Talk:2023 Israeli judicial reform/Archive 1

Link to full text of changes is missing

To have any constructive conversation about these changes, it is necessary to have access to the full text of proposed changes. Ideally in English, but at least in Hebrew. 74.83.104.136 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Under construction"

When will it be constructed? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ozerkatanmeod, I've removed all instances of "Under construction". Misha Wolf (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Great, the page looks amazing! Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Two suggestions

1) "that they wrongly argue selects its own members " - I suggest to erase the word "wrongly" becuase as explain in the following sections the judges do have a significant weight in electing themselves

2) "Under Israel's current constitutional framework" - I suggest to change the word "consitutional" with "legal" because, as well known, Israel has no constitution and as explained below the High Court gave to itself the right to review parliament legislation

I'm not editing the text by myself because I know that this is a debated topic and I'd like to see what others think

173.164.51.27 (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of Left-wing anti-conservative Bias

I don’t know anything about this topic. However, there is a lift of 20+ people/arguments against the proposed bill, and not a single one defending the opposite opinion that it is a good thing. Has Wikipedia become an opinion news outlet? 132.204.243.253 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Section "Domestic reactions supporting the reforms" lists two supporting opinions. Section "International reactions supporting the reforms" lists one supporting opinion. Speaking for myself (as I can't speak for anyone else), I am including all notable opinions I find, regardless of which side of the argument they are supporting. The imbalance of views cited reflects, I believe, the situation in which the coalition has the power to get these changes through the Knesset, so it is the people who are opposed to these changes who are speaking up. There is no need for the supporters of the changes to speak up as they are getting what they want. This is, I believe, how things usually work, both in the real World and in Wikipedia. Take a look at section "Response" of Wikipedia article Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. You will see that almost every response listed there is critical of the Act. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The most important point to be aware of is that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers and that anyone at all, who has Internet access, can contribute. So if anyone becomes aware of a notable response that supports these changes which is not currently described in the article, I urge them to add the details to the article. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to draw your attention to a closely related article, 2023 Israeli anti-Judicial reform protests. While the article that this Talk page belongs to limits itself almost exclusively to spoken and written objections to the proposed changes, the article 2023 Israeli anti-Judicial reform protests describes (some of the) mass protests in the streets against the changes. Why, might you ask, isn't there a parallel article describing large crowds supporting the changes? Because, to my knowledge, such events have not taken place. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Untrue. Wikipedia is heavily administrated and anything that runs afoul of their left wing views will be edited out. 185.182.71.19 (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There are many people who spoke in favour of (usually parts of) the reform, or against the arguments against it.

I don't know english well enough to edit the main text but I give few examples for those who want to extend it.

===Yaron Zelika (former main accountant of Israel) said some times that the warns from economic damage are exhausted.===

https://www.inn.co.il/news/590214

===100 professors support the reform===

https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1514845

===20 rabbies support the reform===

https://mobile.srugim.co.il/article/765992

https://www.israelhayom.co.il/judaism/judaism-news/article/13714432

===2 banks said the reform is not expected to hurm a lot in the economy===

https://www.bizportal.co.il/capitalmarket/news/article/811558

===prof uman, winner of nobel prize in economy=== says the economy risk is because of the warns and support the reform (with exceptions)

https://www.gly.co.il/item?id=21948 2A01:6500:A109:6384:8942:9480:290:A03C (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Misha, perceive that your editing is both competent and in apparently uncorrupted good faith. As a newcomer to this article and subject matter, I'm somewhat surprised by this. It has been a rarity on Wikipedia, in my experience, and that sad fact has led me to give up and avoid editing much on current politics and governance, opting for history, science, and philosophy instead. it seems that my experience may not be not unique.

I will consider stipulating with your points made both here and in the section below, #"The neutrality of this section is disputed", that supporters may be silent because they have no need to speak out; they are getting what they want. It does seem to be the case that this preponderance of opposition opinion is found on similar wikipedia articles about other "conservative" enactments by governments around the world.

If a similar preponderance of opposition opinion is found on articles about "liberalizing" enactments by governments, then we may conclude that it is in the nature of humans affairs to be this way. If on the other hand, that preponderance is not found, we may reasonably conclude that there is anti-conservative WP:Systemic bias on wikipedia, and that this perhaps derives from bias in the mainstream media, or from what is received here per our guidelines on WP:Reliable sources. As there are social scientists who study wikipedia, (including some at WMF, who are paid to do it) I will leave this investigative experiment as open exercise for the reader. Please share your findings, if you have any.

If so, such systemic anti-conservative bias would be distinct from a particularly Anti-Jewish bias I alleged below, but it may or may not be related.

However I hasten to add that this article is not worse than any others, and possibly quite a bit better.

Have a good weekend, all. Kind regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Laila tov. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

YES. Wikipedia is an extreme far left wing opinion outlet as is clearly evident to anybody who has been following it's trajectory for the last few years. 185.182.71.19 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it the reform is a good thing, the court is unelected, and obviously discriminates (i live in Israeli know), the reason your not seeing any defence is because the opposition are turning to forums like this, and protests to try further their cause, whereas the people backing the reforms already voiced their opinions in the last general election. 185.182.71.37 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Progress of each proposal through the Knesset etc

Hi @MarkBen1984 and other fellow-editors. I've been wondering how we should document the progress of these proposals through the Knesset (and, possibly, the courts). How about something like section Passage of article Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022? If we adopt this kind of approach, we need to decide whether to have a separate section to track the progress of each proposal or whether to track them all in one section. In any event, we should agree on a structure for this information before putting too much effort into writing it. BTW, I don't think that this text is quite accurate: "bills advancing the reforms were passed for first reading". AFAIK, only two of the proposals were involved at this stage, so we should make this clear. Also, while I'm not an expert, by any means, on parliamentary procedure, I think that it would be best to spell out what happened, namely that the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee passed two of the proposals, which will next go to the full Knesset for discussion. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Misha. Thanks for writing and thanks for raising these important points for discussion. I agree with both your proposals - the Passage section you linked to is a good way to present the information. I do think each element of the reform should be reported on separately, because - as you note - they are being advanced separately. Do you have an idea for how/if you'd like to divide up the work? At the moment I'm getting hold of the actual bills that were voted on today and then I can clarify that sentence you mentioned. MarkBen1984 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, that's great.

I've been thinking about a name for these sections. Though the article I mentioned uses "Passage" for this purpose, I'd rather avoid that name for a number of reasons, such as: (1) If one (or more) of the proposals is passed by the Knesset but then rejected by the Supreme Court, then the word "passage" becomes problematic, (2) The proposals (or some of them) may not pass, so calling the sections "Passage" might turn out to be inaccurate. How about "Chronology"?

Re the content of these new sections, I suggest that it be minimal and objective, eg "On 13 February 2023, X was approved by the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee". Oh, looking at section Passage of article Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, I see that they included some background information, eg:

The Lords subsequently rejected many of the bill's key provisions, with one peer branding the restrictions on protests "repressive" and "nasty".

