Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Benjamin Netanyahu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Holocaust Denial

How are we going to deal with this?^[1] Normally we'd label him a holocaust denier and link him to antisemitism. Any thoughts?109.154.105.52 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

--How is he being "anti-semitic" or an holocaust denier? Many jews support him and he has been a strong leader of Israel. About the holocaust denial part, it's not actually denial at most I'd label him as a revisionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.55.182 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought Holocaust Revisionism WAS Holocaust Denial. Perhaps you could explain when revisionism is denial and when it isn't?109.154.105.52 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Revisionism is a difference in the official narrative, Holocaust denial is the complete rejection of the systematic extermination of Jews or existence of gas chambers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.55.182 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Holocaust revisionism not anti semitic then?109.154.105.52 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Try asking Wikipedia about holocaust revisionism. It redirects you to a locked article about Holocaust denial. Netanyahu is a holocaust denier.109.154.105.52 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Got to agree look for yourself, he's a Holocaust Revisionist or Holocaust Denier, if you follow that equivocation, check for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpnfflmjuc Not all, virtually no, Holocaust Revisionist dismisses the Holocaust narrative completely. --41.151.47.4 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I just want to add my dismay to what Bibi claimed. I have had many discussions with members from the Institute for Historical Review, and this is a line they frequently use. Along with the Zyklon B and 'oven temperature' smoke screens, trying to absolve Hitler by stating he "only wanted to relocate the Jews" but nobody else would take them, is a static argument the history revisionists/Holocaust denialists use. This is more than just disappointing. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

But that's what ALL the documents say. I'm sure Bibi has read them. --41.145.152.218 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is he denying the Holocaust happened? No. Is he saying the Final Solution policy didn't exist? No. Are mainstream sources calling him a Holocaust denier? If so, please provide sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's Moshe Zimmerman calling him a holocaust denier. This would be clear-cut if it was anybody other than the Prime Minister of Israel, so I'm taking the initiative and adding both Zimmerman's comments and the category. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Further to this comment: Netanyahu's comments fall under the IHRA's definition of holocaust denial; specifically, point 5 (blaming racial or ethnic groups for the Holocaust). Sceptre ^(talk) 10:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment2 - That may well be true(and I think it rates a 'mostly true), but it doesn't mean we can label Bibi a "Holocaust Denier", any more than we can label the Palestinian Authority a "Nazi group" based on that one source. Let's not start edit wars to make a point. Dave Dial (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Dave Dial and NeilN have said it all, not much to add. Like Dave, I found the comments shocking and disappointing, but as both Dave and Neil have said, we most certainly cannot jump to label him a Holocaust denier. If reliable sources use it, we can discuss the matter. In the meantime, I don't think there's much to discuss. Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We have one of Israel's most prominent Holocaust historians saying that this is Holocaust denial. I think that's a strong reason to support the category. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

However, Zimmerman did not explicitly call Netanyahu a Holocaust denier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sceptre, I'd agree it's a strong argument to include it in the article, but not to add the category. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As per Jeppiz and those he cites. The category should not be added to the page.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

But Zimmermann did say that his statements were a form of Holocaust denial and that made Netanyahu a Holocaust denier. Even so, it's hair-splitting of the most ridiculous degree that goes beyond BLP; would we really need a separate source to say that Cristiano Ronaldo is a footballer if we only had one source saying that he played professional football? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Any attempt to deflect the burden from Hitler to others is a form of Holocaust denial." Zimmerman is entitled to his view. It is fringe of course, so at the most it is a WP:Due issue. It is obvious that Netanyahu had no intention of denying the Holocaust: his whole life is obsessed with it, he reads everything in terms of the Holocaust. The definition of Holocaust denial is that it is 'the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1]' It is disputed by no one that Netanyahu shares the view of all sane people in the world at least on the fact that the Holocaust took place. Zimmerman's statement is saying that you deny the Holocaust if you don't blame Hitler for it, an extremely confused position. You probably need more than one single opinion on such an extreme spin to make it relevant to the article. What others have said is that Netanyahu used an argument that forms part of the armoury of Holocaust denialism, the one asserting that Hitler wasn't responsible, as the (dis) likes of David Irving have argued. It is an elementary principle of logic that denial of knowledge of an event does not mean the event itself is denied.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously describing the views of Israel's most eminent Holocaust historian as fringe? Zimmermann said, and I quote, "With this, Netanyahu joins a long line of people that we would call Holocaust deniers.". That's pretty clear cut. And, yes, saying that anybody other than the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust is Holocaust denial, as is saying that Hitler only planned to "deport" the Jewish population, under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of Holocaust denial. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer is usually recognized as the (world's) most eminent Holocaust scholar, a position he assumed after the death of the late lamented Raul Hilberg. You should learn to construe words precisely, giving due weight to all words used:'"Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time,' he wanted to expel the Jews." He said, with that profound ignorance, widely noted, of history that is the hallmark of his public utterances and books, that Hitler did not want the Holocaust originally, but Husseini persuaded him to carry it out. Rather than denying Hitler's responsibility, he asserts it, but (and this is the obscenity that outrages everyone) says Hitler more or less oversaw the Holocaust after a Palestinian mufti had persuaded him to go through with it.

