Talk:Ayelet Shaked

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

The "Encitement to kill Palestinians" section and "International Reaction", under the heading "Controversy" are misleading and not supported by legitimate news sources. Please revise or remove. Senzalae09 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are these "misleading" and what constitute legitimate news sources ?--Santasa99 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Smear campaign

A few editors keep re-adding allegations that are being promoted as part of a smear campaign against her. If you want to put 'to kill' in the subheading then it should be prefaced by 'alleged', otherwise just refer to it as 'incitement against'. Also, if someone has an issue with one part of an edit, don't revert the whole edit. Just change the part where you have issue with. As far as whether or not she condemned the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, it seems pretty clear from her op-ed that she was condemning the murder in her statement "the murder of Jerusalem teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir was immediately condemned by all of Israel's society. As a Knesset Member, I can assure you his murderers, once convicted for their terrible crime, will remain in prison for the rest of their lives." --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This article seems to be part of CAMERA's campaign to give Wikipedia a Zionist bias, especially when I was told that Mondoweiss is not a reliable source--Scottandrewhutchins (talk)

You've been around here long enough to know that calling someone a fascist in a BLP needs better sources than an opinion article and a satirical advertisement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias editors: PiMaster3 ^talk

It has come to our attention, long-term watchers of this article, that there are potentially political supporters of this candidate vandalizing this article. In particular, PiMaster3 ^talk, has become notorious in deleting the "Controversy" section. In good faith, any rebuttal of her actions from herself should be included with the "Controversy" section. This has already been done.

Since all comments are sourced and clear, the controversy is quite literally about her "incitement to kill Palestinians" as THIS is what was perceived by her comments. Any rebuttal of them being alleged should be included within this section. As I say, this has already been done through referencing her opinion piece in the wake of this controversy.

PiMaster3 ^talk please use the talk page to share your views before editing as this may be perceived as vandalism.

--HACKER HEADSHOT ^talk

I have not deleted the controversy section. I modified the phrasing of the text for accuracy and to make it compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. As far as potential for bias, I have not met her, nor do I even live in the same country as her. --PiMaster3 ^talk 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you PiMaster3. It is important to understand that by the definition of controversy we mean what it was perceived by the public that caused the uproar. As it was seen by the public that her comments were inciting to kill, any rebuttal of them being alleged by being taken out of context (as Shaked says), should be included within this section also. Her op-ed is already included.

We have had much vandalism lately so we are trying to be cautious to maintain WP:NPOV.

--HACKER HEADSHOT ^talk

I came here having heard some horrendous things about this woman and was surprised to find not a single mention of anything controversial, let alone a controversy section. Definitely seems a little biased to me, considering what I've see written elsewhere 86.183.165.124 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

2 suggestions

Hello. I suggest 2 changes to this article:

1. The article says that shaked incited violence but this is only according to some people. I suggest adding that it's according to (source).
2. There are quotes from Uri Elitzur's article which she shared on her Facebook page which are attributed to her, which is incorrect.

Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've clarified the source of the quotes. You're now the third editor to express concern about the "incitement" claim, so I'll adjust the wording of that too. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And now neither the words violence or incitement are in the article at all, let alone a controversy section 86.183.165.124 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Descriptive labeling

I suppose some will deem my use of the predicate 'terrorist' part of an alleged smear campaign against Ms. Ayelet Shaked. Let me point out that 'terrorist' is a well-defined term, and that the person this page is about published material that neatly fits the definition of terrorist material. My use of the word 'terrorist' is purely descriptive. I also deleted 'politician', because it is misleading. A person advocating the killing of civilians can't be described as a representative of the rule of law. My edit was twice removed by anonymous visitors, who did not offer any reasons for their interventions. I will not call this vandalism, but it's close. That said, I will not restore my choice of words anymore if it is deleted again; I don't have the time. Hiram (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot describe a living person as a terrorist unless neutral, reliable sources unambiguously describe her that way. See WP:BLP. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Do neutral, reliable sources describe her as a politician? I don't think so. The source you provide does not establish this. Like I announced, I will leave it at this. Hiram (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources on both sides of the issue describe Shaked as a politician. I have not seen any source that calls her a terrorist. In any case, per WP:BLP, there is a higher standard of proof for controversial and potentially libelous descriptions of living people than for relatively neutral descriptions like "politician". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Though BLP governs more strongly, please also see WP:Terrorist in the WP Manual of Style. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"alleged quoting"

