Talk:Death Penalty for Terrorists Law

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Request for Neutrality and Clarity in Article on the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law

See RfC below. Docentation (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The opening section of the article, which states, 'Israel's death penalty law (officially the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, 2026) prescribes death by hanging as the default sentence for Palestinians convicted by Israeli military courts of terrorism,' presents a problematic characterization. This phrasing appears to imply a specific bias and misrepresents the broader intentions of the law. Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, and this sentence seems to skew the narrative by focusing on one particular perspective, which risks presenting the law in a politically charged light. I urge contributors to re-frame this section to better reflect the law's actual objectives, avoiding language that may inadvertently influence readers' perceptions or suggest a particular political bias. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothengrun de Spigel (talk • contribs)

What exactly is the ‘specific bias’ the sentence has? What is the ‘broader intention of the law’ that is ‘misrepresent[ed]’? Not really clear what the NPOV violation is otherwise (so have removed the NPOV template), but do revert if you have a specific concern; ideally, suggest alternative phrasing. (And a reminder that LLM-generated comments are unwelcome and unhelpful, especially when they lack specifics.) Docentation (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The claim of "prescribes death by hanging as the default sentence for Palestinians convicted by Israeli military courts of terrorism" is clearly a statement with political connotations (which violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy), the Palestinian people themselves are not terrorists nor are classified as being terrorists under law, therefore the law is not targeting the people of Palestine, it targets only individuals who have committed terrorism. If a Palestinian individual sees fit to commit terrorism [within Israeli soil] he/she should be prosecuted under the rules and regulations of the Israeli state. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I used an LLM as a means to refine my writing style and therefore clarify my point in this particular case, I do apologize if Wikipedia prohibits using an LLM to refine writing, because I was not aware of this. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it’s a factual claim, which may or may not be correct. (In this case, it ignores the hypothetical Jewish terrorist trying to negate the existence of the State of Israel, but I’ve offered a more elaborate formulation below.) Docentation (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Just saw the reason in the main article (thus strikethrough above): The actual bill does not label it the default sentence for Palestinians. This seems to contradict most sources.

• Times of Israel: ‘[the law] mandate[s] death by hanging as the default punishment for West Bank residents convicted of deadly terrorist acts by military courts. While judges can opt for life imprisonment under vaguely defined “special circumstances,” the death penalty would otherwise be mandatory….’
• Jerusalem Post: ‘Terrorists from the West Bank, however, would still get the automatic death penalty, barring specific appeals.’
• Ynet: ‘[i]n the West Bank…, the death penalty would be the default punishment, though not an absolute mandatory sentence…[provided there is]…”intent of denying the existence of the State of Israel”’
• ditto the NYT: ‘in practice appli[es] only to Palestinians…because the death penalty could be imposed only for homicide where the intention was to “negate the existence of the State of Israel”’.

Ergo something like the following seems right: ‘prescribes death by hanging as the punishment for terrorist homicide intended to deny or negate "the existence of the State of Israel" [citing Ynet and the NYT], which "in practice appli[es] only to Palestinians…not to Jewish extremists". The law provides for life imprisonment as an alternative to death in "special circumstances". (TOI)’

Docentation (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, the sources you have generously provided present a misguided and biased perspective of the situation, THE COUNTER-TERRORISM LAW, 5776-2016 provides a clear distinction of what a terrorist is and what a terrorist does, and again if a Palestinian citizen chooses willfully to violate the laws and regulations of the state of Israel, within Israeli soil, they should be prosecuted accordingly based on the legal framework of the state, now we can debate (as citizens) the morality of said law which would lead to a question of international human rights, however since (I think) both of us have no expertise on the the matter of International Law (thus have to rely on experts for judgement), this is no place for opinions, full stop. Clearly there is a shared motivation which the authors of the articles you provided share, this in itself makes their claims up to question, and by extension make me question you for providing them as evidence for Palestinian institutional persecution. The Israeli state is not a banana republic wherein certain laws apply to certain citizens, the law is universal and would certainly apply also to Jewish individuals if they seek to willfully violate it. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothengrun de Spigel (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:PSTS. Even if you are right about the joint reading of the counter-terrorism law and death penalty laws, you need to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, which is what you are doing here. In any case, there is no evidence that there is consensus that there is a shared motivation which the authors of the articles [I] provided share; the JPost, TOI, and Ynet are pretty unlikely to have some shared anti-Israeli bias (see their entries on WP:RSP. If you can link to reliable sources (i.e. not primary legislation) claiming that the law would in practice apply to Jewish Israelis, you are welcome to include such sources. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it (WP:V). In any case, this is about a putative factual claim, namely that the law will apply in practice to Palestinians only; Wikipedia is not a WP:forum to debate whether the Israeli state is…a banana republic or discuss the morality of said law. Docentation (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, we don’t seem to be reaching agreement, so will raise an RfC below. Docentation (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Rfc: scope of application of law

