Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

High traffic

On 22 July 2014, Benjamin Netanyahu was linked from Time, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Benjamin Netanyahu[edit]

New article list, I don't know where to put a link to it in the article. Sokuya (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2019[edit]

I think it should be added that Netanyahu had a new granddaughter last week: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/256946 BoazBen84 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2019[edit]

| office3 = Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel)|Minister of Foreign Affairs | term_start3 = 14 May 2015 (2015-05-14) | term_end3 =

He is no longer the Foreign Affairs Minister and this should be included some more:

| office3 = Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel)|Minister of Foreign Affairs | term_start3 = 14 May 2015 (2015-05-14) | term_end3 = 17 February 2019 (2019-02-17)[1] 2601:447:4101:5780:F980:12A0:5F77:2B92 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

early life and career[edit]

This is a minor point but I believe Netanyahu's degrees at Sloan and MIT should be MS and not SM.

indictments[edit]

While it has been announced that indictments would be coming, afaik, and according to the cited source (and the NY Times and Haaretz) he has not yet been indicted. nableezy - 23:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is correct. The attorney general announced his intent to charge. There is a pre-charging procedure (optional - the defendant can waive it) in which the defendant can have a hearing with the prosecutor, and possibly refute the prosecutor's evidence prior to a charge being filed - that hasn't happened yet (and unless waived - is a couple of months away - after the election). There are also issues with parliamentary immunity for MKs (BB is currently one) regarding charging. I corrected however, diff, "would be seeking" to " intent to file" both since this is congruent with the sources and since in Israel (as in a few other systems) there is no grand jury - the GA has the final say on the indictment (in this case - receiving the recommendation from a prosecutor group a few months ago).Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Otzma Yehudit[edit]

Regarding this revert: the source (Jerusalem Post) does NOT say that OY "has been accused of racism". It says that it IS a racist organization. Please don't WP:WEASEL it. Likewise, this, and many other sources, refer to the Kahanist movement as "terrorist" and note that it has been designated as such by the United States.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a 3-paragraph sub-section for minor deal brokering (involving approx. 1 prospective MK) in a different party in the 2019 elections, is out proportion. It probably merits inclusion in some form in the 2019 election coverage here, but we shouldn't overstate the significance of this minor deal. Note that implying various individuals are "terrorist" while they haven't been convicted by a court of law in this regard is a rather serious WP:BLP issue. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
According to sources it is ANYTHING BUT "minor deal brokering" (and that "approx. 1 prospective MK" (it's probably more than that) can make or break Netanyahu, so yeah, it's crucial). This "minor deal" would be about the equivalent of Trump making David Duke a cabinet member or getting him into the government. That's, again, per sources. So yeah, it's a big deal.
As for the "terrorist" label, it's straight from the source. And US law.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Note also that no "individuals" have been described as "terrorists". An organization which has been designated as such by the US government (as well as reliable sources) is being described thus. So you're misrepresenting the actual text under discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Association by proxy, which we generally avoid. This is a fairly minor deal for a technical bloc that will potentially result (if the combined bloc gets 5 eats) in a single Otzma MK (out of 120) entering the Knesset (and not the cabinet - it is in fact highly likely Otzma will sit in the opposition in any government headed by Netanyahu - source). In terms of Netanyahu, who receives a rather large amount of coverage, this is a 2-3 news cycle blip which possibly merits inclusion, but not at this length. Also - please format your references - bare URLs (which is what you've added) are generally not acceptable per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RACIST, as well as WP:UNDUE. ShimonChai (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, what's a clear violation of WP:NPOV is the complete removal of information that has appeared in tens of reliable sources and which constitutes the biggest story of the upcoming election (possibly second to the indictments). Removing this info is just ridiculous. Claiming this is "trivial" is WP:OR and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seeing as how that's contradicted by coverage in scores of sources. Likewise WP:RACIST explicitly states "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". I'm not even gonna bother citing sources for the fact that the Kahanist movement is "racist" since, that's actually the official position of the Israeli government (not to mention, again, scores of reliable sources). That's no more controversial than the idea that the Ku Klux Klan is racist. Is Otzma Yehudit described as racist? Let's see:
Of course I could go on. That's FIFTEEN freakin' quality sources right there though which should be more than more than more than more than enough. We have dozens of sources from across the political spectrum, and from wide variety of Jewish denominations, which describe this party as "racist" and which condemn Netanyahu's actions, but... of course on Wikipedia we're gonna get a bunch of editors who will sit there and try to pretend with a straight face that this party isn't racist. Gimme a fucking break. This. Is. Not. Controversial. (except in the wacky world of Wikipedia). Or they will pretend that this is "trivial" or a "minor story" or some other nonsense even though there's literally dozens if not hundreds of sources writing extensively on this subject (pretty much all the outlets listed above have MULTIPLE stories on this). Shameful behavior here folks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree as per WP:BLP we should write our biographies "conservatively" the VM edit don't fall under this category --Shrike (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh bunkum. If reliable sources extensively describe a political party as "racist" and compare it to the K K fucking K, we don't "write conservatively" and WP:WEASEL it by trying to pretend it's something it's not. We don't remove all the relevant info in a major development just because of some editors' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. THAT is POV. Removing this stuff so blatantly against policy should be a topic-ban worthy action.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This is literally basic Wikipedia editing, WP:INTEXT per WP:RACIST.. We do the same thing for most other contested labels, the party themselves deny that they are racist. You can say "ABC News has referred to the party as "racist", though they deny this." which is how we handle most controversial labels. ShimonChai (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. What are you proposing? That we write: "The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Post, Cleveland Jewish News, The New Yorker, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, Los Angeles Times, Tablet Magazine, Forward, ABC News, Time Magazine, ynetnews, Straits Times <insert every single major newspaper in United States and Israel here> <insert every major Jewish organization in Israel and United States here> have called the party "racist""? Don't be ridiculous. This. Is. Not. Controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Multiple sources have called OY "the Israeli Ku Klux Klan" (for example [1] [2], other sources already provided above). In the first sentence of our article on the Ku Klux Klan it states that the KKK "is an American white supremacist hate group". We DON'T say "according to this source, and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this sourceand this source and this source and this sourceand this sourceand this source and this source and this source and this sourceand this source and this source and this source and this source and this source and this sourceand this source and this source and this source and this source and this source ... and this source OOOOOFFFFF .... the KKK is a white supremacist hate group." That would be ridiculous. Same thing here. This. Is. Not. Controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Haaretz is not an NPOV source, and are not reliable for right-wing ideologies. For the same reason we don't cite Arutz Sheva to call Meretz far-left. ShimonChai (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"Haaretz is not an NPOV source, and are not reliable for right-wing ideologies" <--- well, see, there's your problem right there. Haaretz (which I should note is only one out of fifteen sources I listed) is most definitely reliable and NPOV (though sources aren't really NPOV or POV). If you reject mainstream reliable sources, then you really have no business editing controversial topics on Wikipedia because that's sort of fundemental. If you really want to you can ask at WP:RSN whether Haaretz is reliable or not, but I'm gonna tell you right now, it'll be a waste of time. And if you persist in insisting that mainstream sources are not reliable, then you should be aware of the fact that this article and topic area are under discretionary sanctions.
So if the objection is that "haaretz is not reliable" that can be dismissed and this is going back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