User:Veritnight recently changed the wording of a sentence of this article from "She received international attention and criticism during Israel's Operation Protective Edge because of her quoting of inflammatory comments against the Palestinian people." to "She received criticism during Israel's Operation Protective Edge because of her alleged quoting of comments against the families of Palestinian terrorists." I'm confused about the use of the word "alleged". No one denies that Shaked quoted Elitzur's speech, right? So why is the quoting just "alleged"? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessively long quote

@Veritnight and Lenore: Hi. Please stop the edit warring going on over this edit. Cute edit summaries like "no" and "yes" are not helpful. Why does there need to be such an excessively long quote? It needs to be written in WP:SS. I am reverting it per WP:BRD. It is fine to quote a small part of it, or to summarize the argument. Kingsindian (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There certainly has to be at least as much space for her response, as for the allegations. Especially since she claims that they were mistranslations. Avaya1 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Her claims are reported. Quoting her single words is unacceptable. She is famous only for those claims, so please stop to use your sockpuppets to impose your personal POV. Thanks. Lenore (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Avaya1, Lenore, and Veritnight: I have precisely zero interest in Ayelet Shaked. After my edit was reverted, we have got to talk page at least. Please discuss this here instead of continuing the edit warring. If you cannot get consensus, open an RfC or something. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Lenore is a a troll. Accusing me of using sock puppets, because other users are also reverting him? There is no point trying to censor the subject of the article's response to the allegations. Given that this is a biography, then the statement of the subject of the biography is notable. The statement can be written more concisely (as I originally had, if you look at the version I wrote before other users changed it and extended the quote). But the current editors such as Lenore are trying to censor her response out. Her response is notable and it doesn't do anything to improve the page by removing it. As for being famous - she is and was extremely famous, which has nothing to do with the facebook post. Avaya1 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1, I agree that we should mention Shaked's response in the article, and quoting a sentence or two would probably be fine. I think five paragraphs is excessive and WP:UNDUE, though. Can you give a link to the revision where the statement was written more concisely? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Avaya1 and Lenore: You have both broken 1RR. Avaya1 here and here. Lenore here and here. Even without 1RR broken, this would be edit warring. Please stop this. Kingsindian (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The entire quote has to be removed. You could specify she blamed Resnick for his ignorance of the Hebrew language, but no more. See WP:UNDUE, thanks. --Lenore (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"secular" and mention of Shaked's favorite books

I feel that one use of the word "secular" is enough for the lead, but User:Avaya1 evidently feels that it needs to be said twice in the lead, once in the first paragraph and once in the second paragraph, as well as a third time in the "Early life and career" section. Avaya1 also apparently feels that it is relevant to mention what books Shaked enjoys reading, whereas I think this is unimportant trivia. I would appreciate another editor weighing in on these disagreements. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I've stricken the comment about the word "secular", as Avaya1 has removed one of the uses. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It needs a sentence in the lede. It is one of the principal points mentioned in all articles on her - whether in Haaretz or Maariv. As for books - this could be considered as trivia, if this wasn't a politician and the books were not ideological. However, this is a politician, and the books have ideological content. I don't understand the reason to delete some of the little sourced material that is actually on this page, rather than expanding the article. Also note that until the recent press-coverage, there was no edit warring on this page. Avaya1 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no indication in the article that the books are connected to her ideology. If the life Steve Jobs or the philosophy of Ayn Rand are tied to her ideology, this should be discussed in the article, but as it is, the article simply states that she likes to read those books. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Steve Jobs, perhaps not. But the Ayn Rand - it would presumably be mentioned in any other politician's biography on Wikipedia? The issue of mentioning secular and hi-tech in the lede, is because it is considered notable by all the articles on her, since she belongs to the Jewish Home party, which is a continuation of the Religious Zionists party. She's considered to be significant as a secular member of what was traditionally a religious settler's party. Avaya1 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I ask you to please remove the mention of Steve Jobs, and to make the connection between Ayn Rand and Shaked's political ideology more explicit. I would support a phrasing like "Her political ideology is informed by the works of Ayn Rand, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged." What do you think?

