Talk:Michael Ben-Ari

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

localities and other labels[edit]

Hebron residents, Kahanists, Israeli settlement of... On one hand, I don't think these things defamatory, yet on the other hand, it seems to stick out as weasel words. My litmus test on issues like this is to insert other entirely opposite terms and see if there is a double standard. Ex: Might it be significant to 'this' or other article if his two aides are described as residents of Tiberias and communists? Would it be significant to describe the aides of a Meretz MK are residents of the Arab town of Sakhnin and homosexuals, or would we just include their names? Is it necessary to describe if Karnei Shomron is a settlement? Normally, we would just include that Mr. ABC is a resident of Tel Aviv, not 'the coastal city of Tel Aviv'. Am looking for serious discussion, not POV opinion on how to slander or puff Ben Ari's image. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Ben Ari[edit]

The rabbi title is easily googled. Yitzhak Aharonovich's opinion here is not relevant to the article, especially when there is a doubt if it was 'educated': in Hebrew [1] and supplanting two RS (the editor might not like) with one bland one which accuses the knesset member and brings absolutely no counter to the claim is not justified. The parliamentary immunity is quite an important aspect of the story of Ben Ari's arrest. Copyedit of the article and that news item is welcome, please keep in the facts. --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ari not claimed to be a rabbi in his Knesset page. Google is not a source per se...Mashkin (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the incident, one should first decribe the facts, that are not so much in dispute (well, the percise term for how he was held maybe0 adn then the issue of immunity and reaction from the people in charge 9do not second guess them). In general Artuz 7 is not an RS for such an issue. it is not the website of a major newspaper. Mashkin (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ari may not go by the rabbi title day by day, but it is still a fact and noted by several sources. Israel National News is a RS, you cannot personally pick and choose which articles are suitable and not, the same could be said for your preferred Ynet and Haaretz too, so we refain from that. One is welcomed to add additional sources if one feels that this can improve the article. An RS is and RS for all its content. If one has an issue with the claim that Israel National News is not an RS, they should bring it up on its talk page, or the wikiproject. --Shuki (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not true. Arutz Sheva is not a trusted source in general, while Haaretz and Ynet are RS. You will to bring evidence that he is a Rabbi. Mashkin (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the WP consensus that Arutz Sheva is not an RS. You can't expect me to accept your POV and bias against it. Frankly, I don't think that Haaretz is objective on some subjects, but an RS is an RS and I accept WP consensus. If you bothered to read the sources you've removed, they are reports of the incident, not opinion/analysis pieces anyway. --Shuki (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look up WP:RS on using news as a source, it is written "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Artuz Sheva is simply not a mainstream news organization. Mashkin (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're opinion. So I understand that you've declared an edit war here. Quite shallow, I thought you had grown up. I would expect you to edit responsibly not edit (delete) blindly by emotion. --Shuki (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure sure what "You're opinion" means. I cited Wikipedia's guidelines for RS. Also from WP:BLP - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material".
Editor Mashkin, your reversion also put back the punctuation errors I had corrected. Reversions should always take subsequent edits into account. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried not to that and would appreciate if you point out the things I missed. Mashkin (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In this version[2] (see last paragraph of text), one extra period, one in the wrong position, and a space preceding <ref>. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mashkin, dear friend. I thank you again for your interest in the article and its significant expansion. The rabbi title is on his website (sourced), and many other links on the net, there is no reason to keep denying it. There are actually many rabbis in the Knesset.
I removed your undue weight of the Kach party. The article is about Ben-Ari not that party. The 'now banned' is sufficient enough to pique the reader's interest to click on the Kach page if s/he has no previous knowledge of it. You do not see this kind extra weasel word explanation on any other politician page. If you really want to improve the article (and not simply blacken his image or 'get back at me'), then it is certainly possible to add a lot more information about his days with that party and with Rabbi Kahane. That might be appreciated if done properly.