coverage of the deal with Otzma Yehudit[edit]

  • Haaretz - has published AT LEAST THIRTY articles and stories on the topic (I stopped counting after 30, but there's 29 pages of search results [3], with ten stories per page and it looks like at page 7 it's still on THIS topic, so the actual number of stories is probably closer to 60.
  • Jerusalem Post - also about THIRTY articles on the subject [4] and that's ignoring slightly earlier stories.
  • Times of Israel - ten pages of search results, with ten articles per page, but true, "only" 7 or 8 per page are relevant to the merger and Natanyahu. That's still shitload of articles.
  • New York Times - at least TWO articles [5] [6]. In fact, they thought it significant enough to publish an official statement from the editorial board.

But yeah. Let's pretend that this is a "trivial detail". Freakin' a.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of the technical block deal Netanyahu brokered between OY and a different party merits brief inclusion - however Netanyahu is routinely covered at depth by multiple NEWORGs every day on a great number of issues - anything beyond a brief mention is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
" is routinely covered at depth by multiple NEWORGs" - not in this much depth and not like this. When you have sources comparing this to bringing in the Ku Klux Klan into the US government and you have sources which emphasize that Netanyahu is doing this to try and head off potential consequences of the indictments, then yeah, this is a big fucking deal. At least THIRTY articles in Haaretz. At least THIRTY articles in JPost. About FIFTY in Times of Israel. Please stop pretending that this is "minor".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Israeli newspapers publish daily election news and polls. Obviously most such items include Bibi (a candidate) and Otzma (part of a list running). That does not mean such items even mention, let alone cover, this technical bloc deal and Bibi's role in brokering it. As has already pointed out to you, with a source, the likelihood of Otzma being in government (coalition) is close to zero - the 1-2 MKs are expected to split off of the technical bloc they are in after the election and sit in opposition.Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
e.g. the first hit on the JPost search result you link to - ELECTION COMMITTEE VOTES TO LET OTZMA YEHUDIT RUN, JPost, 6 March 2019 - doesn't even mention Netanyahu. Running a search result for "Otzma" - returns all sorts of coverage of their election run and other activities. Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's ONE of more than 60 hits. And I *only* counted those which did mention Netanuyahu and which were relevant to the alliance, and I got to 30 then stopped. So yes OUT OF THE 60+ hits, a few are not related. But at least 30 are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The deal between Likud/Netanyahu and OY has been and still is extensively covered not only in the Israeli press but in the world press. I count at least 6 articles in WaPo, many more than that in the Forward, some in the Guardian, Le Monde, etc etc. This deal is the reason why OY now has frequent coverage, instead of being practically ignored like before. Your arguments are counterfactual. Zerotalk 09:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, what an aggressive and confrontational post by @Volunteer Marek:, what's his problem? I don't see anyone objecting to this being addressed in the article. Also, I'm seeing an incredible double standard: he pops by Talk:Ilhan Omar to call a controversy that's been covered by 5-6 NYT pieces WP:UNDUE and a WP:BLP violation, and here he's repeatedly inserting/renaming the section something inflammatory. And by the way (and I think this should be covered) let's not be lazy and go by search results. Arguments should be accompanied by references to specific reliable sources. Additionally, only an utterly irresponsible editor, or someone who's pushing a POV, would ever describe a BLP subject's views as "relentlessly hawkish" in Wiki voice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously some are objecting - either by reverting the info and/or by making claims on talk that this is a "trivial detail". As far as your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument regarding Omar let me explain this to you: on the Omar article I'm objecting to including the info, which has NOT been covered as extensively as this, in the lede. And for fucks' sake. I listed FIFTEEN freakin' "specific reliable sources". Then I point out that there's dozens more. And you try to turn this around on me and pretend that I've only listed search results and accuse me being lazy??? Seriously? Go try pull that stunt on someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
And if you have an issue with accurately reflecting reliable sources (by calling what these say "inflammatory") then that's YOUR problem, and a problem with YOUR approach to editing, not mine. THAT is "utterly irresponsible". Regarding the "relentlessly hawkish", that was there before my edits and it does indeed accurately describe the source which is titled... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... "Benzion Netanyahu, Hawkish Scholar, Dies at 102"Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you cut the shtick? It's not a trivial detail, obviously, and it should be addressed in the body. What I'm seeing is that other editors simply trimmed what you wrote. Furthermore, whether you original added "relentlessly hawkish" or not is irrelevant—you restored it, and that kind of editorializing without in-text attribution is totally inappropriate. Subheaders are a complex issue, and if it does involve allegations of racism, they should always be described in those terms—you don't call something racist in Wiki voice, even if it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Umm... there is no shtick. Thanks for acknowledging that it's not a "trivial detail", but it's obvious that other editors have tried to insist otherwise. I mean, User:Shrike's edit summary is... <suspense>... "this is rather trivial detail". Icewhiz has referred to it as "minor deal" (despite the fact that there's literally hundreds of stories on this in just the top three or four Israeli newspapers). So yeah, there's an attempt to minimize the importance of this development.
And of course we call racist things in Wiki voice if they are racist and are described as such in multiple sources. We call the Ku Klux Klan "white supremacist" in the first sentence. We state it's a terrorist organization. Same here. Every. Single. Source. About this party that I listed above - fifteen, and like I said, there's hundreds more - describe the party as "racist". Most of these sources emphasize the ties to terrorism. It's impossible... well, ok, not impossible, but not desirable to attribute something so widely stated to every single source that has made statement. We would have to write: "According to the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Washington Post, New York Times, Times of Israel, Tablet Magazine, Time Magazine, Forward Magazine, Los Angeles Times, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The New Yorker, ABC News, The Union of Reformed Judaism, American Jewish Committee, American Israel Public Affairs Committee etc. etc. etc. ... Otzma Yehudit is a racist party". Are you seriously proposing we do that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear a minor political deal. Yesh Atid - Gantz, in contrast, was a big political deal. This deal involving zero to two potential MKs is minor. Bibi's involvement in brokering is also not direct. In terms of Bibi's involvement - this was mostly in the news two weeks ago. There is a bit of continuing coverage, not all that much. Bibi is (as any other head of state, particularly during elections) covered by a few stories in each local newspaper every day - so starting in CAPS LOTS OF COVERAGE - is not convincing (particularly when your search link returns results unrelated to Bibi a, just covering Otzma). Just another usual item in the newscycle.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No, this is false. If it was a "minor deal" why so much coverage? Or think of it this way, if the GOP explicitly backed David Duke for Congress, whether he won or not wouldn't matter. If he won that'd be only one extra seat. BUT. It would still be a huge deal. And of course, here it's an even bigger deal because those couple extra MKs can make or break Netanyahu's majority in Knesset and potentially save his butt from any fallout from the indictments. Anyway, at the end of the day, whether we consider it a "minor deal" or not depends on whether sources think it is a minor deal or not. And it's pretty obvious that they do not. They think it's a huge deal and are treating it as such. And sure, there isn't fifty stories coming out per day anymore, but it's not true that there isn't "all that much". You're making that up. It's also completely false that this is just a "newscycle" or that my search returns are diluted by "results unrelated to Bibi". I've already addressed that. There's something like 300 stories in the search result. I counted THIRTY on just the first five pages (out of 29+) which ARE relevant to this alliance and which mention BOTH "Bibi" and OY. So please drop that inaccurate and false misrepresentation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
If nothing else, the statements from AIPAC, as well as Lipstadt have made sure this is gonna continue to keep getting continuing coverage. Please stop pretending that something which is obviously false is true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
As has been mentioned to you, Bibi and Otzma appear (with every other party) in regular coverage of the election (e.g. in polls). Merely asserting news hits means little.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
And as has already been explained to you this isn't "asserting news hits". I listed fourteen sources above (not "news hits"), and I can list 30 from Haaretz alone (see next section). Please stop pretending that something which is clearly false is true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────We should move past this cursory search-results based analysis, which is meaningless because it doesn't discriminate between reliable/unreliable and opinion pieces/secondary. The sources indeed describe Otzma Yehudit as a racist party, and clearly the deal that was brokered was controversial because it gave them a platform. It should be covered in the article per WP:DUE, and indeed it is. I don't know what this thread is about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't "search-results based analysis". The only reason I linked to search results is because the number of sources which discuss this issue is so freakin' large it's impractical to list every single one of them. The problem with the current article is that it white washes the deal and the nature of OY. For example, the mention of links to Lehava have been removed. The fact that AIPAC condemned the deal - which is almost a story onto itself - was also removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles on alliance with racist Otzma Yehudit[edit]