As for the word "secular", I have no problem with it, so long as it isn't repeated more than once in the lead.—Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The books seem unimportant trivia to me, unless some connection is shown. However, I can see the other side: the article is pretty short, so there is no burning reason to remove it. On the whole: a weak opposition to including it. Kingsindian (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a personal life section? If we say her 'political ideology is informed by Ayn Rand' - we don't have any support in the sources. But it is highly ideological, and always discussed whenever politicians mention it. For example, in the last US presidential election, there was a lot of coverage about Paul Ryan's interest in Ayn Rand Also note, readers of this article are otherwise hardly given any information on her. The media coverage in Israel focuses on the fact that she is secular and right-wing. The other point which is repeated is that she is secular but admires the values of the National Religious.(Avaya1 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I still oppose the inclusion of the Ayn Rand information unless either (a) an explicit connection is made between Shaked's politics and Ayn Rand, or (b) it can be shown that multiple reliable sources have discussed the fact that she reads Ayn Rand, as is the case with Paul Ryan. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Because both Kingsindian and I think this information doesn't merit inclusion in the article, I've removed it. Please either discuss here or find sources that connect the books to Shaked's politics before re-adding the information. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Section about the Facebook article

User:MaverickLittle has recently been editing the section about Shaked's Facebook post, and in my opinion, their edits have made the section rather confusing. The section currently doesn't say what was in the article that Shaked posted—it just mentions that she posted it and then goes straight into Erdoğan's reaction, leaving the reader confused about why Erdoğan reacted so strongly. Moreover, the heading ("Daily Beast article") bears only an indirect relation to the topic of the section, which doesn't even mention The Daily Beast until the third paragraph.

I wouldn't object to removing this section altogether, because it seems like a fairly minor incident in the scope of Shaked's career, but if the section is to be kept, it needs to be easier to understand. I tried to edit the section to clarify it, but was partially reverted by MaverickLittle. I would appreciate any editors' comments on whether the section should stay, and if so, how to make it clearer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your points. But let me help you out about one thing. I did revert what one little part of what you did. You renamed the article to "Anti-Palestinian article" which was not a helpful edit in any manner whatsoever. Basically you were using, intentionally or not, the title of the section to brand Ms. Shaked with the word "Anti-Palestinian", which is not your place, as an editor to do. The title needs to be descriptive of the section, not place to put in weasel words to brand the subject of a BLP. I don't think the section even needs to be in the article because it is small, small part of her life and when I came upon the article in the first place this section was clearly a coatrack that was quoting long parts of the words of someone else and now it quotes Erdoğan, who is commenting on the words of someone else. The whole situation was created by the Daily Beast author who flat out lied and said the offensive quotes were written and spoken by Shaked, which was a flat out lie. That never happened and the Daily Beast retracted that false claim. Now, it is completely unfair to Shaked to use Wikipedia, intentionally or not, to repeat all of the vile things said about her, based upon things that she never said and the Daily Beast has admitted she never said these things. I was trying to fix the section, but after going back and forth with you on the title, I have changed my mind and I think the whole section needs to go because it is based upon a falsehood in the first place.--ML (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose the following scheme:

• Describe the facebook article, the author (Uri Elitzur) and its description according to various media
• Shaked's response
• Describe reaction by Erdogan

I have added four refences. One the original Electronic Intifada post. One from Jewish Telegraph Agency. One from Foreign Policy and one from Washington Post. If anyone wants to discuss it, feel free to change and/or revert per WP:BRD. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, Kingsindian. I think the section is much more coherent now. My only remaining concern is the heading "Daily Beast article"—the section focuses on Shaked's Facebook post and the reactions to it, not on the Daily Beast article. Could we change the heading to "Facebook post", "Controversy", or something else? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Controvery over Facebook post" or just "Facebook post about Gaza war", or something like that could work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Erdogan comment on Shaked

MaverickLittle Please explain why the Erdogan comment should not be present there. It is notable, and was reported in multiple sources, even a year after the incident. I do not see anything racist about it, but even if there was, that is not a reason to remove it. Please do not remove it again without consensus, you have already removed it twice now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian: (1) Undue Weight. Just saying the last two sentences are notable does not make them notable. You are confusing Notability with Undue Weight. You keep saying in the edit comment sections that the Erdogan comment is "notable". You miss the point. Notability does not apply to topics in the article. Notability applies whether an article should be written about a particular person, place, or thing. Your Notability argument is completely off topic. Please see: notability guidelines do not apply to article content. You have not provided your rationale on why Erdogan's rant against all Israelis is should be given weight and why they are relevant to this specific article about Shaked. You have provided your editor's opinion that this article should repeat Erdogan's rant against all Israelis. But you have not provided the rationale on why. You have not stated why the article, a biography about Shaked, has to have in it a rant by the PM of Turkey against all Israelis. You keep re-inserting the quote, but you have not provided any support whatsoever other that your opinion that it is notable and notability is not the issue whatsoever. This section of the article has become a Wikipedia:Coatrack, where editors have decided to hang any and all negative comments about all Israelis and those comments are not tied to the subject of the article in any fashion whatsoever. The article is about Shaked. Q: Why is there bashing comments about all Israelis in this section? A: No reason at all. (2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Circumstances Have Changed Since Erdogan's comment. The Haretz article, if you read it, makes it clear that Erdogan made his comments when he was under the mistaken belief that Shaked wrote the words and the Daily Beast attributed those words to her and the Daily Beast, after Erdogan's comments, backed off and admitted that Shaked was quoting someone else. You have not pointed that out and it is a false impression that this comment leaves. The whole section is not important other than to be attempt to defame Shaked but the last two sentences are the worst of the whole section. It is not NPOV. It violates not only NPOV, but it violats BLP because the bashing of all Israelis is added to the article even though Erdogan was responding to what he falsely believed Shaked to said. It gives a false impression of the true situation and it puts in Shaked in a defamatory light. And you are refusing to explain how those two lines are relevant and how they don't defame not only Shaked but all Israeli people and why this need to be in this particular article about Shaked biography. You refuse to explain how the article is a better article with those two lines in it. You re-insert and never provide your rationale for its re-insertion. And you are going to need to respond to both of these concerns which you have not done other than demand that the two sentences be re-inserted.ML (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: I have reverted your edit. You should get consensus before removing that content again.

