Talk:Israel Katz

Quote

@Number 57: What do you mean its undue? The content added is a quote, its a fact that he said that quote, its not a point of view.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: A single quote from Katz from 2015 now makes up around 20% of the article. This is clearly undue. Furthermore, Tanbircdq clearly has an agenda, adding quotes from numerous Israeli politicians to their articles. If we are unable to resolve this here, I will be raising with other admins.

Can I also ask what the relationship is between you two? It seems very strange that Makeandtoss would randomly find (and revert) other editors removing Tanbircdq's material. Then the two of you show up on this article again within 10 minutes of each other. I would like to WP:AGF, but this topic area is plauged with sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and this looks fairly like the latter. Number 57 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not making any sense, the WP:UNDUE talks about points of view. Plus, I don't really care if it was Tanbircdq who put the material, I just find an urge to revert whoever removes sourced content just because it makes his role models look bad (not necessarily talking about you).--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that so? Perhaps you could tell us how you found your way to this fairly obscure (around 20 views a day) article? Someone should report these two, travelling together over multiple articles of living persons inserting and then edit warring over cherrypicked quotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmmm, that's not really answering the question of how you came across the edits to revert.

With regards to undue weight, the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light and giving this kind of prominence to them in a relatively short article is inappropriate. I recommend reading the WP:BALASPS of the WP:UNDUE section if you are still having problems understanding this issue, specifically the sentence "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Number 57 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor restores sourced content and now ad hominem accusations follow.

The content is direct quotes made by the subject cited from independent, reliable sources. In what way exactly does this fit into "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports"?

No More Mr Nice Guy, you threatened to report me based on your opinion that I violated 1RR, make sure you also report/WP:BOOMERANG Number 57 who actually violated 1RR with the edits here and here. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see that this is undue and inappropriate editing, then I think wider involvement in this issue will be required. Number 57 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been a failure to adequately explain why the content should be omitted from the article. The content is full quotes made by the subject whilst he was an elected government official in a public office. Full context for the quotes is provided in the independent, reliable secondary sources it is cited from.

I don't see how just because a subject has a "relatively short article" article that he's exempt from verified information being added about him because of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that "the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light".

The content maybe controversial and interpreted as indirectly critical but it is clearly factual and not POV. The content is verifiable, therefore, I don't see how it's inappropriate editing, but rather that leaving the content out lacks the objectivity of having a WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I welcome any third opinion on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained, but it seems you are adopting a WP:IDHT stance. It's quite clear you are editing articles with an agenda, and this has no place on Wikipedia. Please stop or I will bring this to the attention of other admins. Number 57 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'll take it to ANI now. Number 57 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add a new views section on the page but it keeps getting removed. I can't understand why this wouldn't be allowed as many pages about people have this sort of section, especially politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been told why (WP:BALASPS). A more pertinent question is how, on your very first edit to Wikipedia, you managed to restore text that was removed from the article several months ago. Which account did you previously use, or who put you up to this? Number 57 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I think you're wrong. I think it gives the page balance rather then removing negative information because it looks bad on him.

Haha, who put me up to it??? Is that a serious question or are you being sarcastic? Well I wanted to add some quotes made by this guy then looked at the history and found more so thought that should be added as well. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think that having 33% of the article body being dedicated to three thing's he's said when he's served for nearly 20 years as an MK and been a minister for nine years (and the views being aired aren't even relevant to his portfolios), then I suggest you don't have a clue what balance is. It's quite obvious that you're trying to get as much material into the article as possible to make him look bad. This is not a WP:COATRACK, so if you don't like him, go and have a rant on an internet forum about it. This is not the place. Number 57 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There any many other politicians who've only been active for a few years that have large amounts of views about them on their pages. But your logic is having no comments about a politician whose been in office for nearly 30 years, how did you work that one out?

Why would it make him look bad? Did he retract any of the comments? Clearly not as obvious as you being either Mr Katz's political supporter, his PR rep or a paid Hasbara, or maybe all three. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You know why, and that's the reason you added it. As for your final sentence, if I'd had the right to vote in Israel, I'd have voted for Meretz (or possibly Labor when Shelly Yachimovich was leader, so that should give you a clue about my opinions on Katz; the difference is that I don't allow my personal views to affect my editing (and as much as I'd love to get paid to edit, I'm not a hasbara either). I have the articles of many MKs on my watchlist, and see reasonably frequent attempts by editors to add unfavourable quotes from them on a range of subjects (not just the Palestinian conflict; I have recently had to revert several edits by someone obsessed with getting any rude remarks any MK has made about Reform Judaism into articles). My role is trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and balanced against drive-by editors with agendas. Number 57 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No I don't know why? As far as I know he stands by all those comments so why would it make him look bad so please explain?

I couldn't really care less about what you claim your political affiliations to be.