Re the division of labo[u]r, I'd like you (or someone else) to create and write these new sections. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

Hi again @MarkBen1984. I believe that you added the underline attribute to some of the headings recently, presumably to make it easier for readers to navigate through the article, and then someone removed those underlines. How about this approach to improving navigation:

1. We add a section 1.3 (under "Background"), called something like "Processes and functions affected by the proposed changes". In there, we use a bulleted list to present the six things impacted (Judicial selection, etc). For each thing, we give a one-sentence description of what that thing is, not what its current status is, not what the proposed change is, and not what anyone thinks of the proposed change. So maybe something like "Judicial selection: How judges are appointed."

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the Judicial selection proposal would affect the process of appointing judges to all courts, not just the Supreme Court. The article seems to currently imply that the proposed changes would affect only the Supreme Court.

2. We end this section with something like: "The following sections provide additional information about each of the above."

3. We remove the existing heading "2 The proposed changes".

4. We move its children and grandchildren up one level.

5. We add the new section ("Chronology"?) to each of the six branches. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I had done something similar (ie raised the level of the headings) with the sections describing reactions to the proposals. I now see that someone has reversed those changes. So I guess that such an approach is not popular and that we should not undertake such a restructuring. Misha Wolf (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all of this! Only issue is - some of the changes are being progressed through different bills. Eg the change to the judicial selection committee is made on one level in the Basic Law: The Judiciary, but is also being amended in the Courts Law 1984 - such that if one element is moving forward and another isn't, it may cause some difficulty with this structure. But I think we can start and see how it goes. MarkBen1984 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@MarkBen1984, as you say, let's see how we get on. Please note, though, that I am no longer proposing the removal of heading "2 The proposed changes" for the reason given above. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Related entries

Hi @ Misha Wolf and others, do you think we should update related wikis with a reference to this issue? Eg in Netanyahu's wiki, there are sections on his views on economics, peace process, relationships with other countries, etc, but nothing about the current topic. I can't edit it due to restrictions on the wiki.

Other relevant wikis to link to could be the Knesset, the Judiciary of Israel, Yariv Levin... MarkBen1984 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, that seems sensible (if you and/or someone else have the time to do that work). To request an edit to the Benjamin Netanayhu article, use the article's Talk page. Add a new topic, like the one titled "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023" and describe the change(s) you propose. The instructions are available at Logging and edit requests. I've never done this but it seems to work, judging by the 14 Feb request, which is marked as "Done". Misha Wolf (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "While the U.S. ambassador in Israel Tom Nides reacted to Herzog's speech, others reffered to by protest leaders as "surrendering proposal".

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, I'm going to remove this sentence (which you added today) for two reasons:

• I don't understand the sentence.
• I don't think that this information is sufficiently important to be included in the introduction to the article.

Do you have any comments on this? Misha Wolf (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I was going to post something similar because I also don't understand the sentence. I support your removal until Amir explains what was meant by that. Red Slapper (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a debate on whether or not the president's offer is a compromise or an act of pinkwashing the reform. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "whitewashing". I don;t see what Videos has to do with it, but if you want to add a sentence that says something like "there's a debate whether the President's offer is a compromise or a whitewash" (with a source), I'd be ok with that. Red Slapper (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi and @Red Slapper, I think that this information is not sufficiently important to go into the article's introduction but it could be added to section President of Israel. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Shall I insert it? Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. Red Slapper (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, a few requests:

• Please make clear whether Tom Nides's response was positive or negative, eg by the use of "reacted positively" or "reacted negatively".
• The meaning of the text others reffered to by protest leaders as "surrendering proposal" is unclear, so please improve it.
• Please cite sources for both statements.

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Amir Segev Sarusi, thinking about this further, I think that including this level of detail would not be helpful. Though it's important that the Wikipedia article include information about reactions to the government's plan, the inclusion of information about reactions to other people's reactions would be excessive. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not reations to other peoples reaction, these are two independent reactions to Herzog's proposal. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, what I meant is that Herzog's proposal is a reaction to the government's plans. So any comments on Herzog's proposal are a reaction to a reaction. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Not quite. There's a debate about whether or not the "reforms" are a matter of legitimate public debate or not. When putting Herzog's proposal without explaining it is contested, you don't receive a full and neutral picture. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring

Hi everyone, as these reforms progress individually through the legislative bodies (and then assumedly the courts...), it will become harder to update this page, and it will become longer and more complex. What do you think of making this page a general overview of the reforms as a package, and then creating new pages for each element of the reform, cutting the detail that's already in here for each element and pasting it in its own independent entry? MarkBen1984 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think some restructuring is due, but not necessarily the above suggestion. They are all part of the same reform, and it makes sense to have a single article about it and them. If any one of these becomes its own law, we might have an article about it.

But I do think we should stop adding every single commentary (for or against) about the reform, to keep the article concise and avoid undue weight. Lior Schleien, a TV personality is against - so what? Did he advance a novel argument against it? Red Slapper (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not keen for there to be a restructuring of the article at this stage, though I do still think that we need a section called something like Chronology for each of the major branches of the proposed 'reform', to track its progress through Knesset committees and the plenum.

I've removed the TV personalities section as per @Red Slapper's point. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@MarkBen1984, I am with you, times ten! I find the article to be aimed at people very familiar with Israeli law and politics, and therefore of no use to me. I'll read the NYTimes articles instead. The impression I get of the article is a "wall o' text", punctuated by sizeable blockquotes, written by and for legal/Israel insiders. Utterly useless for me, a (U.S.) person who reads widely. The main problem for me is the "insider" perspective and the Talmudic level of detail which results. It isn't quite encyclopedic. Might be fine translated into Hebrew for he.wikipedia.

I'm not suggesting a rewrite, nor even the reorganization you propose (although I fully support it), but, rather the addition of 1) more structure, in the form of sub-sub-sections to enable easier parsing, and 2) graphical aids, including timelines, tables, charts, etc. to give "average readers" something concrete to hold on to. My second suggestion would apply regardless of whether your proposal is realized.-- Quisqualis (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Guardian Article