Haaretz

  1. Dozens of Orthodox Rabbis Condemn Netanyahu for Deal With Kahanists (Otzma Yehudit)
  2. Conference of Presidents Joins Criticism of Netanyahu’s Deal With Far-right Party (Otzma Yehudit)
  3. "This racist incitement befits the person who, through a cynical political deal, is bringing Otzma Yehudit, the ideological heirs and admirers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, into the Knesset." (editorial)
  4. "The stench from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foul deal with admirers of Meir Kahane’s rancid racism" (analysis)
  5. "Announcement comes day after pro-Israel lobby group condemns political deal endorsed by Netanyahu to strengthen right-wing bloc with racist Otzma Yehudit party"
  6. "...hit back at critics who denounced his endorsement of a merger between right-wing parties Habayit Hayehudi and Otzma Yehudit, whose members are supporters of the late racist Rabbi Meir Kahane."
  7. Top Jewish Members of Congress Condemn Netanyahu’s Deal With Far-right Party
  8. [7]
  9. Religious Jews Condemn Netanyahu's Far-right Pact in Jerusalem Protest
  10. Pro-Israel Democratic Senators Slam Netanyahu's Deal With Kahanists
  11. [8]
  12. U.S. Orthodox Organization Clarifies Support for Netanyahu Deal With Kahanists
  13. Following Controversial Deal With Kahanists, Religious Israelis Are Seeking a New Political Home
  14. Holocaust Scholar Deborah Lipstadt Resigns From Synagogue for Its Defense of Netanyahu Deal With Kahanists
  15. Decades Before Netanyahu Welcomed Heirs, Begin Warned of 'Dangerous' Kahane
  16. How Netanyahu Revived Jewish Supremacism and Paved Its Way to Power
  17. [9] (editorial)
  18. U.S. Jewish Leaders Slam Netanyahu for Promoting Kahanists
  19. Netanyahu still thinks he'll get a rousing reception at AIPAC, even after his deal with the Kahanist devils. (editorial)
  20. AIPAC Slams Kahanist Party Backed by Netanyahu
  21. [10]
  22. Amy Klobuchar First Presidential Prospect to Denounce Netanyahu’s Pact With Kahanists
  23. Conference of Presidents Joins Criticism of Netanyahu’s Deal With Far-right Party
  24. U.S. Won't Criticize Netanyahu's Courting of Kahanist Party, Pompeo Says
  25. Netanyahu's Trump-inspired Embrace of Racist Right Is Repulsive
  26. "Quite a number of decent right-wingers will find hard to swallow the approval of Meir Kahane’s successors and special legislation to save the prime minister’s skin from indictments" (editorial)
  27. Condemned Farrakhan and Mallory? Now Condemn Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit) and Netanyahu
  28. Prominent Jewish Group Changes Course, Denounces Far-right Party Courted by Netanyahu
  29. Kahanist Party Rips Into AIPAC After Criticism of Netanyahu's Support
  30. Netanyahu is backing Israel’s KKK for naked domestic political gain (editorial)