You didn't answer why first question. There any many other politicians who've only been active for a few years that have large amounts of views about them on their pages. But your logic is having no comments about a politician who's been in office for nearly 30 years, what logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

How is this page neutral and balanced if there is no views or criticism section like many other pages? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you couldn't care less about my political affiliations, why did you bring them up in the first place? And please stop canvassing editors you know full well are not impartial. Number 57 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the other users answered you very well. This does not belong in the article and See discussion below. Adding an undue lengthy criticism gives a false unbalanced derogatory view on a subject that does not portray the person as a whole. This is especially important when involving BLP. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Caseeart (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually only one other user tried to but avoided my question as have you. There are mnay pages with lengthy criticism sections (much more so than what I added), would you call one or two paragraphs lengthy? It being false or derogatory is a matter of opinion. Maybe more impartial users such as User:Dan Murphy, User:Zero0000, User:Sean.hoyland and User:Huldra can provide their opinion on the discussion below? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is a weak argument. Almost all well written articles particularly BLP - editors will not allow this (don't bring proof from poor articles especially Arab Israeli conflict articles). You were already requested to stop canvasing and meatpuppetry that is against wikipedia policy. Also you specifically chose certain users. 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be an essay about deleting pages, not sure how it's relevant here. Nope I think you're alone in thinking that pages don't have a views/criticism/controversy section. Most political pages have this if the views received media coverage. I didn't mention Arab Israeli conflict pages, interesting you automatically thought of that though. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also editors have allowed it on Naz Shah's page as no one is making the 'undue' argument there where 45% of her page is about her recent comments? I bet you won't be making that argument there either. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating the same arguments that were already responded. Caseeart (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, just hearing straw man argument. 80% of Naz Shah's page has what you call 'negetive' information. I don't see you or anyone rushing to delete it claiming undue. Can anyone tell me why this information is allowed there but not here? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone reading this thread in the future, it turns out that the IP was indeed a Tanbircdq sockpuppet. Number 57 21:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. There are already three editors involved in this discussion. If this is a content dispute, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. If this is a conduct dispute, and I see warnings about ANI, take it to Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker than ANI for issues that are within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and do not also file at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderated Dispute Resolution

A Third Opinion was requested ten days ago. Now moderated dispute resolution has been requested, but declined because there has been no recent discussion, and the discussion that there was largely involved conduct issues. Resume discussion on this talk page, or go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Brought here by an IP. This politician is known to have controversial views towards Palestinians, yet none of this is shown in the article. The undue argument holds no water here - this is an early stage article which editors are welcome to increase in all areas. The nature of his extremist views are widely reported, so should be in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked on my page to give a comment here. I haven't the time to review the edits. I've read the talk page, and I'll make for the moment just one comment regarding the objections. Number57 has a point, but WP:BALASPS, WP:Undue, etc., cannot be used to keep out relevant information in the public record here like some of this. In an article as underdeveloped as this, any critical addition, which is normal for all political figures or those in the public limelight, could be read as WP:Undue simply in terms of the fact tha, given the sparseness of existing details re Katz, it immediately will look, speciously, disproportionate. What editors who wish to add such material should do is what other editors are not doing, adding also more general information not necessarily controversial, and in this way even that objection withers. They are not howevcer obliged to do this. An editing using the WP:Undue argument also should feel obliged to round out the portrait to make it fuller, and, in the context of controversies, more balanced thereby. There are more than 2 ways to cook an egg.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Having reread quickly the article, I see for example that his directive to get round the Court ruling against bus segregation is not mentioned. It may be 'controversial', but it is a noted aspect of his career. I won't be editing this article because of the WP:CANVASS issue, but it can be built up quite easily, and those interested in it should flesh it out further. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Same call as for my two colleagues here above.

I think that this material could be in the article and that WP:UNDUE cannot be used here.

Anyway, I assume he has many other views and the less controversial ones should be there too, not to give the feeling he would just be an extremist.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is right. You cant just add a lengthy controversial material that gives a negative look on a subject. Especially when it is a BLP living person. Caseeart (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not exactly what I say. I say the material can be added but that all the remaining should be added too. Following the rules, the material can stady.

But given the tensions on these topics, my mind is that the one who add the controversies should add the other material as well (even if this is not mandatory). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The ip who added the material does not seem too interested to neutralize the article. Until/unless details about the subject are added - it will be an unbalanced article negative POV style. Caseeart (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly :-)

Is there anything to tell about this politician ? I don't know him at all ? Was he talked about in the press ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the IP is attempting to bring the entire anti-Israel posse here (they've pinged a load more above)... But anyway, as I've said repeatedly, the two problems here are (a) that the article would be extremely unbalanced with the section readded in its current form. Editors are more than welcome to expand the article in general in order to make it fit in. Secondly, I think it's quite clear that the editors who have added this material (and many of those who have turned up from the canvassing attempts) are doing so in order to disparage the subject – there does not seem to be any interest in improving the article beyond adding the material to it to suit their agendas on Wikipedia.

Pluto, this guy has been a minister for more than a decade; I'm sure there is plenty to write about him if anyone actually interested... Number 57 08:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The best should be the add the important stuff to write about him.