The article is from 2017, so it is obviously not related to the 2023 judicial reform proposal. Needless to say, it does not make the argument that the position of the supporters of the 2023 reforms is "fallacious". Rather, it is you, a Wikipedia editor, looking at those 2017 events and concluding that they refute the supporter's 2023 argument. That is original research by you, which is not allowed. I am not even getting into the fact that you seem to misunderstand the nature of the supporter's argument, and that these 2017 events do not contradict it. Red Slapper (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you are saying now. In the same logic then, the reference to the 61 judges appointed in the previous government should also be removed, right? MarkBen1984 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I saw a reference to those 61 in a recent article that mentioned it in the context of the reform, but I agree it is not sourced now, and if I can't find the source, it should be removed. Red Slapper (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok , I found it, it is here - https://mida.org.il/2023/02/20/%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%93%d7%91%d7%a8-%d7%9c%d7%90-%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%a2-%d7%90%d7%95%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%a0%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a9-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%90/ , I will add it Red Slapper (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's also just citing to a statement made by that academic, without referring to any underlying objective source (such as the committee's press release or court press release), and also doesn't provide detail why the opposition allegedly wasn't involved in the decisions. Unless we can provide primary sources and full detail, I believe it should be removed. MarkBen1984 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that is the position of the reforms's primary proponent, Minster of Justice Yariv Levin. It is relevant and well sourced. Primary sources are discouraged here. Red Slapper (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Placement of section "President of Israel" within the section hierarchy

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, I was examining the section hierarchy and discovered that, in your recent edits, you moved section "President of Israel" from being a child of section "In opposition" to being a child of section "Domestic reactions". You explained this change by writing "The president's proposal is not part of the opposition by any means." Before your edit, the child sections of "Domestic reactions" were "In opposition" and "In support". Placing something under heading "In opposition" does not mean that the person or organization being described there is part of the opposition. It simply means that the person or organization being described there has expressed their opposition to some or all of the proposed changes. I have restored the section hierarchy to what it was before your change. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You should not have restored the hierarchy. The president's opinion is not "in the opposition" of the reform, as I have well established. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, the top-level sections of the article are:

• Background
• The proposed changes
• Opinion polls
• Domestic reactions
• International reactions

Each of the last two divides into:

• In opposition
• In support

And each of those sections lists reactions that are in opposition to the coalition's actions or in support of the coalition's actions. They list reactions, not motives, tactics, etc. They list reactions, not people or groups. Reactions are spoken or written words, or something more dramatic like resignations.

The quotes from Herzog that are included in the first paragraph of section "President of Israel" are clearly in opposition to the coalition's actions. That is why they are included under the heading "In opposition". That does not mean that Herzog either supports or doesn't support the coalition's actions.

Consider Moshe Koppel, the head of the Kohelet Policy Forum, which has advocated many of the changes the coalition is advancing through the Knesset. His statement criticizing the override clause is included is section "In opposition" (see "Others"). Does that mean that he is a part of the "opposition"?. No. It simply means that he made a statement that is opposed to that clause.

As the term "in opposition" seems to be causing problems, I'll try to think of a different title for those sections. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the headings:

• In opposition
• In support

to:

• Opposing the changes
• Supporting the changes

Misha Wolf (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The president's reaction is not "clearly opposing the coalition", quite the contrary to say the least. Amir thoroughly demonstrated that such a conclusion is debated (and personally I believe it very much the opposite. The president accepts the reform's logic and most of it's terms). Hila Livne (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hila Livne, Wikipedia documents verifiable facts, not opinions. The words quoted in the first paragraph under the heading "President of Israel" are, as I said above, clearly in opposition to the coalition's actions. If you disagree, please explain how the quoted words can be interpreted as supporting the coalition's actions. If your argument is based on some other verifiable facts, then please provide them. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I provided a lot of information explaining that the president's offer is by no means part of the opposition to the reform. It deserves its own section, as I wrote. Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Amir Segev Sarusi, I have explained that it makes no difference whether or not the president's offer is considered to be part of the opposition to the reform. The sections listing reactions are purely factual. They do not depend on who is part of what. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: If you know of verifiable facts which support you position, please share them. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have further tweaked the headings to make it even clearer that the corresponding sections describe reactions, not other factors. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hila. The president said: רפורמה היא גם בסיס לשינוי מבורך, לצמיחה. להתאמה למציאות (Reform is also a basis for a blessed change, for growth. For adjustment to the reality). Perhaps, if the sections "In opposition" and "In support" don't mean that who appears in them is in opposition or support (I understand that according to what was said here about Moshe Koppel), this division is redundant. פעמי-עליון (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @פעמי-עליון, the division is not redundant. Wikipedia publishes verifiable facts, such as quotes which appear in reputable sources. As long as we don't have access to technology which would be able to see inside someone's brain and tell us what their thinking is, we can't make lists of people or organisations which support or oppose the government's proposals. We can only make lists of what they say/write/do.

As multiple Wikipedia editors have argued here that the placement of the sub-section describing Herzog's (re-)actions is misleading, I have moved it.

Regarding any statements Herzog has made that support the government's plan, please add the appropriate quote(s) to the article. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I see now, thank you! פעמי-עליון (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that some of the reactions are not clearly supporting or opposing (such as the reaction of the president of Israel), I suggest to have three sections: (1) Supporting the changes (2) Opposing the changes (3) Attempts for compromise Derdikman (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Derdikman, whether or not the President's (re-)actions are attempts at compromise is a matter of opinion. There are those who describe them as attempts at compromise and there are others, who do not. If we used a section heading such as "Attempts at compromise", we would be taking sides.

So I've moved sub-section "President of Israel" out of section "Reactions opposing the changes" and renamed it to "Reactions of the President of Israel".

I've also added some text to the introduction to section "Domestic reactions", explaining this section's structure. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Enlarge the scope of the article?

There appears to be some desire for the article to include (some) reactions to reactions. For an example, see the second paragraph of section "President of Israel" and related discussions on this Talk page. If we were to go down this road, we would need to adjust the article's structure somehow. What do others think about this? Misha Wolf (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The new section "Ancillary changes" doesn't belong in this article

Hi @François Robere, thanks for lots of great additions to the article! Having said that, I disagree with the introduction of the new section "Ancillary changes", which describes a number of initiatives of the new government which do not fall under the heading of "judicial reform". You write that they "were seen by outside observers as related to those proposed by the government".

What does "related" mean in this context? As I see it, they are related in that they too would move Israel in the Hungarian direction, but are not related in that they are not concerned with the legal system. Well, there is one exception, which is the item about Rabbinical courts, but even there I don't agree with its inclusion in this article.

This government is introducing many measures which, if implemented, would position Israel among the countries practicing Electoral authoritarianism. The (so called) judicial reform is one of them, possibly the most important one. But including all of them in this article is not good structuring of information as all they have in common is that they are measures being introduced by this government which would most probably not have been introduced by previous governments and which move Israel towards Electoral authoritarianism.

I suggest that a new article be created encompassing all of these matters and that this current article be used solely for content which aligns with its name ("2023 Israeli judicial reform"). The new article would summarise the "2023 Israeli judicial reform" but would leave this article to put the flesh on the bones (my apologies to vegetarian readers). I have no idea what such a new article would be called, but I'm sure that we could converge on a sensible name.

Please could others contribute to this discussion.