With respect to the question of whether Erdogan's comments should be included in the article: As I said in #Section about the Facebook article above, it's not clear to me whether the section about the Facebook post should be included in the article at all. But if the section is included, as it is now, Erdogan's comments should be mentioned, because they were a significant part of that controversy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment does address either of my concerns. Why are we quoting Erdogan's slander of Israel in Shaked biography? Why are we using a comment that was made by Erdogan before it was revealed that the Daily Beast falsely claimed that Shaked made the offensive coments, which makes this article defamatory and libelous to Shaked? Also, your claim that I must wait for consensus to remove does not apply to defamatory or libelous material, which is exactly what we have here. Also, there has been no attempt to create a consensus by anyone therefore a "consensus" does not exist.--ML (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I will try to address your concerns more explicitly. (1) Because Erdogan's comments were a significant part of the controversy about the Facebook post, we should mention the comments in our discussion of the controversy in order to give due weight. (2) There is nothing defamatory about including Erdogan's comments—we are not criticizing Shaked; rather, we are simply reporting Erdogan's opinion (which is reliably sourced). @Donottroll: I see that you've removed the paragraph—could you please participate in the discussion and explain why you think it should not be included? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you did not respond to the concerns I have expressed. You just provided your opinion. Erdogan's comments refer to all Israelis. You did not even address that issue (one of many things you did not address). And your other comment is that including Erdogan's comment is not derogatory but you did not provided a rationale. You stated your opinion that it is not derogatory. That is not a substantive response. I have provided a substantive response. Also, you keep referring to the "consensus" but you have not said where that so-called consensus is.--ML (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle and Donottroll:

• I did not insert the comment, it was already present there. I am just following WP:STATUSQUO. I ask Donnottroll to self-revert and talk on the page.
• Wikipedia articles on living persons do often have "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. See for example Alan Dershowitz#Controversies. Our aim here is to describe disputes, not engage in them. Whether or not you believe that Erdogan was responding to something false or not is irrelevant (I do not see anything in any Haaretz article here which says this, perhaps you mean some other article?). In the section, we describe the Facebook post, Shaked's own response, and statement by Erdogan.
• I was not using notability in the sense which you are using. I was using it in the sense of due weight. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight. The statement was widely covered by WP:RS at the time, here, here, here and I gave a link to an article which mentioned it a year after the incident. Finally, due weight is decided by consensus, there is no mechanical process for that.
• Erdogan's statement does not say anything about the "Israeli people", but "Israel", namely the state. People blame states all the time for various atrocities, like Russia in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam and so on. There is nothing racist in that. Since this is a BLP of Shaked, I am fine with removing the second part of the statement, blaming Israel since 1948, since that is not directly talking about Shaked.
• If you dispute this, you can open an RfC to get consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I do dispute your responses. I will not open an RfC. There is no consensus. Moving this talk page discussion to a RfC is usually a tactic to frustrate the party attempting to make changes to the article or section and I will not participate in that gaming tactic. Also, the constant demands to Donnotroll and myself that we stop removing the two sentences and just beg for changes is more tactics. Let's discuss the section and drop the constant demands for other editors to submit. I am having a discussion right here, right now on this talk page. That is the proper and appropriate way to handle this section of the article: (1) It does not matter if people blame countries all of the time for certain things that happen. Erdogan's blanket comment about Israel's foreign policy is not relevant, in any manner to this article, which is a biography of Shaked, not an article on Israel's foreign policy and no number of RfC's will change that fact. (2) If you believe that the whole incident needs to be in the article then I can possibly see your point on the topic as a whole, but not certain parts of the section (such as Erdogan's slap at Israel). I'm not completely convinced of that, but if we are going to keep the topic then it needs to covered in a NPOV manner and it needs to be given proper and due weight. Right now, the section is neither of these things. In the big picture of her life it was one small Facebook incident. It was not the first shot of WWIII. It does not need to be covered like she killed people. (3) If we are going to cover it then we can provide a short one or two sentence description of the issue and provide her response. The whole thing can be covered in one, two, three sentences, at most. We don't need to quote Erdogan's wild political attack on Israel (no matter how much it is spinned it is not relevant, in any way, to this topic Shaked's bio). (4) The topic does not need its own section, it can be worked into the article. (5) The whole section can be covered as follows:

In June 2014, Shaked posted on Facebook an article from speechwriter Uri Elitzur, which was highly critical of Palestinians. Based upon the Facebook posting, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan said that Shaked’s mindset was no different than Adolf Hitler’s. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Erdoğan’s comments. Shaked stated that her posting was portrayed falsely in the media as her words and not the words of Elitzur and she later admitted that the Facebook post was a mistake.--ML (talk) 11