So there's THIRTY articles from Haaretz alone. Can we please stop pretending that I'm "only linking to search results"? I'm linking to search results because THERE'S SO FREAKIN' MANY STORIES ON THIS TOPIC! Can we please stop pretending that this is a "minor deal" or "trivial detail"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a minor political deal - deals involving 0-2 MKs are minor. Much of what you are linking to is editorial, and most of the actual coverage is back in February. Furthermore, you are ignoring the amount of coverage Netanyahu receives in the Israeli press (and to a certain extent international press) - every Israeli paper prints a number of items involving Netanyahu every day. To put this in proportion - at the moment we have a single line in the article devoted to " 1999, Netanyahu faced another scandal when the Israel Police recommended that he be tried for corruption for $100,000 in free services from a government contractor; Israel's attorney general did not prosecute, citing difficulties with evidence". I can find much more than 30 press items on the Netanyahu/Amedi affair - heck - it is still covered in the press - Analysis The Real Story Behind Netanyahu's 'Rushed Eviction' From PM's Residence, Haaretz 2016 - two decades later. There are multiple google book hits on this. The Netanyahu/Amedi affair was a much bigger scandal - possibly prompting his temporary retirement - and we give it a single line presently. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's a "minor political deal" why is there 30+ articles in Haaretz alone? Can you list 30+ for Amedi? Let's see them. And the "still covered" sort of gives it away - comparing overwhelming coverage within one week, to coverage extended over more than two years is at best disingenuous. So let's see those 30+ sources on Amedi all from one week.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

indictment in lead[edit]