i.e.'Netanyahu didn't say 'anybody other than the Nazis were (sic) responsible for the Holocaust'.That the Nazis with more than a little help from numerous friends all over the continent, were responsible for executing the Holocaust is denied by no one in his right or left mind.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[1]
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525

Binyamin vs Benjamin

New book

External links modified

1 RR rollback error

My mistake in rolling back this edit, it was not a 1RR contravention by TTAAC. Sorry about that. Happy Christmas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It was, however, a violation of DS due to the insistent reinsertion, without talk page engagement, of content that I challenged with policy-based reasons in my edit content. It was also a violation of DS for the personal attack and false statement about my/his editing histories on this article in his edit comment. He knows this was false because I politely showed him the diffs on his talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, SPECIFICO, Israel/Palestine really isn't subject to the same ridiculous DS as American Politics (you know, the ones you are so adept at systematically WP:GAMING)—as you would know if you regularly edited in the area. A simple glance at my edit history reveals that 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is among my top-edited pages, with 79 edits to the article and 90 edits to the talk page. You deny WP:STALKING me here because you made a total of five edits to Benjamin Netanyahu over a year and a half ago, but those edits—like virtually all of your "contributions"—were also reverts, and concerned solely with trivial political scandals when they weren't directly related to American Politics. When have you ever shown an interest in Israeli settlements? Merely asserting, with no elaboration, that this historic UN resolution is "WP:UNDUE" is transparently ridiculous and if you were even vaguely serious you would have taken any concrete concerns to this talk page. Your consistent pattern of following and reverting only my edits (, , , , , , , , , ) while vowing "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned" could hardly be more obvious; I submit there is virtually no chance you would have reverted the edit I made to Benjamin Netanyahu if it had been made by anyone else. I hate to break it to you, but—while you directly reported me to three admins, initiated a topic ban proposal against me at ANI, and aggressively pushed to have me sanctioned at AE—I haven't been "blocked or banned" yet (in part because of your proclivity for "misguided...at best" misrepresentation of my words and requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me)—and you have no right to erase every edit I make out of spite, and then demand I get your permission! In fact, if it had not been for those five earlier reverts giving you some plausible deniability (though your refusal to be more specific than "WP:UNDUE" certainly hurts your case), I would have called this the last straw, and reported your stalking already.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Further example of SPECIFICO's WP:STALKING: , ; Guccisamsclub then notes that SPECIFICO's "edit summary consisted of false statements and threats. you need a better rationale for deletion." As with "WP:UNDUE," in the absence of any explanation on the talk page it is hard to take such edit summaries seriously, because it does not appear they are intended to be taken seriously. Rather, they are a fig leaf excuse to arbitrarily purge content SPECIFICO just doesn't like—which, in the area of American Politics, means it cannot be restored without an exhausting process of gathering consensus. (If you consider Wikipedia a WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than an encyclopedia, there is really no downside to frivolous deletions: Even if consensus is eventually achieved, you can still slow the other side down considerably. On the other hand, many editors—including involved admin Volunteer Marek—routinely ignore the DS, as they are inconsistently enforced: , , , .)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:Netanyahu

Prime Minister of Israel

Bibi is the 9th and 13th PM of Israel. In his current administration he is the 13th PM. Please update the template as seen in Yitzhak Rabin article. Sokuya (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Veritycheck (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Netanyahu was the ninth different person to hold the office, but his first administration was Israel's 13th prime ministerial administration, not its 9th, and his current one is the 17th. In order to make it consistent with the Yitzhak Rabin article, which counts by total number of administrations, Netanyahu would need to be labeled as the 13th and 17th. However, that's then inconsistent with the way that mostof the other PMs are numbered - e.g. Levi Eshkol is labeled as the 3rd PM, but while he was the third *different* person to hold the role, his was the fourth different administration (Ben Gurion having been PM twice). The same approach is taken to Golda Meir (labeled as the 4th PM), but then it gets inconsistent with both Yitzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin labeled as the 6th PM (but Begin's successor Yitzhak Shamir labeled as the 8th)! So the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

If one looks at other parliamentary democracies, Canada's PM Justin Trudeau is referred to as the 23rd PM, as he is the 23rd *different* individual to hold the office; Australia takes the same approach, where Malcolm Turnbull is the 29th different PM. To be consistent with the way those countries are treated, Netanyahu should be labeled simply as the 9th PM (and the labels for David Ben-Gurion, Rabin and Shamir should be changes to 1st, 5th and 7th respectively.