41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle:

• Perhaps you have misunderstood the point of a RfC. It is a mechanism for gaining consensus. If you and I do not agree on something, and we are not willing to budge, then there is an impasse. We are not forced to respond to every comment the other makes. At some point, there needs to be other editors involved and a consensus established. An RfC is a mechanism for doing that. I will not be making any more comments after this one. While consensus is not established, an article remains in the original state. See WP:STATUSQUO.
• Your proposed statement that the "Facebook article" was "highly critical of Palestinians" is an unacceptably watered down statement. Plenty of comments are "highly critical of Palestinians". The controversy happened because of the content of the post. You have excised all the the content of the post, which is mentioned in all the references. See the Jewish Telegraph Agency article, Washington Post article and the Foreign Policy article for recent references, and Reuters and Haaretz article for earlier references.
• I have already stated that I do not have any problems with removing the second part of Erdogan's statement, where he talks about Israel in general, instead of Shaked in particular.
• Accordingly, I am reverting your edit to the previous state. I have removed the second part of Erdogan's statement, since we agree on that. (I can't do this yet, since this article is under WP:1RR. I will do this tomorrow, unless Donottroll self-reverts himself, as he should do.)
• I am willing to shorten the section a fair bit, and integrate it with another section, instead of having a separate section for this. But your proposed statement is too watered down for my taste. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you miss the point of having a talk page. You and I are the only ones working on the section right now. There is no need for a RfC. An RfC is NOT required in every situation. I'm attempting to work with you. I predilection is to remove the whole section. I have "budged" as you say. (I have become willing to accept some type of reference to the incident.) You have "budged" (You have conceded to remove the irrelevant bashing of Israeli foreign policy by Erdogan which can never be made to fit in this article.) If you decide that you are not going to continue discussion then that is your choice and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. But right now the section is a violation of BLP and it violates the content issue of undue weight.ML (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, I agree with you that shortening the section is a good idea—but I also agree with Kingsindian that it needs to include some details about what the Facebook post was reported to say. What do the two of you think of this, a modification of MaverickLittle's suggestion above, as a potential compromise?

In June 2014, Shaked posted an article from speechwriter Uri Elitzur on Facebook. The Facebook post was variously described in the media as calling Palestinian children "little snakes" and appearing to justify mass punishment of Palestinians. Based upon the Facebook post, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan said that Shaked’s mindset was no different from Adolf Hitler’s. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Erdoğan’s comments. Shaked stated that her post was portrayed falsely in the media, especially in that the article was presented as her own words rather than Elitzur's.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that compromise. I would only ask that the section be eliminated and the above compromise paragraph be place chronologically into the section concerning her time as a MK.--ML (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me as well. As I said above, I am fine with removing the section and integrating the content into another section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the article accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you guys.--ML (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced, self-published claim