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Misha,

Thanks for your comment. The gist of the argument is such: during the coalition negotiations it was agreed that the new government will promote a host of changes that will expand the role of religion - specifically Haredi Judaism and Religious Zionism - in the public space. These changes are widely seen as harmful to women and minorities - in fact, MKs from the religious parties have stated as much - and in the past would've been struck down by the Supreme Court / High Court of Justice. Now the coalition is pushing those changes along with the "reform" as part of a single legislative blitz: clipping the court's "wings" and passing the legislation it would've otherwise struck down at the same time. The proposals regarding the CBS and the National Library (along with a few others) are seen as part of the same "power grab", even if they're not part of the "reform".

I hoped the quotes in that section and throughout the body would make the connection clear, but you're right that it may be better to split the above to a different article. The question is: how exactly do we do the split, seeing as the protests and much of the commentary are against both? François Robere (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, those are good points, but we have to find a way. There are lots of other related developments, including the changes to the administration of the West Bank, the proposed restrictions on the right to strike, the proposed changes to the use of the death penalty, the proposed changes to the Law of Return, the proposed restrictions on artistic works seen as disloyal, the proposed expulsion of "disloyal" Arab citizens, and so on. It wouldn't make sense to write about them all in this one article. I wonder whether we can find any other (groups of) articles that tackle similarly complex scenarios. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I left a message on WP:CEN. François Robere (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Misha Wolf (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, in the absence of any suggestions from WP:CEN, how shall we move forward? Are you aware of any similarly complex cases in Wikipedia? There must be many but I haven't found one. Articles like Thirty-seventh government of Israel don't seem to be used to describe actions of the government. Misha Wolf (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I noticed. Just posted at WikiProject Politics as well - maybe they'll have something.

Perhaps split into "2023 Israeli government reforms"? The existing article will focus on the judicial change proposals and their criticisms, and the overview article will contain everything else, including any criticisms that refer to other proposals. François Robere (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, I think that a new, broader, article is needed but we need to be careful with the name, so that we don't get into the same situation again, with important developments seeming to fall outside the scope of the article. Maybe we should start by agreeing on a list of topics to be included and then move on to discussion of the name. BTW, I think that the overview article would need a paragraph about the judicial reforms, with a "main article" link to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform article. Here are some suggested topics:

• the judicial reform
• changing the balance between ultra-religious Jews and other Israeli citizens
  • the proposed changes to the powers of Rabbinical courts
  • the proposed changes to the Law of Return
  • the proposal to further weaken the requirement for Haredi men to undergo military service
  • the proposed increased funding of Haredi institutions
  • the proposed hospital Chametz ban
• the attempts to control the flow of information
  • the National Statistician controversy
  • the National Library of Israel controversy
  • the proposal to close down KAN
  • the threat to not advertise in Haaretz
• Israel/Palestine
  • the changes to the administration of the West Bank
  • the increase in the number of authorised settlements and housing units
  • the moves towards annexation
  • the responses of government ministers and MKs to the Huwara rampage
  • the proposed expulsion of "disloyal" Arab citizens
  • the proposed changes to the use of the death penalty (applicable, probably, to Arabs only)
• the proposed weakening of the status of women
  • this includes the proposed changes to the powers of Rabbinical courts mentioned above
  • increasing gender segregation in the public sphere
  • resisting initiatives combating violence against women in the name of preserving male authority in the home
• the proposed restrictions on LGBTQ people
• miscellaneous restrictions on civil liberties
  • the proposed restrictions on the right to strike
  • the proposed restrictions on artistic works seen as disloyal

Misha Wolf (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'm trying to sketch a scope for the article. I'm not suggesting that every one of the above topics must be included. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good selection, and a "see main" link is exactly what I was thinking. I'll start working on it as soon as I have the time. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So what about the name of the new article? You suggested "2023 Israeli government reforms" but I don't think that the word "reforms" accurately describes all of these. Does that matter?

Can you think of other cases where a new government of some country made sweeping changes to the status quo? It would be useful to see how articles about such changes have been named and structured. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've found these articles, but none of them is a perfect match for the current situation in Israel:

• 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état
• Iranian Revolution
• Consolidation of the Iranian Revolution
• Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)
• Augusto Pinochet
• Government Junta of Chile (1973)

Misha Wolf (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere, the more I think about it, the more I favo[u]r including this information in the existing article Thirty-seventh government of Israel. This approach would avoid us having to create a new article and agree a name for the new article. I think that all candidate names would prove to be controversial. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we add a new top-level section called "Controversies" to article Thirty-seventh government of Israel, straight after section "Principles and priorities", and place the content there. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere and others, what do you think of that suggestion? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's also a perfectly valid option, and definitely easier. I actually started working on that earlier today, but had to pause for some other things. I assume you have that article in your watchlist as well? François Robere (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Yes, that article is on my watchlist. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Hi @François Robere, Bloomberg has played so many different roles that it's hard to know how to classify him, and it may be that "Others" is the best choice. But shouldn't that sub-section be placed at the end of section 5.1? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad, yes. I'm still getting used to the "visual editor".

FYI, the recent version of the "Vector" skin doesn't show section numbers in the TOC, so not everyone may understand.

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised that, as I'm always logged in, but I've just checked using a different browser and see that the section numbers have gone AWOL. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Orthodox Union reactions

Hi @Jaredscribe, I've managed to find one, brief, statement from the Orthodox Union about this matter and have added it to the article. Consequently, I've removed the section and notice about the absence of information about the OU's reaction. As the OU is intentionally not revealing much (see Hauer's statement), it is not possible to write much. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jaredscribe (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasidic groups reactions

Hi @Jaredscribe, I've searched for reactions from Hasidic groups outside Israel and couldn't find any. If you know how to find them, please let me know. If not, I propose to remove the notice about the absence of such reactions. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I've removed the section heading "Hasidic groups reactions", as well as the accompanying notice, as a serious effort to find sources describing the reactions of Hasidic groups outside of Israel has not yielded any results. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for making good-faith effort. We can add later if they are found. It was in order to break the ice that I was WP:Bold to add the section. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

:) Misha Wolf (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this section is disputed"

Hi @Jaredscribe, please could you explain your reasoning for inserting, at the head of the "International reactions" section, the notice saying that "The neutrality of this section is disputed". Given that these are reactions, a lack of neutrality can only be caused by excluding reactions which support the changes or by including such reactions and treating them less favo[u]rably than reactions which oppose the changes.

Tackling the second point first, I agree that the Epstein/Raskin item was too terse and have considerably expanded it. I should explain that this item was the very first international reaction included in the article (see [old version]) and so whoever wrote it didn't treat it less favo[u]rably than other reactions (as there were no other reactions at that point). Neither I, nor any of the other editors, expanded it in the light of the subsequent evolution of the article, which was - I agree - a mistake (since corrected).