Note that after googling his name, he seems to me even more unfamous than what the IP added... He seems to be at the rightest possible in a democracy. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I object to being called part of the "anti-Israel posse here", but having said that; I´m not particularly familiar with this guy. But if he has been a minister for more than a decade, then surely the article could/should be expanded, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC) (PS: and no; any possible expansion will not be done by me... Huldra (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

The method of objection to new material is flawed. If the material is negative it is reverted as WP:Undue, but those who revert will not build the article to accentuate less controversial parts of his career, which means that WP:Undue is being manipulated to keep material that reflects the 'controvserial' side of his career. The proper course is to build up both aspects, and if you object to the negative side, you add to the positive side for balance. To just keep negative stuff out is to keep the article in a state of permanent underdevelopment. Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clear that none of the editors who have added these quotes have any intention of building the article, and that the material is being added for a single purpose. Editors seeking to promote an agenda have no place here. Number 57 21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your argument applies to the ip that insists to add only negative information on a subject. This is a problem when insisting on only adding negative material on a subject and leaving out other important aspects. It is unfortunate that some ip's and even users use Wikipedia as a tool to defame certain people. Caseeart (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments by Caseeart highlighting my assumed motivations are not relevant and just a way of avoiding the underlying issue here. You know this undue argument is baseless here. There could easily be a question mark over the agenda of those fighting tooth and nail to keep this information out in the name of 'balance' as well. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Being interested in writing about this guy includes people removing information too or are they only interested in removing information from the page? Or would that go against their natural inclination of keeping the page conveniently small? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Huldra, civility isn't 57's strongest point. So far he's told a user to go away with your agenda, told me to go have a rant on an internet forum and wholesale insulted fellow Wikipedia users by calling them anti-Israel. I think this bullying behaviour is unbecoming of Wikipedia.

User:Nishidani has hit the nail on the head, the page can't be improved, if information is continuously removed. People saying general information needs to be added should do that but not stop people from adding controversy/views information.

As User:Pluto2012 the guy has said lots of other worse things but none of it this important and useful information is on his Wikipedia page surprisingly. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the ICC, so it'd be good for people to change the broken record with third rate lawyerisms. I think it's time to stop the narcissism, lift the censorship life jacket and unleash the beast! I have added some information to try and balance the page up, hopefully one of his acolytes don't delete it. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't call me an Acolyte of the subject! Please Canvasing and Adding more unbalanced one sided Negative info will just make things worse. Also, stop manipulating and misrepresenting the point of the sources by selecting text here and there. Caseeart (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When did I call YOU an acolyte? But very interesting you automatically assumed it was you though. I haven't canvassed anyone further since my warning. It may be your opinion that it's negative but the quotes are factual information back up by lots of media coverage NOT opinion. If you don't like the information, then provide the balance. If you think the sources are manipulated then, amend them but don't wholesale delete them. If you can't be bothered to do any of that then leave the article alone as you're not improving it! User:Oncenawhile summed this up perfectly with the heading Whitewashing (censorship), which is exactly what it's going on here. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to repair an article and all blp prolems that you create. And yes - you did call me names. Caseeart (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly then leave the page alone if you can't be bothered to fix it. Show me where I 'called' YOU 'names'. Anyway how about we stick to the issue at hand rather than avoiding it? So 'poorly sourced' material, so lets see are Arutz Sheva, Jerusalem Post, The Huffington Post, The Independent, The Washington Post, The Times of Israel, YnetNews poor sources? So 'negative material', err Wikipedia is not censored whether you like it or not. You're are the one warring not me, if you continue I'll have to notify this to an admin. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone involved in this discussion thought to look at Hebrew Wikipedia? There is a substantial article there, with extensive details of his career. I don't have time this week, but if no-one else is able to use this material I will have I go when I complete my current work. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of the comments here are reminiscent of cross-party mud-slinging, i.e. using tropes such as the "motives" or "agenda" of your opponent to discredit them, silence their opinion and stifle debate around the issue. The community here (especially experienced editors) should not resort to such dog-whistling behaviour. The majority of editors that edit in APRPIA will have a POV whether they'll admit to it or not, that's inevitable.

Anyhow, what was my motive or agenda for intending to add the initial content last year? Actually, it doesn't matter and I won't be attempting to justify that it was made in good-faith anymore either here or at ANI because it has no bearing on the content itself as there doesn't appear to be any violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE that's been presented. I'll continue ignoring any browbeating and won't take the WP:BAIT. However, (even if it does fall on deaf ears) I'll remind everyone involved anyway that we should try to WP:AGF of others because such approaches are disruptive and appear to only serve as a form of apologetics to avoid the overarching issue which exists.

Aside from all the above, to expand on Nishidani's point, if positive content was added to improve a BLP in absence of any critical content, no one would make the argument that this is a false, unbalanced representation of the subject. Therefore, I failed to see why this is the case here when it's the other way round. WP:IDONTLIKEIT referring to the content as "negative" isn't a valid argument to keep it out and the encyclopedia is WP:NOTCENSORED either. Rather than the cognitive dissonance and policy manipulation to keep the article a stub thus keeping the content out, more consistency needs to be applied as well as common sense.