This is the culmination of years of investigations in to corruption, bribery, and influence dealing. Can somebody explain why it is being removed? Honestly the coverage in the body needs to be beefed up, this isnt just a fourth term subsection. nableezy - 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should be in the lead. I think, however, we should stress not the intent to indict (which, per recent sources, will lead to a pre-indictment hearing in 3-4 months - the timetable keeps on getting pushed back) - but rather the on-going investigations (police + prosecutors + now intent to indict) - Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu. The cases (and proceedings around them) - are clearly DUE and relevant - being a major aspect of Netanyahu's career for the past few years (including, possibly, being the trigger to the current 2019 elections which were called (a bit before the end of term) by Netanyahu). Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Im fine with your edit here, not so much with the edits by Wikieditor19920 here and here. nableezy - 15:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, lets hear from Wikieditor19920 - the second edit is moot at the moment (as we expanded the bribery bit in the lede to well beyond that). The last one - set to be longest PM - I'm not sure about (he was actually set to be longest PM had he served out his current term (until October) and he could still win and be ousted 2-3 months afterwards (e.g. coalition fallout due to the indictment) and fail to each the mark) - both in terms of wording/accuracy (would be better to state date in which he would eclipse), and in including these "service stats" in the lead at all (the rest of the paragraph). I don't have a strong opinion, however, either way on these statistics. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Id personally remove the will be longest if he wins. If he wins and becomes the longest serving we can put is the longest serving. nableezy - 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
OK - so I guess we're agreed between us two on the current lead then. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm now getting a sense of the wildly different standards for leads that Nableezy applies when it comes to different political figures. Why is a recent indictment, not a conviction, not problematic under WP:RECENTISM? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I won't comment on double-standards, however in my mind the investigations are lede-DUE not because of the recent intent to indict (he hasn't been indicted yet) - but because the investigations have been receiving serious coverage over the past two years or so, and have had political ramifications (e.g. the snap election timing is, per many political analysts, tied to the investigations.... The willingness to sit with an indicted Netanyahu in coalition has been a political issue in the past few months and it may affect the President's decision (on who to give first dibs on building a coalition) post-election, election issue - voters, and some street protests over this). If we were dealing with a recent issue (e.g. intent to indict out of the blue) - I may have had a different opinion - however my opinion is predicated on the whole buildup to this point, and not this particular point. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Except this is not recent material. Again, since you seem to have trouble with this, this is not what just happened. This is literally years of investigations and stories about those investigations. We have a frickin article about all the investigations. Perhaps you should self-reflect on that double standard you seem to think exists. nableezy - 16:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The indictment is not recent? It was announced last month. We won't know the significance of the indictment until we can observe whether it leads to a conviction or electoral consequences. This seems to be the standard that's accepted for certain articles but not for others, but I believe we should apply it consistently. I also don't need to be lectured about self-reflection by someone with your history in this area. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You want to actually respond to what people said instead of what you wished they did? A, no the indictment is not recent as, hello, he has not yet been indicted. The investigations however span years. With a ton of coverage of them, also spanning years. Im going to ignore the repeated display of ignorance about me and my history here, as you have no idea what you are talking about. Here, on this article, the investigations of corruption and influence peddling, which hello span years, and the resultant planned indictment are appropriate for the lead, and completely expunging that material violates NPOV. Get it this time? Or would you like to reply to another comment nobody made? nableezy - 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, your history of topic bans speaks for itself, but I don't want to get personal with you. We have a potential indictment, which may or may not pass WP:10YT for the lead. If it leads to a conviction, it would certainly be notable enough for the lead; if it does not, that's very much in question. I don't understand why you're comfortable with a heavy-handed approach on some BLPs, but not others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No, we do not have a potential indictment, we have a planned one. And, again, you seem to be missing the point here. This is about years of investigations that have been widely publicized. Not one random indictment. That a sitting prime minister would be charged with a crime is kind of a big deal. Now, since you cant seem to help yourself here, no, this is not a heavy-handed approach to some BLPs and not to others, unlike yourself. You see me adding to the lead of this article the people who have criticized Netanyahu for what they consider to be racist remarks (like the Arabs are voting in droves, we need to stop them, widely criticized as racist, or Israel is not a state for all its citizens, it is a state for only the Jews, likewise criticized as racist)? Do you see me putting in various opinions from his political enemies? No, you do not see me doing that. You can keep ignorantly babbling about double standards but you should actually try to identify the standard. The standard is not, as per your MO, insert derogatory material on politicians I dislike and remove it for politicians I like. No, it is state the pertinent facts and leave the opinions out of the lead. There is in fact a double standard at play here, the problem is that it is yours. nableezy - 18:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
What a delusional rant. The indictment is not guaranteed and subject to a hearing, per the sources on this topic [11]. What if the hearing results in a non-indictment? Then does this stay in the lead? You're arguing to emphasize something that is ongoing and pending, and may or may not result in substantive action. If we're going to go by the WP:RECENTISM and WP:BALANCE standards generally applied on BLPs, then the content is inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"What a delusional rant." Statements like these kind of say more about the person making them then the person they are responding to, particularly since Nableezy's comment appears to be perfectly rational, whether or not one agrees with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