Turning to the first point, while there is probably a large amount of commentary within Israel that supports the proposed changes, there is (AFAICS) not much such commentary outside of Israel. I expect that the reasons for this include that supporters of the changes, who live outside Israel:

• probably don't feel much need to advocate for the changes as they seem to be proceeding without such help
• may not wish to express their positions publicly

If such public statements cannot be found, then they cannot be included in the article.

In the absence of reactions from those Jewish organisations which might be expected to support the changes, it would be interesting to see the results of opinion polling among Jews living in North America (for instance), preferably broken down by religious affiliation. I've searched for such data and haven't found any.

My conclusion is that the "International reactions" section is as neutral as we can make it, given the above.

Please also take a look at section Bias higher up on this page. Misha Wolf (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the Epstein/Raskin WSJ opinion in support - perhaps it belongs at the top rather than the bottom? It is a custom in parliamentary democracy for the government to be permitted to argue its case, before the opposition is given a response. The #Domestic reactions appropriately puts #Reactions opposing first, because statement of the #Proposed changes has already been given. Placing the the #Reactions in support last, allows them to function as a rebuttal to the opposition. This is appropriate ordering.

The #International reactions section should, perhaps be ordered in reverse - since they are not involved in the Proposal itself. Otherwise, the article conveys the impression that there is no international support and that Israel is some kind of "far-right" anti-democratic, "religious-zionist" entity operating outside of, whatever, international norms and the neoliberal consensus perhaps, or maybe just in defiance of the erstwhile Roman empire and its post-christian political theology of enlightenment rationalism. And these terms have a pejorative sense in context of this article, due to the overall the WP:Recentist bias (now partially corrected by new empty sections that I added #1992 Constitutional revolution and its discontents, which leaves one to believe that there exists no far-left, anti-Jewish, or anti-zionist parties or factions in Israel, or that these that these parties and factions shouldn't be answered. But lets address the question of those allegedly pejorative terms and context, in a separate talk page section. If the section I added remains, indicating that wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED, for now at least, I am content.

Since I've been WP:Bold to break the ice, I won't make the proposed re-arrangement myself, and I'll suggest that we give it at least three days or a week for editors to respond. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe@Misha Wolf

Hi both, I am unsure as to what is considered to be not neutral here. This entry simply lists the reactions that there have been to the proposed changes, and does not give any commentary whatsoever. As Misha says, anyone can add any additional sources for or against the proposed reforms. MarkBen1984 (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, @Jaredscribe and others. I, too, dispute the claim that the "International reactions" section (or, indeed, the article as a whole) is unbalanced. It strikes me as a case of False balance, aka bothsidesism. I believe that the article correctly reflects the balance of reactions and, as has been said here before, if anyone is aware of notable international reactions in favour of the proposed changes, which have not been included, they should add them. IMO, that notice should be removed from the article. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I'm belatedly responding to some of the points you made above. Regarding the ordering of sections containing reactions, I have no opinion on this matter, but would oppose using a different ordering for domestic and international reactions. The reason why I think that would be a bad idea is that the article is long, with many sections, and we need to make it as easy as possible for people to read it. If we changed the section ordering partway through the article, this would make it more difficult for the reader. So please tell us which order you would prefer, if it were to apply to both domestic and international reactions. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I'm continuing my response to the points you raised. Regarding WP:Recentist bias, this doesn't apply as this article is, specifically, about the events of 2023. Providing sufficient background information would, obviously, be helpful for readers and so I have no objection to the empty sections you've created, to hold such background information (when someone gets around to putting it in). Misha Wolf (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, continuing my response, I'll now try to address your words:

Otherwise, the article conveys the impression that there is no international support and that Israel is some kind of "far-right" anti-democratic, "religious-zionist" entity operating outside of, whatever, international norms and the neoliberal consensus perhaps, or maybe just in defiance of the erstwhile Roman empire and its post-christian political theology of enlightenment rationalism

Let's separate that into two parts, starting with:

Otherwise, the article conveys the impression that there is no international support

As has been stated here more than once, if you or anyone else find information about notable international support for the government's proposals which is currently not included in the article, please include it.

Now let's take a look at:

Otherwise, the article conveys the impression [...] that Israel is some kind of "far-right" anti-democratic, "religious-zionist" entity operating outside of, whatever, international norms and the neoliberal consensus perhaps, or maybe just in defiance of the erstwhile Roman empire and its post-christian political theology of enlightenment rationalism

I don't see how the article conveys anything like that. If anything, I think it conveys the very opposite. Well, unless one adheres to equations such as:

The current Israeli government = Israel

People opposed to the government's proposals ≠ Israel

I don't, and I hope that you don't either.

I perceive the richness, vitality and variety of the debate among Israelis as something very positive, which doesn't justify any of the accusations you put in the mouths of some anonymous others. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the International #Reactions opposing are too long, perhaps quotes are given in too much detail or repetition.

I should have said

Otherwise, it seems to me that article - like much mainstream media - conveys the impression [...] that the current government of Israel, if it operates outside the international norms expected of it by the former Roman imperial states of western Europe and America, will be considered an international pariah. This has the effect of subtly delegitimizing traditional and religious Jewish identity, which are the majority of Israeli society who support the current government, and especially Mizrahi and traditional Jews. Merely wanting to maintain Israel as a Jewish state, should be a mainstream position. Instead, such Jews are often considered far-right ultra-nationalists.

This strikes me as symptom of WP:Systemic bias in the mainstream media and academia which underpins our guidelines on WP:RS, where all religion has now been superceded by the political theology of enlightenment rationalism, just as christianity had once upon a time supposedly superceded judaism and replaced them as God's chosen people and light to the nations. Its not racist anti-semitism per se, because Jews are tolerated when the assimilate and 'convert', its just anti-Jewish in the traditional European manner, or tends strongly toward it at least. Jaredscribe (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to you and the other editors in the section above, which I renamed #Allegations of Left-wing anti-conservative Bias

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, of the points you made, there are two in particular that I'd like to respond to:

I consider the separation of powers to be a conservative, rather than a left-wing idea. I spent my childhood in Czechoslovakia, long before the Velvet Revolution, and there was no separation of powers there. The same applied to all other countries which at that time described themselves as either socialist or communist, and continues (IMO) to apply today to countries that describe themselves as socialist or communist. So I don't accept the idea that doing away with the separation of powers is a conservative action, nor do I accept that opposing the removal of the separation of powers is a left-wing position. I don't see what Jewish identity (whether traditional or not traditional, and Mizrahi or not) has got to do with this.