Undue is incumbent on all, however, as a compromise, I propose that the onus is on the editors complaining about the imbalance to contribute to the solution by actually provide that balance rather than just highlighting the problem. Does anyone think that's unfair? However, if that's not agreeable, I've added tags to the article, hopefully this will both encourage editors to expand the article with general information about the subject's career and incorporate the critical content that's been reported in WP:RS to provide a full representation of the subject. Maybe RolandR would be able to translate the extensive details of his career from the corresponding Hebrew article into this one? Tanbircdq (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not this week, I'm afraid. I have a couple of important writing tasks to complete. But this is on my To Do list. RolandR (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Hebrew article does appear quite balanced, so would be a welcome way of expanding the article compared to the attempts so far. Number 57 18:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why material dealing with parts of his career for which he has been publicly criticized must be withheld until editors build up the article. That is highly unusual, and has no basis in policy. There is a certain laziness here. Don't wait for Roland to do the legwork. Anyone interested can find masses of material on all sides of his career, and if the sourcing complies with quality RS, it should not be reverted. E.g.

Ami Pedahzur The Triumph of Israel’s Radical Right, OUP USA, 2012 p.177

In March 2004 It was an idea by Yisrael Katz, then Minister for Agriculture, that allowed Sharon, intent on mobilizing public opinion to back his Gaza disengagement plan, to get round opposition within the Likud convention, dominated by settler pressure groups. The idea was to make a referendum among all registered members of the party.

• In the same period, he lobbied, together with the World Zionist Organization, to have $32 billion set aside to provide incentives and subsides for settlements in the West Bank (see also Robert Zelnick, Israel’s Unilateralism: Beryond Gaza, Hoover Press 2006 pp.106f.

• Elana Maryles Sztokman, The War on Women in Israel: A Story of Religious Radicalism and the Women Fighting for Freedom, Sourcebooks, Inc., 2014 pp.16-17; Assaf Meydani,

The Anatomy of Human Rights in Israel: Constitutional Rhetoric and State Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2014 pp.126ff.

In 2010 while Transportation Minister, Yisrael Katz, who had been ordered by the High Court to issue instructions based on a committee's recommendation that gender segregation in public buses was illegal and that separate seating could not be coerced, as Haredis were doing, was seen to have evaded the directive, though he had undertaken to implement the recommendations: He suggested that that buses could carry signs suggesting that gender segregation was voluntary. The haredi community considered this failure of enforcement a victory. etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why material dealing with parts of his career for which he has been publicly criticized must be withheld until editors build up the article. That is highly unusual, and has no basis in policy. Actually it has a very clear basis in one of the most important policies – WP:BLP. Specifically (quoted from the policy): The idea expressed in WP: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. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Number 57 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a selective use of policy. The same page, lower down, has:

WP:BLP

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

In practice this means that if negative information regarding Yisrael Katz is referred to inreliable sources, it cannot be kept off the article.

Eg.

Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said (Heb) that Israel should engage in “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders with the help of Israeli intelligence, intentionally using language that plays on the Hebrew term for “targeted assassinations.”(Mairav Zonszein, 'In Israel, BDS is winning,' +972 magazine 28 March, 2016);

Transportation Minister Israel Katz is known in Israel for his rather rude remarks. So when he explained, the day after the deadly attacks in Brussels, that "if the Belgians will continue to eat chocolate and enjoy their lives ... they will not be able to fight terror," his words passed almost unnoticed. Only after they were quoted and ridiculed in Western media did Israeli pundits criticize Katz for giving Israel a bad image abroad. Meron Rapoport, 'Israel seeks to exploit Brussels attacks as it did with 'war on terror',' Middle East Eye 28 March 2016)

etc,etc.These are well reported, and belong to the article. If you think the way any editor adds these things, which can be summed up briefly, is not neutral, then tweak the additions, including several other remarks, to ensure they are neutrally described. Otherwise, reverting such additions, against the page consensus and the compliance with the policy on the BLP noting such additions, even if negative, do belong to the article and repeatedly reverting would be serious evidence of obstructive behavior to article building.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that the aforementioned part of the BLP policy overrides stuff "belonging" in the article if it makes it unbalanced, and BLP violations are always a valid reason to revert.

As for article-building, it's also very clear that many of the editors involved here are not interested in that at all – they simply want to have this negative material in the article about Katz. Number 57 20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll remind and encourage editors AGAIN to not attack other editors. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter editors. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not editing Wikipedia at the moment, as opposed to some talk page comments, and I will not be editing this article because of the canvassing. However, I believe you are deeply wrong about the 'aforementioned part'. All policy pages go into details, and you are ignoring a key detail about BLPs of notable public figures. If no editor adds the material I supplied here, well, stiff cheddar. If they do add it, sourced as it is, and it is reverted out, then there is a serious problem here of censorship with a false policy alibi.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Does the article general content need to be expanded to justify critical content?

