Talk:Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform

Orphaned references in Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com": From 2023 Israeli judicial reform:  From Yair Lapid:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Gallant reaction
Gallant explicitly mentioned in his speech that he doesn't oppose judicial reforms, nor did he criticize any specific aspect of the reforms, nor really criticize them. The speech was mostly about pausing the legislative process to allow for negotiations. I think his reaction fits less in this page and more in the main reform page, especially given the impact it'll potentially have on Monday's votes. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Totalstgamer, you're right. I've removed it. I've looked at the main article and can't see an appropriate place for it, so maybe we should leave it out and wait to see what happens next. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say the article needs a section that includes a timeline of everything (starting with the government being sworn in, then Levin's press conference, then when the protests broke out, amendments, the Friedman-Elbashan compromise effort, Herzog's compromise effort, Gallant's announcement, so-on-so-fourth. Its weird than an article about the judicial reform has no information about how that reform has unfolded. Totalstgamer (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @Totalstgamer, is there any chance of you tackling that task? You clearly know a lot about it! Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can try, but it might take time to write the entire thing, so itd be ideal to create a draft. I've created This page for the timeline section, and i'll be working on it sporadically there. Feel free to provide input and help expand it. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Misha Wolf (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of "overhaul"
Here are some definitions of "overhaul":


 * Oxford Languages defines "overhaul" (verb) as "take apart (a piece of machinery or equipment) in order to examine it and repair it if necessary" and "overhaul" (noun) as "a thorough examination of machinery or a system, with repairs or changes made if necessary".
 * Cambridge Dictionary defines "overhaul" (verb) as "to repair an engine, machine, etc. so that every part of it works as it should" and "overhaul" (noun) as "the act of repairing an engine, machine, etc. so that every part works as it should".
 * Dictionary.com defines "overhaul" (verb) as "to make necessary repairs on; restore to serviceable condition".
 * Collins Dictionary defines "overhaul" as "If a piece of equipment is overhauled, it is cleaned, checked thoroughly, and repaired if necessary" and "If you overhaul a system or method, you examine it carefully and make many changes in it in order to improve it."
 * Macmillan Dictionary defines "overhaul" as "to take apart and repair a machine in order to make it work better".

What these definitions have in common is that they see "overhaul" as a necessary process whose end result is a system which is working better than it was prior to the overhaul.

The proponents of these judicial changes argue that the current system is defective and that the changes they wish to make are necessary in order to fix it. In line with WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles should not take a view on whether the system is defective or not and whether the changes are necessary or not. If we used "overhaul" to describe the process of making the changes, then we would be accepting the view that the current system is broken and that the proposed changes are necessary in order to fix it.

I'm well aware that the word "overhaul" is being used in many places as if it meant (simply) "major change". But I'd be strongly opposed to Wikipedia helping to fudge the distinction between fixing something and changing something. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yariv Levin's Channel 14 interview on 3 April 2023
Hi @Hanay, @Totalstgamer and others, I consider that the mention of Yariv Levin's Channel 14 interview on 3 April 2023 belongs in this article rather than in the brief "Reactions" section in article 2023 Israeli judicial reform. The problem is where to place it? For the moment, I've created a section called "Reactions from government ministers" and parked it there. If anyone has a better idea, please share it. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Levin's channel 14 interview? The one where he expresses regret for the original proposal? I think that fits on his own page, since its an opinion about the reform, which isn't particularly notable to the process by which its being enacted, while not being a reactino that fits on the reactions page. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Totalstgamer, I've given this a lot of thought today and I disagree. The background to this is that we initially had a single article encompassing both the proposed legislative changes and important subsequent events. We moved the subsequent events into this article, which we titled "Reactions to ...". If it had been suggested at that time that some important subsequent events would be considered to not belong here because the article is titled "Reactions to ..." then I would have argued very strongly against that course of action. If something as important as Levin backtracking on this aspect of his proposed legislative changes would be considered not to belong in this article, then we would need to change the article in such a way that it would belong. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, the reactions page is not about subsequent events, that'd be the original reform page. The reactions page is about people's reactions to the reforms introduction. Secondly, Levin bracktracking on aspects of his changes is important, but that happened before the interview even happened, when Rothman made amendments to the bill. What Levin said isn't a reaction because he's not reacting to anything, and it has no practical relevance to the reform or its enactment process. Its most relevant to Levin's own part in the reform, and hence to his own wikipedia page. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not accept that characterisation of the Reactions article. When you proposed the split, there was no discussion of what kinds of future events would end up where, but the opinion polls, Herzog's intervention and Kohelet's partial backtracking were already present and were moved to the Reactions article. IMO, the main article should describe the proposed legislation and its progress through the Knesset's committees and plenum. As has been said elsewhere, one important thing that is missing from there is a chronology. If there was such a section, it would include Rothman's amendments to the bill.
 * I didn't say that Levin's statement is a reaction. Our discussion of this point made me realise that the section about Herzog's intervention and the sections covering partial backtracking should not include the word "reaction" in their names, which is why I changed those names.
 * I have not seen a statement from Rothman acknowledging that the bill was/is anti-democratic. If one has been reported, we could consider using it. But Levin's role as Justice Minister makes his statements about the legislation important. His position is, of course, that the amended bill is no longer anti-democratic but that argument will continue, in the Knesset and elsewhere.
 * If the word "Reactions" in the article's title is seen as preventing the inclusion of relevant content, then we should change the title. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I've taken another look at the three articles you gave as examples of "Reactions" when arguing for the split into two articles, namely International reactions to the Syrian civil war, International reactions to the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The first two are not really comparable as they mainly focus on states and international organisations. The third does seem comparable. It includes, inter alia, lots of statements by the main proponent of the bill, Carrie Lam, for example:
 * Before the protest, Carrie Lam has insisted that the bill was "beneficial", as it can "protect Hong Kong's public safety ...
 * On 9 July, Carrie Lam declared that "the bill is dead" ...
 * On 4 September, Carrie Lam announced that she would formally withdraw the extradition bill ...
 * Note that similar statements are included also in the article about the bill.
 * So, I see no reason for excluding statements from this article which demonstrate (some) backtracking by proponents of the judicial changes. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the backtracking needs to be mentioned, i just think it needs to focus on the clear, procedural ways in which that was done, rather than a quote that demonstrates the same thing less clearly. I'd not oppose introducing Levin's statement to the reactions page, even though i think its outside the article's subject. Totalstgamer (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision 1156235565 by 77.139.65.86 on 21 May 2023
An anonymous editor today changed the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Intro. I have reverted the edit. The affected sentence is "The reform has received support from some academics, with 120 professors and retired politicians expressing their support." The change consisted of: I have followed the URL of the cited article and have found that neither change has taken place in the cited article itself. In other words, both the headline and the body of the cited article continue to use the number "120". Now, it may (or may not) be true that 200 "professors and retired politicians [have expressed] their support" for the judicial reform but if it is true and if a Wikipedia editor wishes to reflect this in the Wikipedia article, they must cite a (credible) source which genuinely contains that information. Editing an existing citation to make it look as if the cited source makes that statement is no substitute for the provision of a genuine citation. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Replacing "120" in the text of the article with "200".
 * Replacing "120" in the title (ie headline) of the cited article with "200".