I believe in complete freedom of religious belief and of living in accordance with one's religious belief, as long as -- in doing so -- one is not harming someone else's freedom of religious belief or of living in accordance with their religious belief. Obviously, there are situations where these can come into conflict and all I can suggest is that everyone involved in such situations be respectful of others who hold different beliefs. Just as we endeavour to do here, in Wikipedia. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the label re neutrality of this section can now be removed, right? MarkBen1984 (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the one American reaction in support (WSJ) was a good start. The plan to split the article with this Draft:Reactions_to_the_2023_Israeli_judicial_reform, adequately answers my concern about WP:UNDUE weight given to international opinions, so yes. And I see you have removed it, so I think we're done here. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Kohelet Policy Forum section

Hi @Jaredscribe, I understand your reasoning for moving the Moshe Koppel item into a new section, titled "Kohelet Policy Forum", but it gives rise to some questions:

• Should we move the Michael Sarel item into this section?
• I think that the section title needs to include a verb in line with the other section titles. How about "Reactions from the Kohelet Policy Forum"?
• Where should this section be placed within the ToC?

Well, I've gone and made some structural changes, in line with WP:BOLD. What do you (and others) think of them? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Jaredscribe, I've noticed that you placed the new "Kohelet Policy Forum" section on the same level as "Reactions opposing the changes" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israeli_judicial_reform&direction=next&oldid=1143594052). Did you intend to do that? Or did you want the "Kohelet Policy Forum" section to be placed within "Reactions opposing the changes"?

In doing my latest restructuring, I assumed that you wanted the former, so I left the "Kohelet Policy Forum" section outside the "Reactions opposing the changes". But maybe that's incorrect? If it were to go inside, where should it be placed? As it is so significant, I'd prefer not to put it at the very end of "Reactions opposing the changes". Misha Wolf (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That was inadvertent on my part, but what you've done now is also adequate, IMHO, given their particularly higher level of notability. But in rearranging them to the top of #Domestic reactions, there should be more expansion of their argument in support of the government's other proposed reforms, and why they think they are necessary and good for the country. That would be giving WP:DUE weight to each side, which is an important part of our policy on neutrality. either that, or break their responsa into two sub-sections under each of #Reactions opposing, and #Reactions supporting. whatever you think is best. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I don't think that either of those actions would be appropriate as the Kohelet Policy Forum's papers form the foundation upon which the proposed changes to the judicial system have been built. Their arguments appear in section "Arguments in favor of the reform". Section "Domestic reactions" contains reactions to the proposed changes. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I've added an introductory paragraph to that section, explaining that the KPF's papers formed a foundation for the legislative proposals, and linking back to section "The proposed changes". Misha Wolf (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw the link you added, thats adquate for now. In addition to the detailed proposal itself, members of the forum have also published opinion pieces and polemics that could be included in #Reactions supporting ... and I'll try to add them when I have time. Jaredscribe (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Members, reservists and retirees of the security services

Hi all, the reaction of members and retirees of the security services has become its own crisis in Israel - with chiefs of the military warning that continued refusal to serve in reserve duty may result in harm to the military's readiness. I believe that this deserves its own Wikipedia entry, and proposed taking some of the reactions that are in this current entry and moving them into the new entry. Thoughts? MarkBen1984 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to think we should wait until the threats become a reality. It's a similar issue to the withholding and transferring of foreign investments, public savings, etc.: ATM it's a steady stream; it might merit an article when it becomes a flood. François Robere (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MarkBen1984 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Short Description of this article

Hi @Jaredscribe, I see that you've changed the article's Short Description to "Proposed changes in the Israeli government's balance of powers" (I fixed a typo in there). I don't think that this is a correct description as the article is specifically about events taking place in 2023. If you consider that the article's scope should be wider than that, then please propose that here. Someone has already complained about the article being so long, so I expect that people would push back against an expansion of scope. One option would be to create another article, with a broader scope, which would summarise the 2023 events but would exclude the reactions. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, I've restored the Short Description to its previous value. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: short description. 2023 Proposal to change the Israeli government's balance of powers' is what I meant to say. The historic background should a just a brief encapsulation of other articles whose subject matter impinges on this.

Re: Splitting the article - I agree the article is to long, therefore would support a separate article Reactions to the ----------, which could be summarized here. Jaredscribe (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jaredscribe, if we were to change the Short Description, I'd prefer something a bit longer, such as "2023 Proposal to change the balance of powers between the branches of Israel's government". Misha Wolf (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Jaredscribe, I wasn't suggesting that we move the reactions out of this article, and would strongly oppose that. What I meant is that if we wanted an article with a broader scope, we would create a new article, which would contain a summary of this article (with a "Main article" link to this article) plus lots of other stuff. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It seeks to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy of the 1992 Constitutional Revolution by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review ...

Hi @Prof4il, since your recent injection of the words "of the 1992 Constitutional Revolution", this sentence no longer makes sense:

It seeks to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy of the 1992 Constitutional Revolution by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review ...

Please find some other way to express your thoughts. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Prof4il, I decided that we can't leave the article's introduction in that state, so I've removed those words. As I don't know what you were trying to convey, I can't suggest a better wording. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

hi @Misha Wolf it is important to give the historical context, so I linked to a subsection of the same article. This is a minor but important edit. The name Judicial revolution is the name of the subsection. It looks like your edits are indicating impartiality, since the edits can be easily fixed rather then removed. Please explain. Prof4il (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Prof4il, this English sentence simply doesn't make sense:

It seeks to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy of the 1992 Constitutional Revolution by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review ...

Here's an example of a wording which would make sense:

It seeks to curb the judiciary's influence over lawmaking and public policy, which increased as part of the 1992 Constitutional Revolution, by limiting the Supreme Court's power to exercise judicial review ...

I think that this is excessive detail for the first paragraph of the article, but that is a separate matter. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the reference to the "Constitutional Revolution" should be deleted entirely. Firstly, the article that is sourced for this statement doesn't reference any such revolution. Secondly, the existence of such a 'revolution' is not a fact but an interpretation that is entirely in dispute. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and especially for an introductory paragraph. Unless a clear and objective source can be brought attesting to the existing of this 'revolution', I propose it be removed. MarkBen1984 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984 and @Prof4il. I see that the phrase "Constitutional Revolution" is used quite heavily in article Basic Laws of Israel so I don't have a problem with it appearing in this article but I consider that this phrase should not appear in the article prior to section "1992 Constitutional Revolution and its Discontents". Misha Wolf (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @MarkBen1984 and @Prof4il. As discussed above, I have removed those words from the first para of the intro. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MarkBen1984 (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Reactions fully supporting the changes

Hi all, I read Gadi Taub's article which is referenced here but I cannot see any statement that says he supports the proposed legislative changes. Can someone correct me? Otherwise I think this should be removed or at least qualified - especially as it is in Hebrew, so English readers can't assess the source themselves. MarkBen1984 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, if the cited article doesn't support the content of the para, then please delete the para. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "The reforms have received support from some academics, with 120 professors and retired politicians expressing their support" is not entirely accurate. The link is to a newspaper article describing a petition signed by 120 academics (very few of which are legal or economic experts). The petition advocates A legal reform intended to curb what the signatories describe as excessive legal activism on the side of the supreme court. The petition does not comment on the specific reforms proposed by the government, and concludes by stating: "as much as possible, it would be good to conduct a dialogue and reach broad agreements [...]". Some of the signatories expressed opposition to some parts of the proposed reforms in subsequent interviews. 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:F8A3:6B53:582D:8117 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, what is your view re the above? The statement appears in both 2023 Israeli judicial reform and Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The part about their expertise is not particularly relevant, but i think the rest of what he said is worth investigating. Having re-read the article, he is right about the signatories supporting a compromise, but the letter does also mention that negotiations 'cannot hurt the essential process of judicial reform', which is in effect support for the current process. As for some signatories expressing opposition for parts of the reform, it should absolutely be included if someone can find citations for it.