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

---

Should BLPs exclude critical content such as controversies and views sourced from coverage received in numerous reliable sources, if the article doesn't contain extensive general content about the subject? Or, does this violate WP:NOTCENSORED? Tanbircdq (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No. If most coverage in reliable sources is critical, the relative weight of the article should reflect this per WP:DUE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Include content Coverage in reliable sources of Katz's controversial statements. They should be included. Take a look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". What is going on here is a continuous attempt at censorship. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC seems more suitable for Wikipedia talk:BLP, as it is a generic question about the policy, not a specific question about this article. If it was supposed to be about the content here, WP:BLP is quite clear that the material cannot be inserted if it leaves the article unbalanced, which it clearly did in this case, with his comments on Operation Pillar of Defense accounting for around a quarter of the article on a man who has been a government minister for a decade (this version including other comments brought the total up to 40%!) – this is completely disproportionate. The specific part of BLP is The idea expressed in WP: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. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. If the article was expanded to the extent that negative material did not account for such a large proportion, or the amount of negative material was reduced, then it would be acceptable. However, it's also clear that the editors trying to insert this material have no intention of helping improve the article, as they've had over six months to do so, yet are still only trying to insert this specific stuff. Number 57 22:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, The Gnome, and Finnusertop: Do you really believe 25% of the article is an appropriate level of weight for the comments on Operation Cast Lead for someone whose career includes being a minister for around a decade? Number 57 11:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: This is not what was asked; the RFC was about BLPs in general. My answer specifically called for due weight reporting of criticism. The policy is to report with due weight what various sources say, not to make criticism relative to the span of one's career. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pharmacy where we count percentages of doses. Person X might be a minister, or be in any other line of work, for three decades, and then commit a crime that makes the front page. It would be disingenuous, if not ludicrous, to demand that the Wikipedia entry on X gives information about X's professional career in "proportionate" measures to the crime. (Substitute "crime" with "invention", or similar.) This is truly too trivial for a serious discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Include About the point of order: This RfC's question may not have been put forth in the most accurate manner possible but it is clear that the RfC is about the specific article and does not question BLP rules in general. About the question: If a living person, who is the subject of a Wikipedia entry, is, according to the typically required sources, mostly or exclusively known for one single thing or event in his life so far, the Wikipedia entry is supposed to reflect this. Weight will be apportioned according to that notable thing or event - always following, of course, the standard precautionary ways employed when dealing with a BLP. Otherwise, in order to avoid "excess weighting" for that thing or event, editors would have to "inflate" the other, not-as-notable aspects of the subject's life, which means bringing an artificially unbalanced state to the article through practicing undue weighting! -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No inflation would be required – he's had a notable career. See, for example, the Hebrew wikipedia article on him, which is several times longer. Number 57 11:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Articles in one language are not supposed to follow in any sort of manner articles on the same subject in another language. Of course, we can use and bring over material from other Wikipedias. So feel free, if you find it necessary, to add to this, English-Wikipedia article, any additional information of interest. In any case, the notability criterion obliges us to include the pertinent, notable information which is hereby contested, to its deserved extent and under the rules of Wikipedia on sources. By the way, you missed the point about "inflation" : The point is that giving due weight to the information now contested only makes the article seem unbalanced to readers (like, for instance, yourself) who find the inclusion of aforesaid information "completely disproportionate". It appears that not everyone shares that unjustified perspective. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Gnome: So you think having 25% of the article dedicated to his comments on Operation Cast Lead is proportionate? Number 57 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to "pharmaceutical" argument on percentage of "information doses" already provided above. Let's not start repeating ourselves. So far, the discussion is going well. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• No. There is no rule I know of, or no precedent, justifying the idea that one can't add stuff to an article until other stuff is included. 40% of the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry consists of a tendentious genetics mishmash of the kind generally deplored. I haven't removed it as disproportionate. I intend, when the air is clear there, to build up the rest of the article.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See the passage of WP:BLP quoted above, which you do know of because it's already been pointed out to you above. Number 57 18:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Short answer, No, though there is nothing to stop editors including non-critical content and non-controversial views. I had to look at edit history to get any idea about what content was being discussed here, but the idea that we can't include controversial views until after enough 'safer' content is in place, has no basis in policy or practice in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: It is explicitly part of the WP:BLP policy that BLPs cannot be unbalanced – see the section I quoted above. Number 57 19:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, my reply to No. 57:

So balance the article with all the non-controversial coverage by/about this man (who I knew nothing about before today). There are some politicians who, (intentionally or not) tend to get reported for their more 'incendary' comments. Whether he is one of those, I cannot say, but starting out with an assumption that we cannot record RS controversially expressed views until enough non-controversial stuff is in place, is not viable. Some US presidential candidates would have blank pages! btw globalresearch.ca is not very RS, but the original post from which they copied is unknown to me, however that source says 'civil targeted killing' does not quite mean that, though there are RS and translation issues there beyond my competence. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It is explicitly part of the WP:BLP I quoted above that 'if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.' All that this needs emending to is an additional, 'even if it is negtative and the subject, or an editor, dislikes all mention of it.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And as is clear, it needs to be done with appropriate weight so that the article is balanced. The whole issue here is not the negative content, but the weight it is given relative to the rest of the coverage of his career. Number 57 20:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, just add in the rest of his career. All you need do is start translating from the Hebrew wiki article. You can't ask other editors to withhold negative content until someone else translates the Hebrew article. It's just not wiki practice. You are quite correct that each know controversy can be summed up succinctly instead of being ground out as an agony column, but this just translates into any editor using his judgement to pare down in a précis, whatever an editor may add in excessive detail.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the onus is on editors adding content to comply with WP:BLP. Number 57 20:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself and this disinformation. Your views, like mine, are known. People who chance on this page should not need to wade through junk/noise to get to the meat of the issue and express their views.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to twist the argument by saying things like "this disinformation" is why I am having to repeat myself. Sadly the quality of debate is often dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Number 57 21:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors have already added well-sourced information in accordance to living-persons biographies' rules. You do not contest the accuracy or the verifiability of the information. You only claim that the information is "completely disproportionate" to the rest of the article. Ergo, the "onus" rests with any editor, such as you, for instance, who might want to add information to the article and, thus, eliminate the presumed "disproportionality". Well, then, go ahead. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes in this case. The added material fails NPOV as required by WP:BLP. There's nothing wrong with the added information per se, if it was presented neutrally and integrated into a Views section that gave a broad overview of his actual views - not just the ones some political activist wants to pillory him for. (Struck – information is largely misleading and defamatory - see below) The material as added however is a WP:PROSELINE laundry list of chosen quotes intended solely to discredit the subject and project him as a total asshole. It is not neutral and is thus a BLP violation. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You do not dispute the accuracy of the quotes. Indeed, they are well sourced. Your disagreement as to their inclusion rests on the assumption of the motives of the editors who added the pertinent (and quite true) quotes. In actual fact, no one can know what having the quotes "intends" apart from providing legitimate and relevant information. Your claim that you somehow know that there is one, single intention ("intended solely") behind the editors' actions is evidently groundless, if not defamatory. Politicians make numerous statements throughout their careers. It is not only against Wikipedia rules to clutter its pages with quote after trivial quote by politicians in order to avoid "laundry lists"; it is also physically impossible. We quote what makes the subject notable or what is notable in itself. The quotes hereby discussed did and are. -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, don't exclude information. That said, the section has terrible prose, and there is a lot of room for expansion for the rest of the article. Don't exclude this information, but improve it, and improve the rest of the article too. While in the process of improvement, relevant information should not be left out. I respect fears that the will lead to undue weight, but in this case, the undue weight isn't due to too much information here, it's due to not enough information elsewhere. The fix is not to remove the info which is perfectly valid, it's to expand elsewhere. Fieari (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Note: Nominator of this invalid RFC -Tanbircdq- was blocked for sockpuppeting (and using IPs in this article that were also blocked for 1RR).

It is a BLP problem to have an attack style article - aside the fact of the bias and misrepresentation of sources. CaseeArt ^Talk 05:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Canvasing and meatpuppetry

user 86.154.254.204 is repeatedly bringing in other selective users into the discussion. This is not allowed and please be aware of the rule before editing or stating your opinion on the talk page. There was also noted alleged sock-puppetry here. Caseeart (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Another tactical attempt at censorship to suppress healthy discussion when we're actually getting somewhere due to not being able to respond to valid points and back up the weak arguments to keep the information out of the article, don't be intimidated by it. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And lo and behold, it has been confirmed that the IP is a Tanbircdq sockpuppet. Number 57 21:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected

Semiprotected one year per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. In real life, this minister is controversial due to his opinions on A/I conflict issues though that material is (at the moment) not in the article. Between April 21 and May 2 there was a war to add such material. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory material removed

Had more time to look closely at the section in question, and was pretty stunned by what I saw. On the face of it, the material appeared well-sourced, but scratch a little under the surface, and I saw flimsy or outright poor quality sources backing material that would be outright libelous if it turned out to be untrue.

• [1] - This quote I removed may have been taken out of context and if someone can find the original Hebrew interview and it's fine, fair enough. But a piece of Huffington Post clickbait is not good enough for this. The other two sources are awful.
• [2] - Upon reading this paragraph, I was at first left with the impression that Katz advocated Israel going around killing the leaders of this movement. All of the sources bar one are not reliable. The sole reliable source (the Ynet one) says nothing about killing anyone. I think he was probably advocating organizing some sort of political smear campaign although the wording is vague. Either way, the entire paragraph was totally misleading to the point of being libelous and has been removed. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you suggest The Citizen is not a reliable source? What draws you to such a conclusion? AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Omar Barghouti is not an acceptable source for claims made in Wikipedia's voice. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope that you have not pre-emptively and unilaterally decided on the outcome of an ongoing, still open RfC. I will look into your edits later on. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The prose is now, hopefully, improved and the article is easier to navigate in. The entry's subject is apparently almost constantly in the media for various statements and actions, creating a significant public presence! -The Gnome (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Policy justification for removal of content