as per your MO, You can keep ignorantly babbling, since you cant seem to help yourself are all clear breaches of WP:CIVILITY, and can be accurately described not just as a rant, but a rant directed personally at another editor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you want to start a discussion talking about others supposed double standards then you should be prepared to answer for your own actual ones. You cant start with a personal attack and then be offended when it is turned around on you. nableezy - 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Delusional rant? Nice, I see you cant answer any part of it, so I assume that as you cannot refute any of it that your incredibly witty comeback will be your last word on it here. Youre really out of your depth on this topic though. One more time. Even without the announced planned indictment, the investigations into Netanyahu revolving around bribery and influence peddling are not, a. recent, or b. undue to cover in the lead. Netanyahu has been dogged by these investigations for literally years. The selection of this AG, again over a year ago, was, according to his critics, made to install a loyalist who would not pursue an indictment. The investigations themselves have been reported on again for years. They span several years. Here's another one covering the cases dating to 2017. We have a common understand of what is "recent" I hope, but if not can you please tell me if something is covered in depth over several years, is that "recent"? This is not recent, either in the events or in the reporting. Yes, the AG recently announced his intent to indict Netanyahu. That is the only recent development here. The story itself is a. not recent, and b. reported on in depth for literally years, and c. obviously due to include in the lead. How many times do you think Icewhiz and I agree on something? nableezy - 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Sorry, which part of that diatribe were you expecting an answer to? I just made my point above: if the indictment does not occur, then the entire matter becomes largely insignificant and not lead-worthy. WP:BALANCE states The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. This is currently ongoing and pending, and on that basis, it should not be in the lead. I do happen to think it is significant and would like to see it addressed eventually, but you can't justify inclusion in the lead before charges are even announced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Being unable to respond to others arguments does not make yours stronger. The material is due for the lead, even without an announced intent to indict. That is agreed to by both Icewhiz and myself. nableezy - 20:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous personal attacks, though I am addressing your central contention, that this is worthy for the lead, directly. I'm not impressed by your ipse dixit arguments. A "planned indictment" is not leadworthy, and including this in the lead does present a WP:BALANCE issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You very much have not. You seem to be alone in this view. Repeated slow-motion edit-warring may be reported. Kindly do not attempt to enforce your own view through edit-warring. Nobody has agreed with your position here. Until somebody does, or you make even the slightest attempt at actually addressing my argument, and not the one you wish I had made, I dont see any reason to continue this. nableezy - 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps counter-arguments with you are just in one ear and out the other, but I'd suggest you take the time to actually read my responses. I don't need to justify anything to you, and second, I know that you're familiar with edit warring and disruptive behavior generally as a repeat violator yourself, but you have no basis to threaten me. This is a WP:BLP and the WP:BURDEN is on you to achieve consensus, and I hardly have any reservations about being "alone" in a discussion limited to a couple of editors. I will repeat it again: a potential or "planned" indictment, which is still subject to a hearing, is not lead-worthy until we know the real-world impact of it, and this paragraph has no place in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I do know what edit-warring is. And I promise you, if you remove this material once more I will report your edit-warring against a clear consensus. If you want to follow policy then try this one. nableezy - 13:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, don't threaten me with frivolous and vindictive reports, and I'll note that you've overlooked the fact that a) 3 editors in this discussion have disagreed with mentioning the indictment in the lead, which is not consensus in a discussion of 6, and b) WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE places the burden on those seeking consensus for disputed material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That burden has been met. There is a clear consensus. Exactly what three editors in this discussion agree with including mention of the indictment? At most, SharabSalam agrees on removing the indictment, however that user very clearly agrees with including the investigations. Icewhiz agrees with including all of the above, as does Zero, as does Jeppiz. Whereas it is you, and only you, arguing on removing the material entirely. So are there any users I missed? nableezy - 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The news about the Israeli attorney general intentions are recent news and could change. The Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu are old news and has a lot of coverage in the media and they are facts that arent changeable and more related so I suggest removing or moving this from the lead section and this remain in the lead. I dont think that someone who is going to read the lead section would want to know about the recent news of the attorney general intentions.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, how refreshing, a reasonable response free of personal attacks! Thank you, SharabSalam, though I have to disagree. I understand that the investigations are longstanding - however, they will essentially be meaningless if they result in a non-indictment, or even in a dismissed charge. Per the WP:10YT, we should consider these factors when placing such material in the lead. I agree completely that these charges are significant now, but I'm not so sure about later on. I'd even venture to say that maybe it's a safe bet that there will be an indictment and a conviction. However, neither I nor you know that, and I'm recommending we take the safer route by leaving it out until we know, which will likely be very soon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Having read everything you wrote here, I am singularly unimpressed. The announcement of intention to indict Bibi is the biggest piece of news about him in recent months and not mentioning it early in the article would be ridiculous. The lead should reflect things true at the present and can be adjusted in the future, so the argument that the indictment might finally not happen is not valid. Zerotalk 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure but been under investigation does not require to get indictment or charged of criminal charges. A similar case would be Donald Trump article although there is no indictment or charge against Trump, there is a mention of the investigation against him in the lead and it would make sense after 10 years even if there is no indictment or a charge against him. These factors that you mentioned simply doesn't alter the fact that there was an investigation against Netanyahu. The reason why I think the intentions of the attorney general should not be in the lead is because IMO they aren't significant or important news and could change after all they are intentions of someone else also not worth mentioning in the lead of BLP.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Zero0000:I care much more about following policy than impressing you, frankly. But don't take my word for it, let's refer to what policy says: The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. In addition, he announcement of intention to indict Bibi is the biggest piece of news about him in recent months does not account for WP:10YT, so apparently you did not read what I wrote carefully. I've participated in a number of discussions over and written leads for several other high-profile articles, and a few weeks ago I may have agreed with you, but ultimately I think it's generally better to err on the side of caution. SharabSalam's point above about the investigation being lead-worthy but the Israeli AG's determination being questionable hits the nail right on the head; I would take it a step further and argue that we can't put the investigations into proper perspective until we learn the result. This gives us every reason to exclude the content for now, and make the necessary adjustments later on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I've been an administrator for more than 14 years and I don't need a newcomer to teach me policy. Neither of your two attempts here actually apply to the situation. You don't have a case and you should stop. Zerotalk 08:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh good, an appeal to authority (and an implicit threat?) instead of an argument. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If I may offer some observations