Of note is that this sentence also appears in the reactions article, so any changes need to be carried over to it as well.Totalstgamer (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's one significant reference - Prof. Koppel, head of the Kohelet Forum and one of the signatories, called the Override Clause, one of the key proposals, a "stupid idea":

https://www.timesofisrael.com/head-of-think-tank-that-helped-shape-legal-overhaul-calls-override-clause-stupid/ 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:F8A3:6B53:582D:8117 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we need two more citations talking about two or more other people to reliably back up the idea that multiple signatories have opposed parts of the reform, but its a good start. Also, funny to see the Kohelet Policy Forum show up again. Totalstgamer (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Link at the start of section "1992 Constitutional Revolution and its Discontents"

Section "1992 Constitutional Revolution and its Discontents" starts with the following link, without any explanation:

Basic Laws of Israel#The Constitutional Revolution of 1992-1995

Is it supposed to be a "Main article" link? If so, please make it into such a link. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that a "Main article" link should always link to a complete article, rather than to a section of an article. As this link points to a section of an article, I've changed the link (which previosuly used an "slink" template) to use a "further" template. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this section in the article is a bit out of place. The reforms are not being proposed simply as a reaction to a 1992 constitutional revolution (whatever that is). They touch on issues that are not connected at all to Supreme Court decisions - such as how judges are appointed, and whether legal advice from governmental legal advisers is binding. Perhaps this section can be moved further down when talking about the "reasonableness" doctrine or the "override" clause, but I don't think it can stay in the section that discusses all of the reforms in general. MarkBen1984 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, I don't think it matters that the scope of the proposed changes is greater than the scope of that section. I think that this section does belong under "Background" as it discusses ... background. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Reactions section is massive

As of now, the article according to Xtools is gigantic. Its nearly 180,000 bytes, and about 14,000 words, 10,000 of which are devoted to the Domestic and International reactions sections (could be overestimating, but its definitely a majority of the article). We should undoubtedly move them into their own article and leave behind a brief summary of the reactions. Totalstgamer (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, please point to other cases where something similar has been done, ie where reactions to proposed or actual legislation have been placed in a separate article from information about the legislation. If the size of the article is causing problems (is it?) then it would be reasonable to split it.

I find it astonishing that you say that the reactions should undoubtedly be moved into Draft space. I know of no justification for such a step. The article has received an average of 1,841 daily pageviews in the past 10 days. Whilst there is no way of knowing what portions of the article these visitors are reading, I think that it is highly likely that the reactions form a large part of the content being read. If they were moved into Draft space, then people accessing the article would no longer have access to them. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I linked to a draft page since itd be more convenient to start with a draft instead of immideately ripping 70% of the article into another page. I'm less so relying on precedent (legislation drawing this many reactions from across the political spectrum is fairly unprecedented), and moreso on rules regarding Article Splitting and Article Size. The page is 14,000 words long, which is by most standards unwieldy and difficult to read. It also disproportionately consists of one aspect of the legislation, that being reactions to it, which warrants a split given that this page is not specifically about that. On top of that is the fact that we've already split off the protests, and the fact that reaction pages are commonplace in other articles relating to recent geopolitical events, such as International reactions to the Syrian civil war, International reactions to the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests and so forth. I will clarify that 'undoubtedly' constitutes my own opinion, and i should've phrased it differently. Totalstgamer (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, thanks, I now better understand what you are proposing and it seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't, however, want the reactions to disappear from main space for more than an hour or so, and so propose that we:

• Draft and agree the text of the summary which would eventually replace the reactions in this article.
• Agree on a name for the new article (the name you proposed makes sense to me).
• Create the article in Draft space.
• Write and agree the intro of the new article.
• Agree on the article's organisation into sections.
• Copy (rather than move) the reactions to the new article and structure them as agreed.
• Move the new article into main space and remove the reactions from this article, replacing them with the summary.

One other point: We need to decide whether the "Opinion polls" section moves with the reactions. I suspect that it should. Misha Wolf (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this plan. I'll draft a summary tomorrow and we'll prepare for a split. Totalstgamer (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I too agree with this plan! MarkBen1984 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I too agree with this plan, and the draft looks good so far. And this answers my concerns mentioned above about undue weight given to international opinions. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've written a draft for the summary, which will be below. I've never written this type of summary before so i'd love some feedback.

Main article: Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform‎

The government's proposed reforms have sparked intense controversy in Israel. Opposition leaders, activists, and jurists have harshly criticized the proposed changes, arguing they will undermine judicial independence and effectively grant the government unchecked power. The proposed reforms have led to large-scale protests, with opposition parties cooperating with grassroots activists to coordinate marches, strikes and demonstrations. The protestors include reservists in Israel's airforce and Intelligence units, with some expressing their desire to stop volunteering for reserve service. They also include members of Israel's financial and tech sectors.

The reforms have received support from some academics, with 120 professors and retired politicians expressing their support. It has also received support from religious zionist rabbis and members of the political right, who have staged counter-protests in response to opposition demonstrations.

Some International economists and politicians have expressed concern over the reforms, as have Jewish organizations in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. President Joe Biden and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have stated their support for a compromise, while some jurists, including Richard Epstein, have expressed support for the reforms.

I've also opened a draft page (we'll move it elsewhere if we decide on a different name) so we have a place to discuss that article once we begin the process of creating it. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, thanks for writing this. I have a few questions:

• I think that you are citing some sources which have not yet been included among the reactions in the article. Is that so? If yes, please could you include them in the article.
• Should we be going into this much detail? The downside is that we may have to periodically update this summary when significant changes are made to the Reactions article.
• As I've mentioned before, we need to decide whether to move the Opinion polls. IMO we should do so as:
  • they are not part of a description of the proposed reforms
  • they do constitute reactions to the proposed reforms
• Ditto for Herzog's reactions.
• Ditto for the reactions of Kohelet personnel and Kohelet itself (cf the removed position papers).
• If we will be moving these three items, then we need to mention them in the summary. In doing so, I don't think we need to provide any details.

