Talk:2011 Israeli social justice protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming[edit]

Why is the article named Israeli "housing" protests?? it should be named 2011 Israeli protests, the protesters demand social justice not just homes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTJaieg-Rs&feature=share

I guess how is this connected to Arab Spring?????? Shmuliko (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not - unless a secondary source says otherwise. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think not. Not taking sides here, it's clearly mostly a student protest where the students can protests because they are on vacation. Also most of the forces involved are not trying to destroy our democracy by overthrowing the government (although some were carrying signs implying this, but they are the exception, not the rule). Also, in terms of Wikipedia policy specifically, Brightgalrs is absolutely right. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These protests were definitely inspired by the Arab Spring. Plenty of sources make this connection.[1][2][3] (found via google search of "Arab Spring housing protests") Rami R 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well alright, it should be mentioned that the media has made a connection. I'll add it in the header. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the protesters themselves carried signs and used slogans that first appeared in the Arab revolutions, like "the people demand.." and "Erhal" which means Leave http://www.flickr.com/photos/activestills/6015827664/in/photostream

I still don't know about the Arab Spring conn ection, it sounds like an anti-Semitic joke: "Arabs protest for freedom, Israelis protest for discounts". The Israeli protestors want the government to remain firmly in place and for it to have more power. No one has died or is willing to die for this cause. Does this protest have anything to do with the Arab Spring other than being, well, a protest?

Don't you remember how this "Arab spring" all started, with the Tunisian revolution? It all started because the Tunisian protested about economic issues like food prices and poor housing. So these are definitely related - although in many respects very different. Nyh (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should change the name to 2011 Israeli Social Protests. That's what the local media over there is calling it.Ericl (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One would have to be extraordinarily jaundiced to not see the connection between this and the Arab Spring. Of course the cause of the protest is different. As it would be in any country, as no country shares the exact same problems (with the exception of the Arab countries where the main problem is dictatorships). But to say these protests here, and all over weren't inspired by the Arab Spring is, I think, what psychologists mean when by the term 'denial'. 94.8.21.89 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

To establish some context for readers not familiar with the Israeli housing market, it would be interesting to specify how high these prices actually are - say, compared to an average salary. Surely there are sources that discuss the actual figures in relation to the protests. GregorB (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • and Shaul Mofaz told Army Radio, protests in Israel can later potentially turn into a violent and painful, calling for army reserves mobilization *

^ Violent? Somebody has no idea what he's writing about. Mofaz refers to expected September stetehood declaration by Palestinians. He expect Palestinians to start violence, not housing protesters.

2011 Israel housing protests?[edit]

Might be a better title, just like 2011 Norway attacks and various others. - Cilibinarii (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Israeli housing protests? I agree, the current title is a little bit awkward. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page and went with your suggestion. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli media is calling it the "Social Protests." We should change the name to thatEricl (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pictures[edit]

hello , i took this pic from yesterday 150,000 ppl demonstration - in tel aviv : http://avivi.org/meowart/150000/avivi-aharon-d200-35mmf28-17.jpg feel free to use it in wiki, thanks! avivi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.173.87 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be happy to use your photos, but you must first release them under a compatible free content license, such as a Creative Commons license (allowing derivative work and commercial use). We generally can't use non-free images on Wikipedia. 16:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

no problems, i posted @ flickr under Creative Commons license http://www.flickr.com/photos/avivi/5994066817/ thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.177.212 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload an put into the article. Thanks! Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the license you released it under is non-compatible with the Wikicommons license policies. It either needs to be CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or in the public domain. It would be great if you would re-release the photo under one of these licenses. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry i changed it to the first option:

  • Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  • Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
  • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
  • Attribution Creative Commons
  • Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  • Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

hope it's ok now (or tell me which to choose if i'm wrong again:) thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.177.212 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be either:
  • Attribution Creative Commons
  • Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons

I would recommend the second one. :) Also the location where it was taken would be useful as a caption. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done and done :) thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.177.212 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh my! does look awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.177.212 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


hello, new pics from yesterday demonstration tell me which u think are proper http://avivi.org/meowart/500000/index.html (and btw it was a half million demonstration ., and not only 320,000 ppl in tel-aviv.)