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close to include the statement; that is, yes to the question(s) posed. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the article state that the law in practice applies to Palestinians only? (If so, in the lede?) Docentation (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes.

Quotes from TOI, Ha’aretz, BBC, NYT directly stating that the law in practice applies to Palestinians only

• TOI: The law effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians alone…Though a separate provision allows courts to impose the death penalty on anyone, including Israeli citizens, it applies only to those who “intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel” — a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists.
• Ha’aretz: In doing so, the bill's wording creates a distinction designating it almost exclusively for Palestinian terror, while the ideological burden of proof it sets is expected to make its application to Jewish nationalist terror nearly impossible.
• NYT: In theory, Jewish Israelis could also be executed under hte new law, but legal experts say the odds are vanishingly small, because the death penalty could be imposed only for homicide where the intention was to ‘negate the existence of the State of Israel’
• BBC: In theory, Jewish Israelis could also be executed under the law - but in practice this almost certainly would not happen, as the death penalty could only be carried out where the intention of the attack was to "negate the existence of the state of Israel".

Quotes from other sources confirming elements of the claims above

• Ynet: Under the current wording, the law distinguishes between the death penalty for a terrorist in the West Bank and the death penalty under Israeli law. In the West Bank system, the death penalty would be the default punishment; in cases where Israeli Jews are tried under Israeli law, Israeli law, the death penalty would apply only to someone who caused a person’s death “with the intent of denying the existence of the State of Israel.”
• DW also mentions the proviso about the existence of the State of Israel

I am not aware of any reliable sources (even from the discussion above) suggesting that, in practice, any Jewish Israeli will fall under the scope of the law. Given many RS suggest otherwise, the article should state that the law in practice applies only to Palestinians, unless such RS can be found. Docentation (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support reliable sources consistently indicate that the law's specific wording creates a functional distinction in its application. Per WP:DUE, failing to reflect this near-unanimous reporting would create false balance by giving equal weight to the law's theoretical neutrality while disregarding the practical reality documented by experts and journalists. Some examples:

Quotes from Amnesty, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, CNN, Sky News, AP, France 24, and Le Monde

• Amnesty: The new law explicitly creates two legal frameworks for the use of the death penalty in the occupied West Bank [...] Such an ideological requirement for intent practically means the law is designed to target Palestinians.
• Al Jazeera: The legislation [...] makes the death penalty by hanging the default punishment for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank who have been found guilty of killing Israelis. The UN Human Rights Office in Palestine [...] [stated that] "this law further entrenches Israel’s violation of the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid as it will exclusively apply to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Israel, who are often convicted after unfair trials."
• Guardian: The legislation makes the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank [...] For Palestinians under occupation, the bill closes off avenues for appeal or clemency
• Reuters: The law would only apply ​to Israelis convicted of murder whose attacks aimed at "ending Israel's existence", meaning it would mete out the death penalty for Palestinians but not for Jewish Israelis who committed similar crimes
• CNN: The bill effectively establishes the death penalty as a punishment exclusively for Palestinians convicted of nationalistic crimes, while excluding nationalistic murders carried out by Jewish Israelis against Palestinians
• Sky News: The sentence will be applied by a military court to anyone convicted of murdering an Israeli "as an act of terror". Such courts try only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens.
• AP: ...language that legal experts say effectively confines those who can be sentenced to death to Palestinian citizens of Israel and excludes Jewish citizens.
• France24: In civilian courts, the law's stipulation that defendants must have acted "with the aim of negating the existence" of Israel "structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators"
• Le Monde: In practice, this means that Jews are not subject to the law; this includes settlers carrying out acts of terror against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

Because this distinction is a central aspect of the public and legal discourse surrounding the law, it should be clearly stated in the lead. Paprikaiser (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support the lead as written at this moment, namely according to legal experts "would in practice apply only to Palestinians convicted of deadly acts of terrorism, not to Jewish extremists". This is in conformity to a vast number of reliable sources. Zero^talk 01:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support per Zero and sources. إيان (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - per sources cited by Paprikaiser above. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support this is a pretty comprehensive list of high-quality news sources. it seems due to me. Rainsage (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support If TOI and Haaretz agree on something it's unlikely there's any serious dispute about it. With the NYT and BBC in the mix too there's none. Loki (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - As Zero said, the current phrasing seems to agree with all reliable sources presented.