The other alternative is to follow the approach taken with British prime ministers, where the infobox simply labels them as "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" without assigning a number (e.g. see Theresa May or David Cameron. This feels more natural to me, as Brits wouldn't generally refer to May as "the 76th prime minister" (and I suspect the same is true in Australia, Canada and Israel - i.e. people don't normally refer to Netanyahu as "the 9th/13th/17th PM). JayZed (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: 9th Prime Minister of Israel

External links modified

Jewish nationalist

Birth date 1949 or 1944 ?

There are some questions regarding the birth date of Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Lawyer David Levi, you can see in this picture, dated of 1962 that he is a soldier, doing his service during 1962-1963. His post (in Hebrew) explains it in more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscheimann (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

1949 for sure Sokuya (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This section says the following.

"Netanyahu was born in 1949 in Tel Aviv, Israel, to an Israeli-born mother, Tzila Segal (28 August 1912 – 31 January 2000) and a Warsaw-born father, Prof. Benzion Netanyahu (1910–2012), the middle of three children. He discovered via a DNA test that he has some Sephardi Jewish ancestry."

In 1912 there was no State of Israel. There was not a British Mandatory Palestine.Tzila Segal was born in Ottoman Palestine.

The terms "Sephardi" and "Ashkenazi" refer to liturgies. They should not be used ethnographically. I consider some of my ancestors that practised Judaism in the Ukraine to have been ethnically Slavo-Turk (a term used by Tel-Aviv University professor Paul Wexler). Some of my other ancestors in the Ukraine were religious Jews that migrated to the Ukraine from Pontus. They were obviously non-Slavo-Turk. (They had to learn to speak Yiddish.) They were originally Pontic Greek speakers. They might be better described ethnically as Pontic, Ionic, or Yavanic. (I have seen all three terms used.) The Czarist Empire and historic Poland hosted Jewish communities of several different ethnicities although the Slavo-Turk ethnicity predominated. None of these communities had any roots in the Ibero-Berber Jewish population that left Spain although there were a few Ibero-Berber Jews that are documented to have migrated into Polish and Czarist regions. In any case, DNA tests don't show ancestry they show affinity between an individual's DNA make-up and an alleged typical profile for an often ill-defined population group.

ThorsProvoni (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Request for your opinion on a dispute in the Hebrew version of this Article

infobox clarity

Infobox Picture

inappropriate use of html markup in cs1|2 templates

With this edit, Editor Anomalocaris has improperly added html markup to |title= in this {{cite news}} template:

{{cite news |date=13 September 2013 |url=https://news.walla.co.il/item/2677526 |<!--script-title is proper but it messes up mixtures of Hebrew and digits for Firefox users-->title=<bdi lang="he" dir="rtl">40 שנה לאחור: היכן היו אז, המנהיגים של היום?</bdi>|language=he |trans-title=40 years ago: where were the leaders of today? |publisher=[[Walla!]]}}

cs1|2 templates produce metadata for use by reference management software. Adding extraneous html markup to parameter values contaminates that metadata. The metadata for this citation as Editor Anomalocaris has written it contains this (emphasis added and a random number of the actual title characters removed for clarity):

&rft.atitle=%3Cbdi+lang%3D%22he%22+dir%3D%22rtl%22%3E40+%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8%3A+...+%D7%A9%D7%9C+%D7%94%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D%3F%3C%2Fbdi%3E

– spaces are +, non-Latin UTF-8 characters and reserved characters (<, /, >, etc) are percent encoded

The <bdi lang="he" dir="rtl">...</bdi> tags do not belong in |title= nor do their percent-encoded counterparts belong in the metadata.

cs1|2 has a parameter that is specifically designed for non-Latin scripts: |script-title=. That parameter should be used with Hebrew-script titles. The claim from the edit summary that script-title with rtl languages and digits looks terrible in Firefox... may be indicative of a failing in Firefox for which cs1|2 should not be held accountable. cs1|2 wraps any value assigned to |script-title= in <bdi lang="xx">...</bdi> tags (where xx is the language ISO 639-1 code; in this case he). It does not set the dir= attribute because, for <bdi>, the default is auto which allows the browser to decide for itself what to do with the tag contents.