  • I encourage all users to comment only on the topic, not on each other.
  • There is a clear consensus for mentioning the investigations in the lead, with the indictment briefly mentioned in connection to the investigations though not as a separate them. In my reading, this seems to be the position of Nableezy, Icewhiz, SharabSalam, Zero0000. I also agree with this position myself. It seems only one user is opposed. It might be worth remembering that consensus does not mean unanimity. The consensus seems rather clear.
  • Any user is free to take any position they want on the matter, but everyone involved would do well to remember that this is a sensitive area and disruptions (both edit warring and personal attacks) should be avoided. Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeppiz. Respectfully, I believe you have misread the discussion, and I'd also suggest that maybe, as someone who's opinionated on the matter, you shouldn't be weighing in on consensus just yet. I actually have no problem with you assessing consensus, but you should account for nuances in editors positions. SharabSalam qualified their support for the mention of the investigations by saying that the indictment should not be mentioned: The reason why I think the intentions of the attorney general should not be in the lead is because IMO they aren't significant or important news and could change after all they are intentions of someone else also not worth mentioning in the lead of BLP.[12]. Icewhiz stated I think, however, we should stress not the intent to indict (which, per recent sources, will lead to a pre-indictment hearing in 3-4 months - the timetable keeps on getting pushed back) - but rather the on-going investigations (police + prosecutors + now intent to indict)[13]. My view is consistent with theirs in this respect, so it would seem we're at a 3-3 deadlock on the mention of the indictment, which is not consensus, while there is consensus for the mention of the investigations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you think Icewhiz thinks that his own edit should be removed? You seem to have a problem reading what he wrote. This may help you. As might this. Please do not distort other peoples views. There is unanimous agreement here, outside of yourself, for including the investigations. There is one person besides yourself saying the intent to indict should not be included. Thats it. 3-3 deadlock, ha! nableezy - 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the top 20 hits for "Netanyahu" in the Washington Post published since the AG's announcement. Only two failed to mention it (which were articles about his "not the state of all of its citizens" statement). It was even the main topic of many articles. Since there is no policy-based argument for censoring this highly notable and reliably sourced information, it is past time to move on. Zerotalk 23:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see Icewhiz agreeing with including the indictment in either of those diffs, but let's ask him to clarify. And WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote, it's often a compromise, and the way the two of you are conducting yourselves, it's clear you have no interest in actual consensus and just want to run roughshod over those who disagree with you. And Zero0000, I'd appreciate if you would drop the dogmatic and untenable position that you're the only one making a policy argument and that the discussion is over when you say it is. A flurry of recent coverage falls clearly under WP:RECENTISM, and here's why: if there ends up being a non-indictment, this becomes a non-story. You can't predict the future, nor can anyone else here, so we have no basis to believe this warrants inclusion and passes WP:10YT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is about two sentences describing major events in this individual's life. You can't censor it by citing policy that doesn't apply. RECENTISM is about balance, not about avoiding mention of recent events. 10YT is irrelevant since there is zero chance that the lead will be the same 10 years from now. If Bibi is indicted, we will change the lead to report that. If he is not indicted, we will rewrite or remove that part of the lead according to the circumstances. Either way, it is correct and proper content at this point of time. Zerotalk 00:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, ask Icewhiz. Every other person has disagreed with your view that absent an indictment this is a non-story. The fact that we have in-depth coverage literally spanning years proves that point. Every other editor here agrees that the investigations themselves merits inclusion in the lead. Not quite the 3-3 deadlock you claim. nableezy - 01:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view the focus in the lede should be on the long running investigations (and political impact thereof) and not on the current status of intent to indict (which could be mentioned).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead is not necessarily meant to be an elastic component of the article that changes with daily or weekly stories, even if major, unless the long-term significance is immediately clear. That's the purpose of the WP:10YT, which is not meant to be taken literally but to urge editors to assess events with a long-term view. MOS:BLPLEAD says something similar. I've been on the other side of the argument with events that I considered significant but others did not, and it usually resulted in the content being omitted, and in retrospect, that may have been the right decision. Here, we have a pending legal matter against the subject and it is not clear whether or not it will lead to an indictment. An investigation which was concluded without criminal charges will likely not be a major aspect of the subject's bio 10 years from now, and that's something that should be considered carefully. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
But in this case there was a political effect - the timing of the snap elections and this being an electoral issue in 2019. Guilty or innocent - this has affected Israeli politics significantly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I won't pretend to have an intimate understanding of Israeli politics, so I'll concede this could very well be true. Worldwide, I think the long-term impact hinges on whether or not an indictment/conviction is forthcoming and whether it leads to his ouster. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This might be the biggest thing to happen in Israeli politics since Ariel Sharon's stroke. I dont know what worldwide long term impact is supposed to mean, but these investigations have been covered at great depth through a period of years, and it has had and is having an impact on the Israeli government. I get you disagree, but I think there is a general agreement, aka a consensus, for its inclusion. nableezy - 03:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements about Arabs as second class citizens[edit]