Side note - It seems like this could have been handled by just a WP:3O, since it was only 2 users (and especially since one of them wasn't really making any relevant argument). Maybe that's not how you handle things in this topic area, but just my 2 cents from my understanding. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Cynically, I didn’t think I’d get anywhere with WP:3PO given the exchange above. Arguably the discussion here has wp:snowballed. Docentation (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Very obvious. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 09:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support per a wide variety of sources cited by Paprikaiser. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support. This article contains many sources that state this law will seldom apply to Jewish Israelis so much as Palestinians. WP:NPOV states in the first paragraph that we must make best efforts to represent all views published in reliable sources without editorial judgement, this means that the question posed by this RFC can be answered by saying yes. I personally don't believe that it is neutral to include this information, but in this instance we must work based off of policy, not feelings. Facts from sources should be included in an article because those are usually reliable.

Qwerty123M (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Barring opposition I propose to take this discussion to have wp:snowballed tomorrow. Docentation (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Any objection @Lothengrun de Spigel? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I have already put in a request for closure at WP:CR. Qwerty123M (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breakdown of vote

Is there anywhere online to see how the vote broke down; who voted for and against this and the parties? Criticalthinker (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Knesset website probably has it (but it’s inaccessible in many areas outside Israel). JPost has the following information: vote was 68–42 (meaning 110/120 MKs voted)

• Lapid (and the rest of Yesh Atid?=24) against,
• Golan (and rest of HaDemokratim?=4) against,
• Gantz (and rest of B&W?=8) against,
• Arab parties (5+3+2+1=11) against

which would make 47 MKs, so presumably it’s some combination of these against, everyone in the coalition+Noam+UTJ+Yisrael Beitenu for, modulo absentees. Maybe worth including stances of party leaders in the article, but I don’t think my speculation above counts as verifiable, even though it’s probably correct. Docentation (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The Knesset votes database is currently inaccessible from my location in Germany. According to ToI, the supporting parties were Likud, Otzma Yehudit, Yisrael Beytenu, Shas, and Degel HaTorah, while opposition came from Yesh Atid, Democrats, Hadash–Ta’al, and Agudat Yisrael. Unfortunately they do not provide an exact numerical breakdown by party. Paprikaiser (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ignore my last post. Here is the list. I guess Blue and White is now called "National Unity."--Criticalthinker (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Great find! Unfortunately WP:ANADOLU is not a great source. I haven't been able to find alternatives so far. Paprikaiser (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

https://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/plenum/Votes/Pages/vote.aspx?voteId=45858 - Here is the breakdown per the Knesset's website. The result can also be found in the transcript of the parliamentary session (https://main.knesset.gov.il/apps/smartprotocol/session/2242127/4940140). Totalstgamer (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The Knesset website is inaccessible in several countries outside Israel (possibly all). Docentation (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Totalstgamer could you try archiving those pages? That may allow access for people outside Israel. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I just tried. This unfortunately doesn't work. Either someone uses a VPN or I'll provide the voting record (I can be reached on the wikimedia discord server and via email) Totalstgamer (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Who was the abstention? It seems like that'd be worth a note in the article since it was apparently one member. Perhaps, too, the names of the MKs (grouped by party) who were absent for the vote. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Again @Totalstgamer, who was the abstention? Criticalthinker (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Meir Porush of United Torah Judaism. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Totalstgamer, thank you. If you can add that information to the article in the last paragraph of the "Legislative history" section with a source, that'd be great. Given that he was the only abstention, it's newsworthy and worth a note. Criticalthinker (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Meir Tobianski

Could we get a clarification? Here Tobianski is called a spy, but he was exonerated of all charges a year after his execution. "suspected spy" or "suspected (and later exonerated) spy" would be more honest Mihai Stefan Corvine (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed “spy”. If people want to know more about him they can click through to his article Rainsage (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the text "capital punishment in Israel under existing laws" is informative in the case of Tobianski. He was tried and executed by an ad hoc court martial (i.e. which law was it?), which is quite different from Eichmann's example. Zero^talk 07:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t really have an opinion either way. the source (NYT) states: “Israel has imposed the existing death penalty only twice in its history. Meir Tobianski, an Israeli Army officer accused of spying, was executed in 1948 — only to be publicly exonerated after his killing.” Rainsage (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, "the existing death penalty" seems to imply a penalty under the same law, which is definitively false (E was executed under a law that didn't exist yet when T was executed). But maybe that's reading it too strictly and I don't intend to pursue it. Zero^talk 07:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Israelis or Jews?