More picture from August 6th protest[edit]

Full album of photos from the protest last night in Tel Aviv https://plus.google.com/photos/112981749632314914467/albums/5638059251111271329 with translations and captions. Free for use -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pictures and a video from August 6th demonstration in tel aviv[edit]

Hello, posted 4 pictures and a video for use @ wiki from the August 6th demonstration @ Tel aviv

thank you!

avivi

Proposed rename - 2011 Israeli protests[edit]

As I see it, these protests have developed beyond mere housing concerns. There have been people expressing discontent with Prime Minister Netanyahu and demanding early elections. [4] Master&Expert (Talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree somewhat. There are actually two demands from the main organizers: that the government falls and that the current capitalism is changed to socialism. The housing protests is actually one wrapper for 'social justice'. --Shuki (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the english language media over there are calling it the "Social Protests" and thus, so should we....Ericl (talk)

vote on top picture ?[edit]

any objections on changing the top picture to this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Housing_Protests_Tel_Aviv_August_6_2011b.jpg

(was biggest demonstration in israel so far)

--SadRobot (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

social justice not housing protests[edit]

The article is well developed but the main 'social justice' theme is missing. The name of the article should be changed because the housing issue is just one and not the main issue of the various organizers and the hard-core protesters. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While 'social justice' is a common demand at the protests, the 'Cost of Living' seems to be the general issue rather than only the housing aspect. The Hebrew article has since been renamed to Cost of Living protest. --Shuki (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing referenced critcism[edit]

Criticism of the 'protest' should be noted in this article and there is a lot of it that has simply not been added yet. The problematic background of the organizers is also missing, and this will also soon be added. I'll AGF, but one should also be reminded of WP:OWN. --Shuki (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Even if you dislike the protests organizers and even if you suspect their real intentions, you are still obligated to add only primary and reliable sources for all the claims you intend to direct against the protests organizers. We are certainly not allowed to add unconfirmed suspicions, taken from the "Opinions" sections in the tabloids, which were made by secondary sources. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF dude. You are wrong. --Shuki (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Maariv is an OR and Yemini is a senior Israeli journalist. The claims are attributed to him and not in first-person WP. And this has nothing to do with me 'disliking' protest organizers (thank you for putting imaginary words in my mouth). It is unclear from this article who the real leadership of this protest is, and frankly not easy to find a journalist with guts to analyse that, and I did find one here, and added another critical one to the Leef article. We have three main leaders including; names of the 'protest founders' without any background context / political affiliations, there are local leaders at each tent compound, as well as the left-wing people and organizations that are doing most of the coordination and funding. The article (you) attributes to protest to Leef, yet it also talks about the left-wing group planning the protest two weeks prior. Anyway, there are lots of references, so I'm slowly adding them. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Shuki, your placing 'protest' in quotation marks indicates a pretty clear hostility. You should therefore in the spirit of neutrality, try to be more careful of injecting that hostility into your edits. And when Foreign Minister Lieberman and a large number of other prominent politicians are badmouthing the protest organizers on national media every day, it doesn't really take a journalist "with guts" to try and invent dirt about them. Rather, all it takes is a journalist who likes to please Lieberman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.180.192 (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you believe that Shuki dislikes the protesters, here is not the place to discuss personal opinions. You should assume good faith and edit according to Wikipedia policy, as Shuki has done. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put protest within apostrophes since the word used most often in Hebrew is demonstration, but here 'protest' is more pervasive. I am actually thankful for the neutrality template. There is a lot more to this rolling event than meets the plain Hebrew article that Gnome diligently translated. The HE wikipedia is unfortunately not NPOV. I introduced a line for Boaz Gaon in his article sourced to a main interview in the prestigious Globes financial paper and it was twice removed with no edit comment felt necessary. The EN wikipedia is different from the HE one in that there are much more editors here obligating NPOV, while the HE one has a close knit group of admins who do not allow much spectrum of thoguht. --Shuki (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Hostile to protests skewing related articles[edit]

There seems to be a pattern especially in the English-language articles, to distort and mis-represent the protests as a far-left plot to overthrow a government, with sinister figures behind the scenes playing the activists like puppets.