Ben-Ari is involved in many 'incidents'. The one of 1 June 2009 centres around his arrest and that should remain in the lead sentence. 'Police commissioner' is the term used on the Israel Police WP page, not the American 'police chief' title.
You're attack on Arutz7 is unwarranted here and it strengthens the suspicion of poor good faith and emotional editing. The last line merely relates the factual information that an investigation has been opened and there is no POV. It seems here that your issue is not Arutz7, which is widely sourced on WP, but rather the suggestion that Ben-Ari might be exonerated. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
two false claims regarding sources that Shuki tried to insert: his bio does not claim he is a Rabbi. He sadi that he was a "Rav melamde" in Darchei Noam. Cannot base a title on that.
The Arutz Sheva source does not claim that investigation has started - which would meen by the proper authorities, but that "officials in MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari’s office, the IDF Spokesman’s office, and others are investigating whether the IDF and Border Guard violated the law in their treatment of Ben-Ari near Yitzhar on Monday. " Hardly the same. Mashkin (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'rav melamed' means 'rabbi'. I brought another source. Thank you for bringing the quote. Official bodies are investigating the incident. You seem to think that only a national enquiry is worth noting. Your OR. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no RS that claims that he is a Rabbi. The info on Kach is important to understanding the person. Mashkin (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walla source provided. Its name sounds weird to the foreign ear, but it is one of the top news websites in Israel, owned by Haaretz and sharing content with the newspaper. Enjoy. --Shuki (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Walla article calls him Rabbi, but there are many articles that do not address him as such and the most significant point is that he does not claim to be one in his own pages. I will let it stay for the time being, asking for a source to the fact that he is a Rabbi. Mashkin (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this is your logic, please confirm. He is a rabbi, Haaretz confirms this, so does Arutz7 and dozens of other unique sites, including partisan ones albeit not RS), but because most other reports don't include this rabbi title, then WP should also not include this info. Right? By your logic, his Dr. title should also be removed, because there are many, many more articles that simply use MK Michael Ben-Ari then with the Dr. title as well. Right? There is absolutely no place in BLP that states that a link to the Rabbinate or Doctorate certificate is needed. --Shuki (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His PhD is not in dispute - it is mentioned in his homepage, we know what university and who was his advisor. About being a Rabbi, nobody ever said when he became a Rabbi and from here. In general he is not addressed as Rabbi, by both RSs and by sources close to him. So why should Wikipedia be the place that awards him the title.
Another issue is how you address a person in Wikipedia, even of all the titles are confirmed. Do you always write in the Dr. if that person has a PhD? Mashkin (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, that is the whole issue. You are not interested in improving articles about people you do not like. You are not cooperative at all unless a third party comes in. You could not care less about his rabbi title or any other accomplishments of Michael Ben-Ari. You merely want to remove any information that might paint them in a good light even if it is sourced, which on other pages is not that disputable or needs a RS. It took you over three days and an edit war for you to reach that conclusion and it is no fun editing on pages with you. --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that the need to find sources to claims causes you so much stress. Mashkin (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made me bring a Hebrew link that is technically the most accurate, but also in Hebrew which is a poor choice here in English WP. You could also have, but your interest on this page is not to improve, just to spite. The English was fine, the vast majority of Dr's don't need proof anyway. Not every second word in BLP needs a reference and it clutters up the editing too.
As for causing me stress, not really. Just you and I feel sorry for you. You aggravate many people so I don't take it personally. And frankly, you took a simple stub page and indirectly brought attention to it causing it to expand even more. That is why I give you a thank you! --Shuki (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOB disagreement between Knesset and Personal Pages[edit]