Public career section contains claim by Ayelet Shaked that her post on Facebook was, actually, rewriting of an unpublished work of Uri Elitzur, a dead person, journalist recently departed, who was also speechwriter and close advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu, and "dear man".
Reference for that claim is given - and indeed unchallenged assumption that it's true changed entire meaning of this section and consequently article, wihtout mention of its influence on international public debate - by citing another article of hers, published in Jerusalem Post under "Opinion" section, in which she made this claim under the title "Exposing Militant Leftist Propaganda", along with continuation of her rant from the first (now deleted post at her Facebook account which words she ascribed to late Elitzur), with an attempt to justify and whitewash its substance and points.
Appropriate inline template messages (Cleanup/Verifiability and sources) placed, in spirit of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUBLISH--Santasa99 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added three other sources that say it was by Elitzur. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No need thank me, its a communal effort.
Well, do you really think these three (referenced articles) are enough? I mean all three ref's your placed were already there and you just moved them around. I really hope you are not that naive to think I haven't read (Wikipedia) article in its entirety (with all referenced articles, quotes, etc.)?
But that is secondary in this - I'll focus on more important thing, and that is: not one of the authors, actually, cite(/quote) independently verifiable source(s), all of them, all three authors, in three ref's you placed, simply repeating what she already claimed before them in her Opinion piece at JP. Dates of here piece and of theirs correspond. Basically, you added few more text lines, more characters and words but nothing substantial - my objection, I hope to some obviously, still stands.--Santasa99 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Washington Post is a reliable source, so presumably they verified that the article was by Elitzur. Other sources say that it was by Elitzur too (including at least one source that is extremely critical of Shaked [1]). Unless there is some reason to think that this is an exceptional claim, the fact that it's supported by reliable sources should be good enough for Wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If I understand Wikipedia, after thirteen years, I would say we don't take existence of media article to be enough, even if it's prominent media outlet, instead we need to see what article says about given subject. Are you saying that within these referenced articles at WP and DB, we get clear proof of Shaked claim that she got text from some dead person, text which is unpublished and which nobody saw beside her ? I read articles at WP and DB, and both authors simply repeated exact words she gave in her Opinion piece at JP. (And, yes, I believe it's an extraordinary claim to say my post is dead person text, which is never published and nobody saw it.) Why not find better source if possible, if not let's reformulate this sentence and state the obvious.--Santasa99 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable third-party source—that's all we need for most claims. If you think this is an extraordinary claim (as described at WP:EXTRAORDINARY), could you please explain why? Which of the red flags do you think apply? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed good to be careful of media sources claiming something is true. However, I have no evidence to suspect otherwise. Shaked, from the start, stated that she was referring to something Elitzur wrote (referring favourably towards it, but nevertheless, the attribution is clear). Absent evidence to the contrary, we have to go by what sources say. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayelet Shaked. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904031115/http://www.globes.co.il:80/news/article.aspx?did=1000803337 to http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000803337
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160814093811/http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001067517 to http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001067517

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

Concerning 2nd sentence in the 4the paragraph of the section PUBLIC CAREER: "The Facebook post was variously described in the media as calling Palestinian children "little snakes" and appearing to justify mass punishment of Palestinians.". This is a gross understatement of the content of Shaked's actual Facebook post. Given the availability of a translation verified by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and the contentions that the statement represents a "call to genocide", the FB post should be quoted more extensively. Therefore the sentence quoted above should be replaced with the following sentences:

The Facebook post labelled the Palestinian people as "the enemy" and asserted that "… in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure …" Later, while discussing terrorism the quote states​: ​" ...Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants ... this also includes the mothers of the martyrs​, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there​."

This should be followed by a reference to Mondoweiss (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government/), which contains a verified translation of the entire passage that Shaked quoted (i.e. without my ellipis). The existing references can remain although there appear to be too many: #14 could be moved to the section on EARLY LIFE AND CAREER, at this point my new reference to Mondoweiss is better than the existing # 16 because the translation is better, and #16 fits much better as indicated in my suggestion below because it raises the "call for genocide" issue.

Immediately following the above references, insert the following sentence: "These statements can be considered as calls for genocide as defined in ​the relevant ​UN​ Convention​." This should be followed by two references (1) the current reference #16, i.e ( https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes), and (2) to the source ​of the UN Convention (https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf​)

Finally, at the very end of the 4th paragraph is a quote from Shaked, followed by reference # 12.

A final sentence should be added as follows:

It should be noted that in her Facebook post Shaked ​​prefaced the quote by writing: ​"​It is as relevant today as it was at the time.​"​

This should be followed by a reference to the Mondoweiss article mentioned above, and if you like ref. #16, which also contains Shaked's entire introduction to the quote. Punterweger (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The requested edit seems to violate WP:NPOV, and using the UN source would be original research. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Facebook Post

Concerning 2nd sentence in the 4th paragraph of the section PUBLIC CAREER: "The Facebook post was variously described in the media as calling Palestinian children "little snakes" and appearing to justify mass punishment of Palestinians."