What do you think of what I've said? Misha Wolf (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, i did add more citations, and i'll add them into the new article once we finish the move. When it comes to the detail, i think its proportional to the size of the reactions section and would need updating regardless of its size. When it comes to Herzog and Kohelet, i think they fit outside the reactions page, since they play a substantial part in how these events have unfolded, with Kohelet (not counting its chief economist's response, which should go in the reactions page) helping author this legislation and Herzog making a serious effort to alter it. About the polling section, i think it should move alongside the reactions sections. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, I continue to think that Herzog's and Kohelet's actions in response to the proposed legal changes constitute reactions and so should be grouped with other reactions. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, @Misha Wolf. If we start down the road of keeping some people out, it will never end... At the very least Kohelet should be included in the reactions page. I could see a case for keeping the President's efforts and proposal on the main page, but think it could go either way. MarkBen1984 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I do disagree. I think both reactions and especially Herzog's (with the most recent round of failed compromise talks) are part of how this reform effort unfolded. I think itd be best if they appeared (phrased in a way that emphasizes different aspects of their responses) on both the reactions page and this page, with the reactions page focusing on the contents of Herzog's speeches and this page focusing on their outcomes. Regardless, do you reckon the summary i proposed is good? Totalstgamer (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, I wouldn't have enjoyed trying to summarise the reactions as I feel that no summary could do justice to the wide variety of responses. But, in the absence of help from ChatGPT, let's go with your summary. One small correction: "It has also" -> "They have also" at the start of the 2nd sentence of the 2nd para. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright. The next step would be to organize the new article into sections. I'll be copying both reactions sections plus the polling section into the draft page so we can start working on that. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Misha Wolf I've done more work on the draft, and i believe its ready. We should copy the reactions and polling sections into the page and replace them with the summary ive written. Any thoughts? Totalstgamer (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, 👍. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I will make the move tomorrow. Totalstgamer (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

References

"Kestenbaum rule" in section "1992 Constitutional Revolution and its Discontents"

Hi @Prof4il, section "1992 Constitutional Revolution and its Discontents" contains the phrase "Kestenbaum rule", which you had originally placed in the article's intro. I have searched both Wikipedia and the Web for this phrase and cannot find it anywhere. Please explain. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Prof4il, I've removed the mention of the "Kestenbaum rule". Misha Wolf (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What is unique, in Israeli jurisprudence, is the definition of the grounds of reasonableness

The article that is sourced for this statement does not provide evidence that the definition of the grounds of reasonableness is unique. Rather, the source includes the same statement, but without its own sources. If no evidence for such a statement can be added, this should either be put in brackets and referenced as the view of the author of the blog referred to, or it should be removed. Thoughts? MarkBen1984 (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarkBen1984, I agree. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Section "Processes and functions affected by the proposed changes"

Hi @MarkBen1984 and others. The location of this section, under the heading "Background", doesn't seem correct, as section "Processes and functions affected by the proposed changes" does not provide background info. How about moving the text of this section to the top of section "The proposed changes", probably without a heading, so that it acts as an intro to section "The proposed changes"? If we did this, we would need to modify the first para, probably dropping the first sentence and changing the second sentence. What do you think of this suggestion? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @MarkBen1984 and others, I've compared the items listed in section "Processes and functions affected by the proposed changes" with the top-level section headings under "The proposed changes", with a view to migrating the former to the start of the latter. I see that the names used in the two places are slightly different and that one item ("Status of the Attorney-General") which appears in the latter does not appear in the former. Would it be reasonable to change the names in section "Processes and functions affected by the proposed changes" to match those in "The proposed changes" and to add the missing one? Misha Wolf (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea. MarkBen1984 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarkBen1984, do you feel like doing it? 🙂 Misha Wolf (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Totalstgamer, do you feel like tackling this? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Post-split tweaks

Hi @Totalstgamer, thanks for doing the split into two articles.

Could we add a link in this article's intro to the Reactions article?

Should some or all of the photos of the street protests be moved to the Reactions article? Would it be OK to have any of them in both places?

Thanks

Misha Wolf (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We could absolutely add a link in the article's intro to the reactions article, and i reckon its more than okay to use (some) protest images in both. Cheers. Totalstgamer (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Some concerns #1

Hi @Totalstgamer, @François Robere and others. I'm concerned about a number of aspects of these articles. It's probably best to split them into separate topics:

• 2023 Israeli judicial reform had just over 30,000 views on 27 March, 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests had just over 29,000 views and Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform had about 2,700 views. This seems to suggest that the Reactions article is not well signposted. I've just added some more information about it to the Protests article, to help overcome that issue. If you can think of other ways to bring that article to the attention of readers, please could you act on them. Thanks

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its our role to increase an article's viewcount, excluding maybe mentioning them in the main article's lead. We need to focus on making these articles informative and readable. Totalstgamer (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's make the articles informative and readable but let's make them easy to find too. If one article of a group of closely related articles is being viewed 10 times less often than the others, this may indicate that we haven't made it easy to find. Not all readers will make the effort of reading every word of an article's lead, so a wikilink in there may easily be missed. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It could also indicate most people care more about the event than the reactions. The articles are linked via (two) wikilinks, a joint template and similar names that'll show up on search. I don't think we're doing anything wrong. Totalstgamer (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead, including moving the link to the other article to a {{see also}} at the top. Opinions? François Robere (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Some concerns #2

As has been discussed at Talk:Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, we need a timeline article. This raises a few questions such as:

• Timeline of what? Just the changes described in the 2023 Israeli judicial reform article? Or also the related major events, such as Herzog's interventions, Gallant's firing, the Histadrut's declaration of a strike, and Netanyahu's announcement pausing the legislation till after the holidays? As things stand, the Protests article seems to be morphing into a kind of timeline, for want of any other suitable home for such events.
• Structured how? I'm starting to think that, rather than opting for an essay format (which is time-consuming to write and to update), we should go with a very succinct format, like the one used by 2023 in Israel. What do you think?

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need a timeline article, but rather a timeline section on this article, or rather some sort of section detailing the actual course of events these reforms have undergone from start to finish. Itd be structured as standard prose focusing on the legislative effort, crucial events (Gallant's firing, the president's compromise), particularly important reactions (the first protests), and anything else we deem particularly relevant. The article right now mostly focuses on the initial, proposed reforms, with some context sprinkled inbetween, which excludes some important context from the article. Totalstgamer (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal of creating a National Judiciary School for the selection of judges

I don't see why this is relevant. It's not a proposal of the government or a widely supported public proposal. MarkBen1984 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor has inserted the text for a fifth time, so I've requested page protection. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has now been given indefinite extended confirmed protection, which means that only a registered editor whose account has existed for at least 30 days and has made more than 500 edits may edit the article. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: I believe that everyone can edit this (Talk) page. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yariv Levin's Channel 14 interview on 3 April 2023

Hi @Hanay, the mention of Yariv Levin's Channel 14 interview on 3 April 2023 doesn't belong in section "Reactions" of this article as that section is intended as a brief summary of article Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, so I've moved it to that article. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, move to a place you think is more suitable. Thank you. Hanay (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)