One says 1964 [3] the other 1963. Mashkin (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation[edit]

The news source explicity states "the IDF Spokesman’s office, and others are investigating whether the IDF and Border Guard violated the law". 'An investigation' might be a few questions, or it might be a national enquiry headed by a retired judge, and anything in between. The fact that the news reports that the Israeli Army is investigating (not just some NN people), is justification enough A) to include this information in the article and B) that something happened that warrants more than a laconic press release by the IDF. Mashkin, if you want to legitimately remove this claim, please find a source, not based on personal WP:OR or WP:NPOV, that nothing came of the investigation. I'm using the same argument you used for the alleged AIPAC spy incident where the investigation was closed, the fact that that person was involved in the investigation was not relevant and that line could be removed from his page. The onus is on you now. --Shuki (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is ""officials in MK Dr. Michael Ben-Ari’s office, the IDF Spokesman’s office, and others are investigating whether the IDF and Border Guard violated the law in their treatment of Ben-Ari near Yitzhar on Monday. "
The IDf Spokesman office does not conduct legal investigations. The fact that Ben-Ari "investigates" the incident is not notable. On top of that the source is not RS (and you can see from the writing why it should not be considered an RS. Given that it seems that there was never an investigation one cannot show that it was closed. Mashkin (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mashkin, I know your strategy in your many edit wars is to tire out your adversary and avoid discussion by lying and ignoring facts. That's unfortunate. Once again, let me bold it...
"...the IDF Spokesman’s office, and others are investigating whether the IDF and Border Guard violated the law". What do you not understand from this line. Is Arutz7 lying? Did they make that up?
Mashkin, what is your point about 'legal investigation'? Your WP:OR. You ignored my claim on this as well by trying to avoid it. --Shuki (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the IDF Spokesman conduct legal investigations (this is the way one would understand the sentence that you are trying to insert)? Can you give a source confirming that? Mashkin (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is investigating this incident. Why do you wish to remove this information? Can I assume that you just want to leave the incident with old and un-updated info. Is that it? Your continued criticism of Arutz7 is lame (and similar to other articles where you pick and choose the information that is reliable/relevaat to your POV).
You are a disruptive editor (it's not name calling, it's analysis) because you fail to show any kind of cooperative collaboration. Your edit wars in almost all your other pages do not help your credibility. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one trusts Artuz 7, then they did not report an investigation at the Knesset. There was a meeting on the subject at the Knesst committee, that's all. Why on earth should we be writing about the schedule of the Knesst committee? the main issue at the meeting was that the idf reps did not show up. Stop the name calling and talk to the point. Mashkin (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop lying Mashkin. I'm not name calling, only describing your lack of cooperation here and at other articles. The facts are very clear and I have not added any analysis at all. Only reporting the facts, which are a very important follow up to this incident. What possible good faith am I supposed to assume when do delete that? Arutz7 is a news service, not a blog. It is a clear RS not unlike Haaretz. I don't like Haaretz but accept that it is an RS and even reference it for news because not all of their articles are slanted. YOu really don't have a choice with Arutz7 either, especially if it is news with no analysis. Now, when reporting facts (the word investigation can mean anything, why does it bother you so much, would it give some legitimacy?) and the Knesset Committee discussing an issue (it happened at the Knesset, not the boy scouts, and what was reported about the meeting was only the issue about the boycott, this incident was brought up, and the report does not report what else, I'm still waiting for the protocol to be posted here) and that is quite a legitimate sentence to add to an incident involving a public figure. You should first be clean about BLP before making your flippant claims of violations. If you don't like the wording, then offer a compromise. Just don't blindly delete with no suggestion to improve. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks[edit]

You must cease with the personal attacks. It is becoming rather disruptive. You cannot sya stop lying for factual information.

Regarding the "investigation" by the IDF spokesman office, it never happened and cannot happen since it is not a branch that conducts investigations.

The whole reporting on the arrest is not proportional to its significance. I have an idea. Delete it for six months and see whether then it will still be interesting. Mashkin (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve your editing! Read WP policies. Be a cooperative editor. It's not just me, it seems that many others are frustrated with your behaviour.
'Stop lying' is ised when one claims that IDF spokesman unit does not conduct investigations (not true), that information quoted almost verbatim from a WP:RS is poorly sourced (not true), Ben-Ari does not claim to be a rabbi (you spoke to him or quoting somewhere? (not true)), No such investigation, by a proper authority, was started (not true) your WP:OR.
Prove that the IDF spokesman unit conducts investigations. Youthink that this is so patently true that is it worth calling me a liar over it. Prove it or ask to be blocked for a month!Mashkin (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Ari does not claim in his various home pages to be a Rabbi. Mashkin (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arutz 7 is a poor source and you have not given evidence ow. (I said it explicitly before). Mashkin (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'investigation' simply cannot be monopolized by your understanding of it. Again, an investigation can mean anything between the clerk who answered the phone who will pass the request for comment to his superiors and a full blown national inquiry. You/We cannot interpret what 'investigation' means and that is the word used in the source. Sometimes reporters could use better words, again, the source still has the most weight. Your 'temporary deletion' suggestion counters common sense and the way things go here. Let's say we leave it for six months (probably less) and then we might reedit. Hopefully two things, A) there will be more follow up to the incident so that the last two sentences you do not like can be updated or B) you contact the IDF spokesman unit yourself and get their comment on the incident and whether a 'legal' investigation (whatever that means) has been opened. In contrast, after Lebanon War II, there was a Knesset inquiry (one below National inquiry in importance) about the governments handling that it had no legal ramifications at all. The reporter used the word 'investigation', and the fact is that'an investigation' was opened since the Knesset bothered to spend time on the issue in the 'Knesset Committee' which is a real entity. --Shuki (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing with the personal attacks. The word investigation has a clear meaning and it is not fulfilled in this case. Mashkin (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your editing is still disruptive. Haven't you had enough destroying and banning? You know the next time, it will be a week. Anyway, please state, once and for all, the definition you are using for the word 'investigation' and the source from where you are bringing that definition. --Shuki (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have said more than once that clearly when one write that an investigation has been opened it means by one of the branches that does these things, it could be one of the military authorities (e.g. "Katzin Bodek"), MP, the Military Advocate General or a civilian one, for instance the state comptroller or a Knesset committee. The IDF Spokesman unit simply does nothing like that (and you will to bring one hell of source to prove otherwise). A plausible meaning of the sentence in your unreliable source is that the Spokseman said that there are checking (not investigating) what happened. You have never explained what sort of investigation the Spokesman conducts. Here is an example. There is the term an investigative reporter. would you write in Wikiepdia that such a journalist opened an investigation to...
You cannot insert such info on your own given the opposition, so stop doing it. This is edit waring and you will be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visa denial[edit]