The lead says that Jews are excluded from the law, but some sources say Israelis are exluded, which in theory would include Arab citizens of Israel and other non-Jewish citizens. Which one is it? DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 21:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The BBC, Times of Israel, and New York Times all describe that this is a law that applies to "Palestinians and Jewish and Palestinian Arab Israeli citizens", and "the chances that it would be applied to Jewish Israelis ... are minimal". The subset being named is Jewish Israeli citizens, and they are only excluded in that they are unlikely to have this law applied to them. -- Reconrabbit 14:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is the entire paragraph from the NYT article:

The legislation makes death by hanging the default sentence in Israeli military courts for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks. Israeli citizens — both Jewish and Palestinian Arab — could also face the death penalty for killings intended to “negate the existence of the State of Israel.” Experts say, however, the chances that it would be applied to Jewish Israelis for attacks against Palestinians are minimal.

I am removing the comments from temporary accounts here as they have been notified of the contentious topic in this area and are not permitted to discuss this on this talk page, per WP:ECR. -- Reconrabbit 15:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The TOI explains this well. There are actually two exclusions.

1. All Israelis (whether Arab or Jewish) are in practice mostly excluded from military jurisdiction in the West Bank. (I just remembered that in fact some Palestinian citizens of Israel are prosecuted in military courts, but as of 2014, no Jewish citizens of Israel had been, as the ACRI documents at pp 37–39.)
2. In the Israeli civilian courts, both Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel can be tried (in addition to anyone else). But this is where the proviso arises: the death penalty ‘applies only to those who “intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel” — a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists’ .

So a Palestinian citizen of Israel who e.g. joins Hamas and blows up an IDF convoy is liable to conviction on these grounds, but a Jewish terrorist who kills a Palestinian citizen of Israel resident in Jaffa (so the argument goes) isn’t. Obviously, theoretically, a Jewish Israeli could join Hamas or something, so could theoretically also be hanged. But this is why we have the in practice proviso, following most of the sources (both primary and secondary) with that qualification.

This is explained in more detail after the lede, but (as the person who wrote it) I thought it was probably clearer not to explain these details in the lede. Docentation (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Columnists in support of the law?

I was mildly surprised that I only found columns in support of the law in the Jerusalem Post and JNS, given the state of Israeli public opinion, but I haven’t looked in Hebrew. I think the analytic balance in the article is entirely wp:due (not many RS are reporting arguments defending the law) but would welcome any Hebrew-language sources containing evidence of support for the law for completeness in § Reactions, at least as an indication of the state of public opinion. Docentation (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

JPost/polling

@Paprikaiser I agree the JPost is not tremendously reliable, but I don’t think WP:JERUSALEMPOST can be read as anything other than an indication to consider each case on the merits; it’s certainly not a blanket ban.

(For context) the paragraph you removed read Support among Israelis for the death sentence for terrorists remained high following the October 7 attacks, with several surveys since 2017 showing over 60% supportive. In November 2025, an “On the Agenda” poll conducted by Mashav found 81% support among the Jewish Israelis for executing convicted Nukhba terrorists.

I suggest it’s reasonable to cite this at least insofar as it’s a secondary source for the underlying polling (without necessarily mentioning the analysis, whch seems reasonable to me, but arguably should be deprecated if we’re generally averse to using JPost for anything other than simple factual reporting). Something perhaps like According to polls in 2017, 2023, and 2024, over 60 per cent of Jewish Israelis supported the death penalty for terrorists convicted of murder; a 2025 poll found 81 per cent support for executions of convicted members of Hamas's Nukhba forces. What do you think? Docentation (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The reported 81% polling figure constitutes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and as such requires high-quality, independent sourcing. Reliance on a source subject to a caution advisory like JPost is insufficient, particularly in the total absence of corroboration from RS.