@Nishidani: Some months ago a now blocked editor added several out-of-context or poorly-contexted quotes supposedly made by this politician, of the type, "On date, Katz said outrageous statement", and intended solely to present the subject in a unfavorable light. Some of the sources provided were of poor quality (one alleged quote - which would be libelous if untrue - was referenced to a publication by the far-left Green Left Weekly, and an opinion piece on Al Arabiya) - so WP:BLPREMOVE. The other two were sourced acceptably but simply didn't provide a fair representation of the subject's views on the matter he was commenting on. Or for that matter, the subject's views on anything; they were included only to denigrate the subject. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed for BLP reasons. At least one quote was potentially libelous. The others treat the subject in a prejudiced manner in some way. See talk.

(a) a reliably sourced quote with the ipsissima verba of the subject is not libelous, because one cannot libel oneself, and therefore the WP:BLP justification is false. (b) the quotes are not poorly sourced: the Huffington Post, or the orthodox B’Hadrei Haredim source are perfectly acceptable. (c) I was in the process of removing the one unreliable source when your revert blocked me from doing so (edit conflict); (d) procedurally, if an editor questions the reliability of a quote, disliking the sources, duty requires googling to see if uncontestable sources also state this, and they do. Katz made 2 comments, one on November 11, and the other on December 21. You didn't check them (e) if you dislike the way his original comments were presented, you just quote them direct, as some of the sources in any case did. In sum, you broke 1R, and the respective edit summaries don't pass scrutiny. Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You've taken out20% of the page, and it's difficult to follow what you are doing. You cite reliable sources grounds, and then removed this impeccably sourced (Haaretz) quote (on what grounds?).

</In February 2016, in response to Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief Gadi Eizenkot's statement regarding the military's rule of engagement during terror attacks, Katz wrote on his Facebook page, "The terrorists were captured alive. I hope that the statement against the automatic shooting of minors by the chief of staff, who I know and regard highly, was not wrongly interpreted and didn't lead to hesitation that put lives in danger. Sometimes the message is louder than the words. The codes of conduct and limitations are clear, but terrorists who attack Jews should not get out alive."[30][31]

Sorry about the edit-conflict, I was working on the article too, which I cleaned up a bit, but I'm finished for the evening. If you wish the restore some of the contested material, in good faith, I will not accuse you of 1RR. I don't find the material objectionable per se, just the poor sourcing and "unfairness" of the negativity and lack of context. Yisrael Katz is in some respects a politician similar to Donald Trump; he makes deliberately outrageous statements, but there is always a clear logic behind them, which the original editor deliberately failed to communicate in order to portray him as a nutjob.

Regarding that specific quote, as I explained in my original edit summary, I feel it's a selective quote that lacks context and needs to be rewritten. "In Febuary 2016, in response to Gadi Eizenkot, Katz made this outrageous statement..." is just not acceptable. I had planned to attempt the rewrite either tonight or tomorrow. If you wish to have a go yourself, I won't object. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, one does not remove quoted material in that case, since the quote is exact. One simply rewrites the introductory words, eliding 'outrageous'. Not to do so, but to use the editorial gloss 'outrageous' (a violation of NPOV that demands its excision) as a grounds to 'disappear' the quotation itself, is improper, for obvious reasons. What he effectively said is that killing captured enemies is fine, (because keeping them alive puts soldiers' lives at risk). That is a notable point of view.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

Shanimaz (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobile description missing the intelegence

On mobile browsers it says "Israeli politician, MK for Likud and Minister of Transport" right after the title and the page issues link. He is also the minister of intelegence, but I have no clue how to edit it. - ולאד (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

Hadassah Lerner (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Minister's first name spelled with I, not YI. Israel katz = ישראל כ"ץ

 Not done: A quick sample of sources tells me that both spellings are used, so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply. (For example - the Knesset spells it Yisrael.) There are also many Wikipedia articles that use the Yisrael spelling, so this would be a more substantial change than just updating this article. A wider consensus is required to implement this change. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2019

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

Moved. See general agreement below to rename these articles as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

---

• Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955) → Israel Katz
• Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1927) → Yisrael Katz

