Talk:Jerusalem Day

❧

Wikipedia

creator

Change "creater" to "creator". 95.232.226.2 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

coverage of "Death to Arabs" chants

Nehushtani, in your recent revert, you said I reverted WP:SYNTH. Nothing in the sources indicates that this happens regularly, just that it happened. I also making its own section for this one fact may be undue. I have therefore listed, with sources, the years in which Israelis have chanted "Death to Arabs" in Jerusalem Day parades.

The matter of chanting "death to Arabs" is WP:DUE for its own subsection in this article as this aspect of Jerusalem Day has received major coverage in reliable sources. إيان (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

BlookyNapsta, as you can see, I started the conversation and tagged Nehushtani a week ago after this editor reverted my contribution with the summary I reverted WP:SYNTH. Nothing in the sources indicates that this happens regularly, just that it happened. I also making its own section for this one fact may be undue.
Nehushtani has not engaged in the discussion.
I dutifully addressed the complaint by sharpening the claim, listing each individual year and providing sources for each, and including a summary of the subsection Jerusalem Day#Chanting "Death to Arabs" in the introduction, which, according to the Manual of Style, is to "summarize the most important points" of the article.
Nehushtani then deleted the summary from the introduction with the excuse I do not think this is due in the lead. Please seek consensus if you want to include it even though the editor had not responded to this discussion after having been pinged.
Another editor, יורם שורק, then reverted Nehushtani, correctly noting that, per WP:RS, it is an essential element of the event.
Nehushtani then reverted again, writing: I am restoring the previous version. It is absolutely not an an essential part of the event, it is done by a few extremists not representing the mainstream at all. Per WP:ONUS, please obtain consensus on the talk page before restoring this, again without having responded at all in this discussion in which they have been pinged.
I then reverted Nehushtani to reinstate the version of יורם שורק, explaining: It is what dominates in the press outside of Israel, so it is WP:DUE. I am the second person to revert this edit of yours, so perhaps you can try to make your case on the talk page.
BlookyNapsta, given all of this, it seems absurd to accuse me of edit warring as you have done. Now, is your objection merely based on process due to your perception that I had been edit warring, or do you object based on the substance of the edit as well, and if so on what grounds? إيان (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
@إيان - You are confusing two separate issues. I originally removed it from the the body of the article, but you convinced me that it has wide enough coverage to be do in the body. You then started to edit war it into the lead. I have consistently insisted (and still believe) that it is undue for the lead. There was nothing to engage because we never had a discussion if it is due in the lead. Since per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." it is your responsibility to achieve consensus to include it. My opinion is that it is not due in the lead, as it is something done by a few extremists and not representative of the vast majority of people participating in the march or celebrating the holiday. Nehushtani (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
@إيان - You are trying to force your POV edits through edit warring, despite clear opposition from other editors, violating rules on constructive editing and edit warring. I seen no real reason to add random slogans thrown by extremists that justify changing the lead of a national festival many people take as a day of pride and celebration of their beloved city, other than blatant activism. I believe Wikipedia has enough of this, as seen in recent news (including Jimmy Wales' statements). So either find clear consensus to add this to the lead or drop it. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd say it definitely deserves a mention in the lead as we have an entire article on the Jerusalem Day march that covers the far-right & their use of racist chants & songs. This isn't a new development either, with reports going back a decade (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, I can't find reporting for 2020 presumably because of COVID, 2021 2022, 2023, 20242025).
I'm honestly surprised we don't have more coverage of the march with how the violent riots that follow it are treated as a given by news orgs. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
According to this logic, we should mention antisemitic chants in the leads of articles about pro-Palestinian events, even when done only by a small minority of the people present, since they are covered in the media. Nehushtani (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE إيان (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Then this is also WP:UNDUE. Nehushtani (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
You're saying the Jerusalem Day march, an event that is as old as the celebration itself & for a decade has reliably been celebrated by thousands with racist chants & violence in the Muslim Quarter of East Jerusalem shouldn't be mentioned in the lead of the Jerusalem Day article? Also you're comparing a specific annual event to, I guess any random event that's pro-Palestinian?
