Talk:2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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. [1] 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