To put it mildly, this is a conspiracy theory promoted by the Israeli far right. There is zero evidence for this. So far this slander from the far-right is losing the battle over Israeli public opinion, big time. But they find it easier to distort reality here on Wikipedia. In the Hebrew site they blocked the introduction of a Daphni Leef entry for weeks. In the English site, the Daphni Leef entry called the protests "civil strife" (which means a domestic armed conflict) and used the term "inciting" to refer to them.

This particular entry about the protests in general, had a strange paragraph claiming that "events leading up" to the protests started with some weird speech (available on Youtube) that connects some advice Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg about how to revive the left. Needless to say, zero evidence that the protest organizers have ever even heard of this speech - which, frankly, does not seem so enlightening anyway.

I don't know how Wikipedia handles such concentrated attacks on the truth, but thought it would be a good idea to warn the editors. There's plenty of good, even first-hand information on these protests. Please make sure that entries are based on this information and not on distortions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.180.192 (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being hostile, but rather not ignoring a blatant effort like in the move 'The Wave'. The sources I have used are from the Israeli media, in Hebrew. There actually are conspiracy theories involving a worldwide effort 'to take the square' and another one with the CIA blackmailing Abrams and in general funding foreign protests, but I have not inserted that at all. Besides, the revelations are sourced and undeniable, and more will be inserted as they are revealed. With regard to your comment about 'civil strife', that is called POV or OR if not in the source. I think that modification to Daphne's article is valid, but removing complete sourced sections is not. And the speech you refer to on youtube is by Boaz Gaon, one of the heads of the protests - and sourced to two Israeli newspaper articles. Since you are active on the Hebrew WP, I suggest you log in with your userid here as well. --Shuki (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, even if a right-wing journalist raised a theory about this connection in Ma'ariv, it is still a conspiracy theory. Some talk recorded on Youtube in April, even if it was made by someone related to the protests, should *not* open the section on "Events leading up to the protests". It was not an event on the direct line leading up to the protest. If you want, you can open a different section or add it to the section discussing controversies. But it is not part of the events leading up to the protests. And btw, I don't have a Hebrew user id. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.180.192 (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude! Kalman Liebskind wrote a bold claim. It's not proof. I know Hebrew perfectly well (as an Israeli). His article should be placed in the "Criticism" section, and removed from the introduction. Also, as he did not prove anything, it should be written that he claims whatever he says - not that he proves it or that he made any kind of exposure. I would love if a registered wikipedian moved it, because I'm not one now, but just a person who can't see every commentator's claims quoted as truth (let alone when there is no English version - this is the English Wiki, after all). -Haggai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.220.191 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add: just read the Globes interview with Boaz Gaon. He is definitely *not* one of the protest organizer. He is a sympathizer who started visiting the tents in July once they started, and offered his help. Maybe they took some of his help and maybe not, but certainly that April Youtube talk he made has nothing to do with the organization of the start of the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.180.192 (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, do you have sources to back up your claims? (If impartiality of the sources themselves are important to you, even though it's not mandated by policy, I expect you to have impartial sources supporting your claims). So far you have removed (more than once) a fully sourced paragraph written in a 100% neutral manner, providing just the facts without any interpretation. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it yesterday, I'm not sure it's this guy (I started writing an explanation, but my tablet cut it off suddenly). I think because there are no English sources, this should not be in such a prominent space - because the average reader can't read and see that there are no facts to support Liebskind's claims. I don't think we need to disprove a claim that wasn't proven in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.220.191 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this correction deleted? The source clearly shows that the "Greenberg conspiracy" Libeskind fantasizes about is completely ridiculous: If you were conspiring with a foreign politician to overthrow the government, would you write 5 feet of text about it in Haaretz, one of the country's largest dailies? Libeskind takes a public meeting of a round table Gaon himself wrote about in Haaretz and claims some connection to protests in which Gaon is not involved in any meaningful way. If you want Libeskind's rubbish in the article, then only as what it is: An obviously false conspiracy theory. I'd pretty much prefer simply keeping it out, as it obviously has no connection to the topic of this article. -- 92.206.226.112 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the explanation was: op-ed not for the lead section, and calling Libeskind report conspiracy is OR. I have to say he has a point: an op-ed is not considered a reliable source. In any case, the unexplained removal of the Libeskind text has to stop. Please discuss it on this page, and preferably under a proper account name. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sources#Non-English sources: "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." I dispute that the source supports the claims made. Especially so, as it is for me not verifiable, whether it is more than a simple, non-fact-backed expression of opinion. (How do I know the Libeskind article is no op-ed or comment type article?) I therefore demand a translation. I will not step into the noob trap of 3RR (which is the most insane rule in en-wiki, imo) but rather try to make this discussion a little more public. -- 92.206.226.112 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Reformulated. -- 92.206.226.112 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92, are you using two IPs? Anyway, calling Libeskind's article a conspiracy is OR and inappropriate for mainspace. As for the meaning of the word conspiracy, please read the article on that. This is not a conspiracy because much of the planning is not secret at all. As for translations, it is certainly your right to ask, and no one has until now. Which part interests you most? --Shuki (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is undue weight in the lead, full stop. It is a single, not unbiased source. It may be ok in the body, with proper attribution, but in no condition is it fit for the lead. Rami R 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something biased is your OR and does not help your argument. If you do not think Libeskind is credible, please find a source about that. Later, I hope to add another reference, an interview with Adam Dovz'insky, one of the original prominent leaders who has some insight confirming the motivations of 'Tel Aviv' leaders. If you really want to build an NPOV article, please comment below about the alternative leadership section that cannot simply be relegated to a 'criticism' section. Just because the media is not being investigative does not need to make WP as shallow. (Ex: one reporter asks Dafni about her army service and is then vilified by his peers, though vindicated a few days later.) I could reedit the whole article for my POV, but do not. I am asking for collaboration and have shown this throughout my editing on this article. --Shuki (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop avoiding the issue. It's not about reliability, it's about notability. Libeskind is just one not particularly notable source, and all he offers is speculation regarding the connection between the protests and left-wing activists meeting with Greenburg. This does not amount to lead-worthy material. Rami R 20:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now once again made a constructive proposal, as to how this issue can imo be treated with adequate weighing. I have also (again) removed the youtube videos, which are completely inadequate as sources. I would really like to have a full translation of the article to be in a position to judge its style and argumentation. The google translation is partly strongly gibberish, which really hampers judging the "investigative quality" of the article, but so far I have the impression, that Libeskind has no argument whatsoever to support his thesis, that the left-wing "round table" he mentions has anything to do with the protests. I therefore doubt that his article has the necessary journalistic quality to be referred to in the lead section. I also would like to point out, that his thesis has not been widely picked up by other media, another reason to not name it in the lead section, as this creates undue weighing.
Last: I am not using proxies, i.e. I am not identical to the users of the other ips. -- 92.206.148.215 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92, you know that you are not taking part in this collaboration or respecting WP guidelines concerning npov, primary, OR and RS. Read the primary sources section below as well as the main primary sources article. The primary sources here are complimentary to the Libeskind article not and not used otherwise. There is a strong issue of NPOV here. The media have not picked up on it because they support the protests. At the major Tel Aviv protests, they set up nice mobile studios, carry them live and treat the demonstration as a national event. I'm adding another reference now to the media response about the general media slant and media that has forgotten about journalism. Again, just because you might not like a reporter does not give you the right to belittle his reporting and remove information from the article - that is called POV. Please read WP:RS. Learn to differentiate between op-ed (opinion) and article that has been given editorial permission for publication. --Shuki (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get what NPOV is do you? Particularly you don't seem to grasp the concept of due and undue weight. "The media have not picked up on it because they support the protests" - notable sources making this claim can and should be presented in the article, but not as if that were a fact, and not if it were a belief with as widespread as others. Your own words confirm that the conspiracy theory is a marginal view, and does not deserve the prominence and weight it currently receives in the lead. I am removing it from the lead again. Rami R 05:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've noticed, I added criticism by asst-editor at Maariv (not known to be a right-wing newspaper at all). More sources are being added daily. Your removal of this information (not in WP first person) is suspect and you should be discussion at NPOV board instead of deleting it entirely. Your deleting this sourced information in an RS is actually applying your POV to the article. The Libeskind article actually confirms the 'responses' section. I have continually asked here on this page how to go forward with adding more information to the article but have not seen your help. And calling it a conspiracy is your own OR, not helping your argument either (are you the 92 IP?). A conspiracy is secret and unproven, this is out in the open. --Shuki (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not normally a contributor to wikipedia and I'm not sure how the policies deal with editorial content since it can't rightly be called encyclopedic. I've read editorials by Uri Avnery before and he seems to maintain a reasonably objective stance, though rarely offers uncritical support for the positions of his government. For a somewhat whimsical look at what is happening, take a look at: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1315580880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.134.202 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic view[edit]