– They spell their names differently. The current Minister (born 1955) is Israel Katz. The former Minister (born 1927) is Yisrael Katz. See here/ Thanks, Atbannett (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose These guys have the same name (ישראל כץ) so having them at different titles would not be appropriate. The current title is the correct transliteration based on WP:HEBREW, and is also the most common spelling in the Israeli English-language media (3,570 vs 136 on Haaretz, 164,000 vs 35,900 on Times of Israel, 779 vs 107 on Ynetnews. The only source that goes with "Israel" is the Jerusalem Post. Number 57 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Number 57. Conforming to inconsistent transliteration would only result in confusion. Main title headers that use birth years within parenthetical qualifiers are the clearest forms of distinguishing between the two politicians. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is the English, not the Hebrew, Wikipedia, so we mustn't go with the transliteration of his Hebrew name unless we absolutely must. A cursory check of English language media finds that the Los Angeles Times, Haaretz, and the Guardian go with Yisrael Katz, while Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, Middle East Eye, and the English Knesset website itself uses Israel Katz (The New York Times is behind a paywall). The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses both. Moreover, the subject refers to himself as Israel Katz on Twitter. These names are essentially interchangeable, so I see no problem with going with the English one here (seeing it is granted to us on a silver platter) and the Hebrew one there. The less disambiguation the better. Any confusion can be dealt with using hatnotes. Havradim (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As noted/evidenced above, the Times of Israel prefers Yisrael. Number 57 07:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, partial concurrence with User:Havradim. I don't find their arguments about different news sources convincing, but considering the man himself prefers Israel Katz on Twitter, that's the name we should go with, nothing else matters—see danah boyd. When there is a usual way of distinguishing two people of the same name, use it. per WP:NCPDAB Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It's weirder still over at hewiki, where the two Katz's are disambiguated by political party and portfolio, rather than the more obvious difference in surname (כץ/כ״ץ). Havradim (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Havradim: Both articles on hewiki use כץ though, and I'm not sure that the surname difference is common in Hebrew. It seems natural to me to use כץ for both men, not כ״ץ. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point Psiĥedelisto, but to be exact, the hewiki article about the 1927 guy uses כץ and the 1955 guy uses כ״ץ. I only wonder why the editors there wouldn't take advantage of the fact that this name is an acronym which can be correctly spelled either way, and therefore can be used as their own internal disambiguators with no further article title qualification. I could see them creating a disambiguation page (with either spelling) that points to both, or using hatnotes for each. My point there and here being that it's all about these bulky article titles that seem to be creating more confusion than they're ultimately meant to overcome (politician born 1927? 1955? I know I always need to do a double take when I see something like that, especially if I'm unfamiliar with the topic). Now over here, while we don't have any difference in the surnames, we certainly do in the personal ones. Havradim (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Havradim and Psiĥedelisto. I am striking my "Oppose" vote and changing it to "Support" primarily due to subject's own preference for the English-language transliteration of his name on Twitter. His entry appears in twelve Wikipedias, seven of which use the Latin alphabet. Among those seven, five (English, Czech, Dutch, Polish and Turkish) use "Yisrael" and two (German and Low Saxon) use "Israel". Two additional Wikipedias, Russian and Ukrainian, both use "Israel" and the last three (Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese) indicate the name only in the native alphabet. Ultimately, in the face of inconsistent transliterations, the English form should be left to the man himself. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Please add the following navigation box: {{IsraelFinanceMin}} 147.161.14.62 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears that Israel Katz is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whereas this navbox is for Finance Ministers, which contains a link to Yisrael Katz. GoingBatty (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead, I added Template:IsraelForeignMin. GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That should be there, too, for his role in the previous government. The issue which is confusing you is that they have the same exact name (ישראל, pronounced Yisrael and the source of the English word Israel). In the new government, sworn in today, Katz is in Finance 147.161.14.254 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the link in Template:IsraelFinanceMin would have to be corrected. GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-israel-s-biggest-government-set-to-be-sworn-in-this-is-what-it-would-look-like-1.8845810 147.161.15.14 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 17 May 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. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2021

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Israel Katz → Yisrael Katz (born 1955)
• Yisrael Katz → Yisrael Katz (born 1927)

– Disambiguating these politicians using different rendering of their first names is entirely artificial. They both have the same actual first name (ישראל), and the former s refered to using the latter first name rendering in some sources (see https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/business/economy-finance/.premium-israel-s-new-finance-minister-may-be-the-bulldozer-we-need-1.8875075 for an example). Animal lover 666 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per "oppose" arguments presented 18 months ago in above Talk:Israel Katz#Requested move 26 June 2019, taking into account that Israel Katz himself uses that form of his name. Another discussion about different transliterations of a name that is the same in its native language is currently active at Talk:Alexander Ryazantsev (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 March 2021. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

rejection of Palestinian state

There is no source for Katz's opposition to the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state in any form, which he regards as unacceptable considering "our rights to this land". How about https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/housing-minister-says-ready-to-build-10000-homes-over-green-line-319453 82.11.163.59 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

Needs updating to current stats: " This statement was made following the 2023 Invasion of the Gaza Strip, which led to the death of more than 15,000 Palestinian civilians and more than a million displaced people in the Gaza strip.[45]" 207.236.201.226 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I've opted to merge the entire sentence as I feel such statistics will always be outdated, and it is better to instead link to the article for a more accurate picture. – Isochrone (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

Wherever we have a citation needed or “by whom” tag, I would suggest the unsupported assertion be deleted. 2600:1017:B815:B8FC:BC2D:792A:6B90:9EBF (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)