That's definitely a false equivalence & doesn't really engage with my comment. If there was a scheduled, annual celebration that was pro-Palestinian & consistently associated with violence & racist chants, are you saying you wouldn't believe it'd be WP:DUE to at least mention it in the lead? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
The lead of Land Day does not mention the many chants of From the River to the Sea - see here, here and here. Nehushtani (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
If you think something is DUE in another article, I suggest taking it up there. إيان (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
"From the river to the sea" is in not a racist chant & is definitely not comparable to "death to Arabs", "A Jew is a soul, an Arab is the son of a whore" or "May Your Village Burn".
The links you gave also don't mention those attending being violent, so again, this is a false equivalence (especially considering the Land Day article has a rather in-depth section on commemoration, stating that the marches "generally proceeded peacefully, with the exception of the protest in Sakhnin", which is then described). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
The fact that a few extremists chant racist chants that get picked up by the media might be due in the lead of the Jerusalem Day march and appears there, but it is not due in the lead of Jerusalem Day. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Not a source or policy-based argument. إيان (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Undue is absolutely a policy based argument. There is clearly no consensus here, so feel free start an RfC. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
It’s 3 editors in favor of the representing the subsection Jerusalem Day#Chanting "Death to Arabs" in the introduction, making valid, policy-based arguments,and only 2 editors that oppose it, arguing that to do so would be UNDUE but not offering any proof. I don’t think we need to go to an RfC to establish consensus. إيان (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
That's not how consensus building works on Wikipedia. Not every argument that you disagree with is "not policy based" and 3 against 2 is not consensus. Try to obtain consensus as as required by Wikipedia. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:Status quo stonewalling إيان (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify that the link WP:Status quo stonewalling is for everyone's knowledge and benefit, to make sure none of us is engaging in these tactics. إيان (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Some of those refs are very poor and do not support your argument that it is frequent and prominent.
The 2015 article comes from 972 magazine which is highly biased.
The 2017 Haaretz article only quotes someone who references the chants from previous years, but this is not a reporting.
The 2018 Haaretz article is tertiary ("in previous years...")
The 2019 Haaretz article contains nothing at all. Scharb (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
I believe your reading may have been too narrowly focused on the words "Death to Arabs" as the sources I cited were to demonstrate consistent reporting of incitement, violence, & racism by far-right groups throughout the years.
2015: This isn't a refutation as they are a reliable source & bias ≠ inaccurate. The article reports chants of “death to Arabs” occurring & unless you have reason to be believe that's false, the source is perfectly acceptable to demonstrate the trend.
2017: The quote, "When the police clears the area to let them march and shout 'Death to Arabs,' I cannot identify with the Jewish people.", makes no mention of previous years, instead it's an interview with a protester who demonstrated that year. Also, the later line, "It has also complained about the feeble police response to demonstrations of racism and incitement." further demonstrates how this is not a new phenomenon, but a recurring issue.
2018: "Six Jews were detained by police after singing songs considered to be incitement." & again, "In previous years, participants had been known to chant “Death to the Arabs” and other racist slogans during the march." shows the association in reporting.
2019: I'm not sure what you mean by "contains nothing at all" when the article contains lines like "Some of the participants sang hate songs as marchers were guarded by police and many streets in the center and eastern part of the city part were closed to traffic." & “May I be avenged for but one of my two eyes, may I be avenged for but one of my two eyes of the Philistines,” replacing "Philistines" with "Palestine.", as that's pretty specifically hate songs & anti-Palestinian chants. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC 25 November 2025

CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE
This request for comment proposed including a concise summary to the lead based on the section Anti-Palestinian chants. Supporters argued that the content is due per providing an accessible summary and the manual of style for lead sections, while providing the appropriate weight in the article, based on coverage from reliable sources over a sustained period of time, which includes scholarly works.

The exact location wasn't discussed thoroughly however the second paragraph was recommended which went unopposed as a suggestion. For the sake of consensus, this means inclusion after the opening paragraph, noting that the article and consensus can change.