An editor has added a "panoramic view" of the protest, but it doesn't seem like it's a panoramic view at all, or even a real view. I think we should either state clearly that it's a photomontage, or remove the image altogether. Just for the record, I am not at all blaming the editor who put the image there—it is likely that he did not see that it was a montage. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it again, it is actually a stitch of photographs (if you speak Hebrew then go to the site where this image came from for an explanation about it) but I do agree that it shouldn't be placed like that in the article-- Someone35 (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative leadership[edit]

I am wondering where a section about this would go. It is not right to put it in the criticism section because that is for external people/entities. The following text is not what I want to insert but merely background.

Since the beginning two leaderships of the protest. The main antagonists who have been in the media limelight, and the anonymous people who have been sleeping in the tent camps around the country and and often frustrated with the other 'media' leaders who seem to be grabbing attention but not talking about their plight and causes. To name a few incidents, the students did not show up to the press conference last week, The day after the 'million man march', Dafni was cursed when she showed up to the Holon camp and a fight ensued but later calmed. [5] [6] and in the Maariv weekend edition, one of the founders of the protest and hunger strikers, Adam Dovz'insky, revealed much internal strife within the leadership and the rich media leaders were disconnected to the needy people in the tents who had the cost of living issues.

Another set of antagonists are the anarchists who have been very visible over the past couple of months, but not too notable. Eldad remarks from discussions with army officers of the drastic drop in incidents involving anarchists during the summer and the officers anticipating their return to the separation fence clashes [7]. --Shuki (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a clip Eldad Yaniv of the National Left talking relaxed in the TV studio about the protests being apolitical, but after is a pep-talk at the tents where he talks about piggish capitalism and the occupation, how the protest is political, and now about housing and cottage cheese but 'living normally without being occupiers'. [8] This is not a conspiracy because the organizers are openly saying what they are aiming for, but the people in the tents 'alternative leadership' actually still feel that they are protesting the cost of living. --Shuki (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources[edit]