And the term "Nukhba forces" remains a disputed and non-neutral military designation. It is used primarily by the IDF and partisan sources; its status as a distinct, organized unit is not established in neutral secondary sourcing. Simply replacing the word "terrorist" does not address the underlying concern, since the terminology itself reflects non-neutral military nomenclature drawn from a cautionary source. Until this data and this terminology are validated by RS or non similarly limited sources, this content does not meet the standard for inclusion. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Would you expand on why you think it’s exceptional? In particular, I think we should distinguish two claims:

• that 81 per cent of the Jewish Israeli public supports the death penalty for convicted members of the Nukhba forces; and
• that there is a poll making this claim.

Even if the first is exceptional, I hardly see why the second is.

In any case, even if that individual poll is exceptional, do you think the other polling data shouldn’t be reported on?

I agree that Israeli sources often throw the term ‘Nukhba’ around rather indiscriminately. Let’s suppose that Nukhba is purely the invention of Israeli propagandists, and as real as bigfoot. We could still report on polls about whether people think bigfoot should (e.g.) have human rights. Ditto here: in reporting on whether Jewish Israeli public opinion supports the execution of convicted members of the Nukhba, there is no implication that the Nukhba actualy exists, or is a distinct, organized unit. Docentation (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The distinction between reporting a claim and reporting the existence of a poll making that claim does not circumvent WP:DUE. Wikipedia does not document every poll; it includes those that have received validation through broad, independent secondary coverage. If the only source for the specific 81% figure is subject to a caution advisory in this topic area, then the poll has not met the threshold for encyclopedic significance. As for the earlier figures, I am not suggesting a blanket ban on all polling, but rather that we prioritize sources that meet a certain standard of reliability. If these figures are significant, they will be found in such sources. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The distinction between reporting a claim and reporting the existence of a poll making that claim does not circumvent WP:DUE. Wikipedia does not document every poll; it includes those that have received validation through broad, independent secondary coverage. If the only source for the specific 81% figure is subject to a caution advisory in this topic area, then the poll has not met the threshold for encyclopedic significance. Would completely agree on this if there were lots of conflicting polling; I think in this case the encyclopaedic significance of polling about legislation is high, since it’s not e.g. fringe polling.

In any case I will dig around for more sources mentioning polling since that’s probably the easiest way to resolve this disagreement. Docentation (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser pinging to point you to . Looked into the 81% poll and it was conducted by Tzohar. Have come round to your view: it’s neither per se particularly of interest (Tzohar is not obviously a reputable outfit even if the poll itself probably isn’t made up) nor has the poll attracted much attention in any sources I’ve seen. Docentation (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. Your addition looks good. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser should also alert you to . Here I quote BG’s responses in the JPost. They obviously aren’t convincing arguments per se (i.e. if some rando said them they wouldn’t be important)Clearly not wp:scholarship but since he moved the legislation I think it’s wp:due to outline his response (though obviously not to endorse them in wikivoice). And I think WP:JPOST gives no obvious reason to distrust their reporting on what BG says. Docentation (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

References

reference [4] and [8] are the same

Can someone replace reference [8] with reference [4]?

I don't have enough edits in enWP to edit this article. Skranon (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

They are different articles. [4] was published 30 March, [8] was published 25 March. -- Reconrabbit 20:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for clariying. Skranon (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2026

Useless sentence that does certainly not explain any "background":

It is included in the paragraph "Background": "Members of the party began wearing noose-shaped pins on their lapel during sessions of the Knesset in support of the bill.[9]"

This is certainly not a background of the law - but even rather absurd; it says, it was begun in the Knesset during the session, so it absolutely cannot be a "background". Anidaat (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

"useless sentence" means: delete the sentence. It won't change a thing (it is mentioned elsewhere).

Reason: A reader expects background information/events/pre-history in a paragraph "background", not description of dresscode during the ongoing debate.--Anidaat (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Will merge with mention of BG’s noose lapel pin in § Legislative history. Docentation (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Done: . @Anidaat Docentation (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Anidaat for future reference, please make sure to follow the edit request format as Day Creature notes, ideally using a template:text diff, e.g.

−

This is a test

+

This was a test!

It might be obvious to you what you want, and it was obvious to me, but often edit requests are processed by editors unfamiliar with the article, and a diff makes obvious what exactly you’ve proposed. Docentation (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)