The article is missing information on "Bibi"'s controversial remarks about Israeli Arabs not being co-equal citizens in Israel. Sources: [14] [15] [16].

In light of these remarks by such a high ranking government official, some may argue that any Israeli sources from 2019 onward should not be considered WP:RS on Wikipedia in any matters related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Personally I don't think that's the case but I have seen similar arguments made elsewhere recently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Belongs in the article Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People maybe, not so much here. nableezy - 19:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To be precise, he said "Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people—and it alone.". Election rhetoric - that has nothing to do with RSness of Israeli sources who may, and in fact most do, freely criticize the PM for his stmts.Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
He said a bit more than that. What he said was An important correction: Israel is not the state of all of its citizens. According to the nation-state basic law that we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people – and of it alone. Leaving out that first bit makes your quote a bit more innocent looking than it was. nableezy - 20:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know what the point of this thread is. So based on the comments of an Israeli official, you believe that we should broadly dismiss and paint with the same brush all Israeli newspapers as unreliable? The Israeli media has reliable sources on all sides of the spectrum, so this is just patent nonsense. If you don't personally believe it, I'm not sure why you'd even bring it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Who exactly are you responding to? If it is not me then learn how to indent properly. If it is me, then what in the world are you talking about? nableezy - 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
VM is taking a swipe at an Icewhiz-esque argument elsewhere. Let's keep it off this page. Israeli press sources are of course reliable for this quote-worthy (and very very widely quoted) statement of Netanyahu. Zerotalk 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
NOTNEWS and we aren't a quote farm. Netanyahu's social media spat is gossipy as well. His support for the basic law is substantial - not random quips.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope, no argument here. Zerotalk 08:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)