This sentence severly understates the language in Shaked's actual Facebook post, i.e "mass punishment" is in not equivalent to declaring war on an entire people. Given the availability of a translation verified by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and the contentions that the statement represents a "call to genocide", the FB post should be quoted more extensively, as follows: The Facebook post labelled the Palestinian people as "the enemy" and asserted that "… in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure …" Later, while discussing terrorism the quote states​: ​" ...Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants ... this also includes the mothers of the martyrs​, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there​."

This should be followed by a reference to Mondoweiss <http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government/>, which contains a verified translation of the entire passage that Shaked quoted (i.e. without my ellipis). The existing references can remain although there appear to be too many: #14 could be moved to the section on EARLY LIFE AND CAREER, at this point my new reference to Mondoweiss is better than the existing # 16 because the translation is better, and #16 fits much better with my suggestion below because it raises the "call for genocide" issue.

Immediately following the above references, insert the following sentence: "These statements can be considered as calls for genocide as defined in ​the relevant ​UN​ Convention​." This should be followed by two references (a) the current reference #16, i.e <https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes>, and (2) to the UN Convention <https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf​>

Finally, at the very end of the 4th paragraph is a quote from Shaked, followed by reference # 12. Although the quote deals specifically with the Daily Beast article, before the quote she claims that in general the media misrepresented the Elitzur quote as her words. Although, this may well be the case (although not in the Electronic Intifada article, or Mondoweiss), her introductory prases to the quote make it clear that the it represents her opinion. Consequently, after the current reference #12 the following should be added: It should be noted that in her Facebook post Shaked ​​prefaced the quote by writing: ​"​It is as relevant today as it was at the time.​"​

This should be followed by a reference to the Mondoweiss article mentioned above, and if you like ref. #16, which also contains Shaked's entire introduction to the quote. Punterweger (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Punterweger

Update this picturefile

from File:Ayelet-Shaked-D1209-005.jpg to File:Ayelet-Shaked-D1209-005-Original.jpg It has a better resolution. Cheers.109.66.14.231 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of her name

The pronunciation indicated, /ˈɑːjɛlɛt ʃɑːkɛd/, is wrong. It should be /ɑˈjɛlɛt ʃɑˈkɛd/.129.49.72.119 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Abramowitz Israeli Prize for Media Criticism

if you wanna know, this prize-selection in the first years was public and the crowd in internet could choose between persons. she won the crowd's favor. if you want to add it, add. I know because I, by myself, made for her a profile video in youtube and facebook and she thanked me personally. Shlomicatz (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Information needs updating

Her party did not reach the cutoff threshold for Knesset elections. She is not currently a legislator or minister. However, if there are snap elections again, that could change quickly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielofamerica (talk • contribs)

MK status was updated. However she is still, as of now, a minister in the interim government until a new government is formed.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in career details

I'm not editing myself because the article is locked. In the career section, it is written: She began her career in the Tel Aviv high-tech industry,[1] working as a software engineer at Texas Instruments... However she was working as a hardware engineer, not software engineer. Yonir (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Yonir: Thanks for the information. Do you have a source for it? I tried to confirm it but was unable to find. Zerach (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• @זָרַח: Sorry for the extremely late response. I don't have a verifiable source - Someone who worked with her there told me. But I trust him, so I believe it is true.. Is there any verifiable source saying otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonir (talk • contribs)
  • Unfortunately we need a published source for all information, see WP:V. buidhe 01:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox officeholder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

It is inappropriate and false that Shaked is tagged in the categories filter as an Israeli Secularist, particularly as many Israeli newspapers have noted the fact that she is an Orthodox Jew, and not secular. 74.64.195.172 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)