest. As in, nobody covered the article, its purpose in the paragraph is to elaborate on the arguments being made regarding the connection between Apartheid and the reforms, but those are A. already elaborated on in other paragraphs to a slightly lesser extent and B. more broadly relevant than just the protests. As such, i think there's two/three potential solutions. Either the paragraph not be reintroduced to the article (and instead be added to Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform) or the section itself is moved to a broader article (like 2023 Israeli judicial reform). Alternatively, the Issues section could be made into its own article, which would be referred to by shorter sections in both this article and the main reform one. This would probably allow for these issues (both the Israel-Palestine issue and other issues that i've already mentioned in the original removal discussion) to be explored in the most detail without harming any other page's readibility (as of now, both the protests and reactions page exceed 100,000 bytes, while the main reform page is at 80,000). Totalstgamer (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The protest by Youths Against Dictatorship is relevant here. Other parts of the section may be more appropriate in other articles instead. Senorangel (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

On further consideration, the Amnesty International article relates more to the judicial overhaul than the protest movement or reactions to the judicial overhaul. It belongs to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, which I didn't know existed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It fits that page more than this one, but i do disagree. I think either it fits in the reactions page (since we're talking about a response to the reform/overhaul, not a direct procedural or historical aspect of it), the entire issues section fits in the reform page, or (which i still think is the best idea) we fork the issues section to a seperate article and substantially expand it, which would prevent a situation where we end up with two parallel issues sections. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving paragraph to 2023 Israeli judicial reform per consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

References