For Rami and others, please read WP:PRIMARY. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source The main secondary source is Libeskind's article. I have merely included some of the original primary sources and have not OR my personal analysis. If you feel the last line about multiple initiatives is based on the PS, please discuss rather than merely delete which might be construed as joining the POV push here. Your remark about the Marker ref is valid, the title of the article seems to not convey the info inside properly. About the Libeskind article, it was not just a regular blog post, but rather a regular article in the weekend paper. On the other hand, Yemini's information is only at the bottom of the article since it is disputed, and that was more like an analysis piece that often is included alongside main articles in the print edition, and not a classic op-ed.--Shuki (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US media[edit]

Am I wrong, or is there nothing at all being reported in mainstream US media about this? --75.108.199.245 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen an article about these protests in CNN but nothing more than that. Currently there is nothing new with these protests so you probably won't hear about them, especially in non Israeli media.-- Someone35 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when there are even small protests in any other Middle Eastern country, the US media are all over it. Just seems odd they are so quiet. --75.108.199.245 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they support the current Israeli government so they don't want to post things against it such as this protest-- Someone35 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw reports in the US media, usually after the major Sat nite demonstrations, but frankly, there was no news here. These events happen the world around and don't make the foreign news. No violence, no charismatic leader, no specific demands, and just some kids and students blowing off steam and having a fun summer sleeping in tents. There was a good chance of 'news' when the Histadrut decided to jump in, but the head, Ofer Ini, quietly steeped aside when he saw that the kids were not serious about negotiating with the government and were merely protesting for the sake of protesting. --Shuki (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid view of the protest[edit]

A journalist said the protest is rooted in far left parties, and [the protest launch] was aimed to create momentum to create a powerful left side party. This is the opinion of one journalist, and should not be enlightened (put in the abstract) like it is. I move it down in media coverage. Yug (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree-:- Someone35  12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the view of a single journalist and these suspicions had been voiced from the beginning in July, as well as by members of Knesset. There is no undue weight since it is only two sentences that are developed later in the article. I suggest you review the other comments above before rehashing old issues. --Shuki (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many need to disagree with you before you give up. Meh, no matter. How's about the compromise I've implemented: Libeskind is still mentioned in the lead, but without the undue weight of an entire paragraph. Can we call this settled now? Rami R 14:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the quantity of people who support an opinion but the quality and following guidelines, especially NPOV. Frankly, some would argue that those two lines (which was already a compromise reduction in text) should be in the first paragraph, but instead I had placed them at the bottom, as an afterthought of the lead so people would not complain about UNDUE. Moving the Libeskind part is more logical but removing the main claim of the second sentence is not. It is confirmed by Shimon Sheves, a very respected personality on the left. And, when this political party is formed, the two sentences will be legitimately moved up to the top paragraph. Let me add that confirmation now. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
State that the protest was planed by left side parties 3 months before the first tentwas put is both an easy to say and unverifiable claim.
As such, it's a really uncertain claim which have no place in the lead. I moved it to the 'media coverage' section. Yug (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, that is your POV. It is reported by RS. I suggest you reread the discussions that have occurred above. The article is not supposed to be an advertisement for the protest, but rather a NPOV report of all aspects. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist Communist[edit]

Most protesters led by Daphne Leaf are members of Israel's Communist Leftist. פארוק (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Renaming of the Article[edit]

Given that the protests are ongoing and that the media only refer to them as the "Israeli social justice protests" I propose that we rename the article to "2011-2012 Israeli social justice protests". Poyani (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Poyani's suggestion. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing?[edit]

While the consequences of these protests are surely being felt now, what the article says about them being "ongoing" is very strange. The actual protests ended ages ago. I think we should write that they ended in October 2011 because that's what the main article essentially says. Any input is welcome. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Israeli social justice protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli spring" disambiguation page[edit]

The term "Israeli spring" was used in 2011/2012 by some commentators to refer to the 2011 Israeli social justice protests. It is now being used by some commentators to refer to the 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests. To enable Wikipedia users to get useful results when searching using that term, I've created the disambiguation page Israeli spring. Misha Wolf (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Israeli_social_justice_protests&oldid=1196592874"