He was not denied a visa because he was merely protesting the disengagement. According to this page he was denied visa because he was arrested during a protest of the disengagement. And I'm also changing "expulsion" to "disengagement". There's no room here for rightist propaganda. Disengagement is the official and commonly accepted, non biased term. -- Northern (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source, please insert it as requested. JTA is a RS, but if they are rehashing what another media has reported, than best to go with the latter. --Shuki (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you change my wording back? I insist we use a more neutral language. Eviction is a right wing interpretation of the event. The official term is the disengagement. -- Northern (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I insist on using the most accurate NPOV language. I didn't change your wording, I added a specification of the actions that Ben-Ari was protesting. Eviction is the most accurate and laconic legal term for what the Israeli government did. It foreclosed / appropriated their homes, evicted them, and then gave them compensation. In fact, evacuation is the common description yet very a poor translation/description. Evacuation is commonly used in medical or emergency terms. Someone on the evacuation page used OR and linked it to 'forced migration'. So what NPOV term do you choose - forced migration or eviction? It is actually extreme left-wing POV to describe what happened to the Jews there as evacuation - as if these people were 'saved'. --Shuki (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- Northern (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miri Ben-Ari connection[edit]

Is he related to violinist Miri Ben-Ari?

Wandering Courier (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight at supreme court[edit]

In case anyone wants to summarize [www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=297495 here]: MK Michael Ben-Ari and his Strong Israel party co-founder Itamar Ben- Gvir joined some 30 rightwing activists accosting and trying to block Zoabi and her entourage from leaving the Supreme Court building. Activists started yelling at Zoabi, and a number of them physically engaged with security personnel trying to escort her out. Activists began pushing the guards and Zoabi’s entourage, who pushed back in a free-for-all that lasted more than 10 minutes. etc. CarolMooreDC 05:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube isn't a reliable source for anything ever[edit]

To editor Cjuall: YouTube is not a reliable source. Stop adding it. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: That is inaccurate. See WP:VIDEOREF. JDiala (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: I'll be more clear for your benefit. You might read WP:YOUTUBE.
  1. Linking to copyrighted content is prohibited
  2. Because YouTube is crowd-sourced, there's no inherent notability is the website itself. If the video comes from a verified account belonging to a reliable source, it might be permissible.
I was simplistic, but this question has been addressed so many times, already. The link Fourtyfive300/Cjuall added was propagandist screed, not a reliable source. Nine times out of ten, use of YouTube links on Wikipedia are always self-published junk. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Ben-Ari. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Ben-Ari. 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) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023[edit]

Remove the line: “Ben-Ari argues that most Arabs should be expelled from Israel.” The source quoted, an article from Haaretz, does not say anywhere that Ben-Ari holds such views, nor is there any other recorded source of him saying that. 2A02:6680:110B:1C5F:3042:A4E4:407:5669 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The source specifically states that "To this day, Ben Ari identifies himself as an adherent of Kahane, and argues that most Arabs should be expelled from Israel" ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Ben-Ari&oldid=1206238604"