The remainder of the edit summary, ... and substituting title simply adds harmless quote marks, as explained above is not true.

The cs1|2 templates are responsible for the rendering and presentation of citation elements. Editors should not interfere with that by including extraneous markup. Instead of adding markup that 'fixes' one thing but 'breaks' another, the correct solution is to fix the template (if it can be shown that it is broken), or, perhaps in this case, to fix the browser, or to not use the cs1|2 templates – they are after all, general purpose templates that are great for the majority of en.wiki's citation needs but are not and will not be perfect for every use case.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this the israeli national anthem?

External links modified (January 2018)

Unexplained edit

Cleanup of ministerial roles in infobox

Article mentions "war criminal" only once!!

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Benjamin Netanyahu

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2019

indictments

Otzma Yehudit

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 , 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

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 , 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 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 . 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. Zero^talk 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

Statements about Arabs as second class citizens

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

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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 08:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2019

Infobox - Permanent Representative to UN section

Philadelphian Accent

Harvard?

The page says that he completed a thesis at Harvard while taking courses at MIT. It also says that Harvard is his Alma Mater. These are not supported by the sources.

It appears that he did take a graduate level course at Harvard while attending MIT, where he wrote a somewhat prophetic paper.

I think we should definitely remove the word thesis, and we should definitely not list Harvard as his Alma Mater.

I would also suggest rewriting that entire sentence to more consistent with the source and removing Harvard entirely. It is quite common for MIT and Harvard students to cross register, and the location of one course (out of about 60 apparently) is not as significant as which specific degrees he earned, etc.

EntropyTV (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this suggested edit. The quote from the MIT News article cited says, "Mr. Netanyahu also wrote a paper for a graduate level course at Harvard in 1973 on a prophetic subject-the prospects for an Arab-Israeli pluralistic security community." ^[1]

Also please add the following crucial information at the end of this section:

On 15 September 2020 the United Arab Emirates and Bahrein established diplomatic relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords.^[2]

A million thanks. Bye for now.--I say your name Yag (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

[1]
http://news.mit.edu/1996/netanyahu-0605 <ref> Heyamishgirl (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

This edit request to Benjamin Netanyahu has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Someone erroneous wrote that Netanyahu became the longest serving "on July 21" so it was correctly updated to "In July." In fact, on July 19, at 4,875 days as PM, Netanyahu tied Ben Gurion as longest serving and on July 20, Netanyahu became the recordholder at 4,876 days as PM. See List of Prime Ministers of Israel talk page "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2019" for breakdown that shows July 20 as the day. Please update the follwoing to reflect historic day. PLEASE CHANGE CURRENT: In July 2019, Netanyahu overtook Ben-Gurion to become the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history. TO CORRECT: On July 20, 2019, Netanyahu overtook Ben-Gurion to become the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history. Shemtov613 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Done Highway 89 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Update on Benny Gantz mandate
The sentence " If Gantz succeeds doing so, he will likely replace Netanyahu as Prime Minister." is no longer relevant, as Benny Gantz did not succeed in forming a government. I'd suggest this part should be removed as now it is very unpredictable and caotic and nobody knows who will "likely" replace Netanyahu and if this will even happen in the near future. Or it could just reflect the current situation (the 21 day period), but inn any case that sentence shouldn't be here as is 2A02:ED0:6D11:2D00:610A:3AE7:847F:E27A (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Bill of indictment
He is accused and will be judged. It should be mentioned
It's already mentioned in the intro and here:Benjamin Netanyahu#Criminal investigations and indictment. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Can page protection be reduced to semi

This edit request to Benjamin Netanyahu has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
not about conflict so...Gale5050 (talk)also what about interkorean conflictGale5050 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Gale5050 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No, but you are free to suggest edits here. nableezy - 02:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Full name
Benjamin Ben Bentzion Netanyahu is his full name, as seen on the bill of indictment released November 21. Tcrvocbth (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
In bills of indictment filed in Israel it is customary to follow the defendants' first name with the word "ben"(=son of) and their father's name, before the surname. Bentzion is indeed Binyamin's father's name, and therefore "ben Bentzion" is not his middle name (as far as I know, he does not have one, as many Isrealis do not). You can see the names of the other three defendants listed the same way. I do wonder though if his nickname Bibi should not be written as part of his name in the opening sentence, alongside the side bar, since it is mentioned later in a quote... --כרסומת (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Heads of regimes who were later imprisoned
Why does this article have the category? Netanyahu has not been imprisoned yet, and we do not know whether the politician—who is still the prime minister of Israel—will be convicted of the charges or acquitted. Free Media Kid! 00:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

This edit request to Benjamin Netanyahu has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following: הוא נחשב לאדם נבון, אך בעל דרכים מושחתות לחלוטין. תמיד החניף לחזקים ממנו כדי שיעניקו לו מחסדיו, ובמיוחד לשליט המעצמה האימתנית שמעבר לים. את משכנו קבע בקיסריה אשר על הים. עד מהרה יצא שמו למרחוק כחובב שוחד ושלמונים. הוא ניצל את מעמדו כדי לבזוז את הקופה הציבורית, לדרוש עמלות לעצמו ולמקורביו מעסקאות ציבוריות וממשלתיות ולהתקרב לאנשי עסקים עשירים. היסטוריון חשוב קבע שהסלידה הציבורית ממנו הגיעו לממדים כאלה שבעיני רבים נחשב לגרוע אף מקודמו, שליט מושחת מתועד היטב שרבים סברו כי הביא את השלטון לשפל תחתיות. אבל הוא הוכיח שאפשר גם להיות גרוע יותר. הוא שיסה קבוצות דתיות אלה באלה, האשים מתנגדים פוליטיים בבגידה והיטה חסד לאלה שהחניפו לו יותר מאחרים והעבירו מתנות ודורונים לו ולבני ביתו. באחד המקרים הורה לבזוז כספי ציבור שיועדו למטרות מקודשות. בתגובה לעגנית יצאו תושבים מזועזעים במחאה תוך שהם מבקשים לאסוף עבורו תרומות כדי לסייע לו במצוקתו ובעוניו - על אף שכולם ידעו כי הוא עשיר מופלג. הוא הורה לחייליו לפרוע בהמון הלועגים. סופו של דבר פרץ נגדו מרד והוא גורש מירושלים ולא חזר אליה יותר מעולם, בדומה לגסיוס פלורוס, נציב רומא ביהודה בשניפ 64-66 לספירה. 109.67.250.129 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Roughly translated from Hebrew:

He is considered a wise man, but with totally corrupt ways. He was always flattered by his strength to grant him his mercy, especially the formidable ruler of the Overseas Power.

He set his abode in Caesarea on the sea. Soon his name went out in the distance as a bribery and obituary. He took advantage of his position to loot the public coffers, demand commissions for himself and his associates from public and government deals and get close to wealthy businessmen. An important historian has ruled that public aversion to it reached such dimensions that many consider to be even worse than its predecessor, a well-documented corrupt ruler who believed that the government had lowered its power. But he proved it could also be worse.

He shunned these religious groups, blamed political opponents for betrayal, and pardoned those who flattered him more than others and passed on gifts and gifts to him and his household. In one case he was ordered to plunder public funds for sacred purposes. In a mournful response, residents were shocked by the protest, seeking to raise donations for him to help him in his plight and poverty - even though everyone knew he was a wealthy rich. He ordered his soldiers to riot in the mass of mockers.

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Also, please furnish reliable sources for your proposed changes. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 21:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
roughly translated:

לא נעשה כרגע: אנא קבע קונצנזוס עבור שינוי זה לפני שתשתמש בתבנית {{ערוך מוגן מוגן}}. בנוסף, אנא ספק מקורות אמינים לשינויים המוצעים שלך. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim that he participated in Inferno (Karameh) Operation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is an unsourced claim that he took part in Operation Inferno. His unit did not take part in the battle and nowhere else did I see this claim mentioned. suggest removing it. Haparsi (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Done I checked the sources provided, and they made no reference to Operation Inferno. If someone can provide sources, the text can be restored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Trump of israel" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump of israel. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Trump of israel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In this section, next to where it says "On 10 September 2019, Netanyahu pledged to annex part of the occupied West Bank on the border with Jordan if re-elected the following week. He vowed to apply "Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea".", add the following without the need for a separate paragraph: However, no party was able to form a government after elections. Consequently it was determined on 12 December that a third election would take place on 2 March 2020.<ref>"Israel calls another election for March 2, the third in a year". The Times of Israel. 12 December 2019.
[2]
"In break with past, UAE and Bahrain forge ties with Israel at White House". Reuters. September 15, 2020.

Partly done: The section for the former request was removed per WP:NOTNEWS and having been overcome by later events. The latter request has already been added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Update on Benny Gantz mandate

Bill of indictment

Can page protection be reduced to semi

Full name

Category:Heads of regimes who were later imprisoned

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Dubious claim that he participated in Inferno (Karameh) Operation

"Trump of israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Related Articles