Aside from the disruption by socks the opposition was limited. One editor was concerned over presenting an imblanace away from neutrality, another oppose was down-weighted as wasn't based on policy; exclusion because something is "widely condemned" was considered a weak argument. A supporter countered that the opposition was based on righting great wrongs rather than due weight. Either way, the argument to exclude wasn't well supported with 5:1 instead supporting inclusion with strong policy-based arguments.

A special thanks goes to the editors who struck the sock comments so I didn't have to read them or strike them myself. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the subsection Jerusalem Day§Chanting "Death to Arabs" Jerusalem Day§Anti-Palestinian chants be represented in the introduction of the article with the sentence In recent years, there have been anti-Palestinian chants of "death to Arabs" and "May Your Village Burn" in these parades. or similar text? إيان (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC) (updated per discussion إيان (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC))

Strong oppose. This is WP:UNDUE. It is not intrinsically connected to the holiday. It is furthermore something that is unfortunately done by a few extremists, but not representative of most people who celebrate the holiday. So while it is relevant enough to be included in the body of the article, it is undue for inclusion in the lead. Nehushtani (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE states: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. A few RS have already been provided and there are more. If you want to demonstrate that this is somehow insignificant, you need to provide some proof.
Per MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. إيان (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Contrast how Wikipedia treats RS about "Death to Jews," "Death to Israel" and "Khaybar Ya Yahud" which have long been documented and recorded at pro-Palestine rallies. 12345678910 video compilation "Fuck the Jews, rape their daughters"
All of these examples are from before October 7th and the Gaza War.
Can you find a single article about pro-Palestine rallies where such hate chants are mentioned in the lead? Assuming you are neutral and are acting in good faith, what do you think would be a fair way to approach this apparent disparity? Scharb (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
If the question is directed to me, I would recommend discussing the content of other articles on their respective talk pages. The various links Scharb has provided cover events in locations ranging from Gaza to France to Vienna, etc. and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant sources here are about Jerusalem Day. Representing the subsection Jerusalem Day#Anti-Palestinian chants in the introduction, per sourcing, does not mean that the Jerusalem Day nationalists have a monopoly on chanting abhorrent things. إيان (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - The Jerusalem Day march is a significant element that should be properly represented in the lead, with these chants being a consistent aspect of the march. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, it's only got two sentences in the body, very undue for the lead Support now body and lead have been expanded Kowal2701 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - This story is what dominates international press coverage of Jerusalem Day every year. إيان (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think the subsection in the body would need to be fleshed out more, ideally with secondary sources rather than breaking news (and retitled to "Chants"). Though proportion within the Celebrations section would quickly become an issue (ie. WP:BALASP) because the article's pretty barebones, I'm sure the rest of the section can be expanded more Kowal2701 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Addressed. It would be inappropriate to veil the racist, violent nature of the chants behind the non-descript "Chants", though. إيان (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    That's much better, for the lead could there be a sentence describing the parade that preceded your proposed sentence? I don't see anything on the parade itself in the body. For the subsection title, maybe "Nationalist chants"? If not, that title's fine Kowal2701 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Dw, I did some additions, they okay? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think it's an improvement. Maybe add something from a secondary source if you are aware of any.
    I think it would be more appropriate to call them "Anti-Palestinian chants" for the subsection title. إيان (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah that's a good title. In the short search on Google Scholar I did I couldn't see any great sources, but yeah there's a lot of room for improvement on this article Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, strongly undue per @Nehushtani. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support, as others have pointed out there's plenty of WP:SIGCOV significant, ongoing and reliable coverage out there and it is important context for why the event itself is internationally notable. (So should be mentioned in lead per MOS:INTRO). Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Smallangryplanet, SIGCOV is for notability, ie. whether we should have an article on something, not relevant when deciding whether something is due for the lead (see WP:WIKILAWYERING, ie. using PAGs for things they weren’t intended for) Kowal2701 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
I sort of use SIGCOV as shorthand in my brain for significant coverage in general, I've edited my comment to better reflect what I meant. Hope that's copacetic! Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no reason not to mention it in the lead there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources as mentioned above and the lead is meant to summarise the body and this makes up a section in the body so I think a summary is warranted.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The chants are certainly notable enough for coverage in the body, but putting them in the lead gives them far more weight than they receive in balanced, neutral discussions of Jerusalem Day. As with other holidays, neutral overviews of the holiday focus on its historical background, its political and cultural significance, and so on. Singling out the behavior of a fringe group of extremist participants and elevating it to the lead creates a distorted picture of what the day represents for the vast majority of people here. If we applied this standard globally, of displaying fringe extremists in the lead of every holiday article, Wikipedia would quickly become unreadable, and in ARBPIA-related pages we've already seen how easily this leads to imbalance when it comes to Israel. Rafi Chazon (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. The relative weight given to aspects of a topic is supposed to mirror the weight given to them by reliable sources. Since the racist chants and violence almost always features prominently in news reports, and has done so for multiple years, it is perfectly fine for our article to have the same balance. Zerotalk 23:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Given the brevity of the article and the fact that Anti-Palestinian chants already has its own section, a concise summary in the lead aligns with WP:LEAD principles. Cinaroot (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support there is plenty of coverage of these chants in RS. If there are RS saying that this is only done by a few extremists, that should of course be mentioned. Rainsage (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Count me out of getting involved anything having to do with Israelis and/or Palestinians. Summoned by bot. I mean, the first sentence of this article has "reunification" in scare quotes. In normal articles we don't use scare quotes, because of course not. Stop that. I didn't read past the first sentence because why would I. To be honest, we should probably tag these articles with something like:

Herostratus (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Just my view but this template seems to go against WP:AGF. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 04:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite the existence of this unfortunate phenomenon, it should not be included in the lead for the simple reason that these chants are widely condemned, even by the most radical right politicians in Israel. For example, Itamar Ben Gvir told his audience 2022 not to say death to the Arabs, only to the terrorists.[1] LidDahl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support a brief mention somewhere in the lead, probably in the second paragraph (or below if more paragraphs are added.) Coverage is broad (in terms of high-quality sources from a wide range of perspectives and positions), sustained, and sufficient to support a decently-sized subsection in the body; a brief sentience in the lead can't be considered undue. If you compare it to other things in the second paragraph, which are mostly comparatively nitty-gritty details about the celebrations, it's hard to see how it is less due than them given the level of coverage it has received. Notably, the Dance of Flags, for instance, has no mention in the body that I can see (presumably an oversight). Likewise, the statement that The Chief Rabbinate of Israel declared Jerusalem Day to be a minor religious holiday, as it marks the regaining for Jewish people of access to the Western Wall reflects a paragraph that is roughly the same size as the one devoted to this now, while having fewer sources. Most of the arguments people are giving against inclusion (eg. "these people aren't representative" or "it's just a few extremists") are essentially WP:WGW arguments in that they're saying that this aspect shouldn't be receiving the level of coverage that it does. Maybe so, but it does receive it. If there are high-quality WP:RSes saying "these people aren't representative" or the like perhaps that could be added, but it doesn't change the fact that it does in fact receive significant coverage, which means that the encyclopedic thing to do is to reflect that level of coveage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - the sourcing in the section of the body is extensive and sustained over multiple years - إيان is right to say that this issue has featured prominently in news coverage of Jerusalem day. Because of this, I support a mention similar to what Aquillion described in their comment - a sentence describing the chants in the second paragraph of the lede.
In response to Nehushtani’s argument that the chants are unrepresentative, and to LidDahl's point that they are condemned across the political spectrum, those are issues to be raised in the body (with appropriate sourcing). However I think we should accommodate these arguments to the point of covering the chants in the lede with a wording that does not presuppose or imply any conclusion about how representative they are amongst the marchers. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Besides the section already in the article discussing this, it is mentioned in several scholarly works like this one. Pretending that this holiday is not contentious or unmarked by racist behaviour and slogans, violates NPOV.Tiamut (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Another source from a Jewish Palestinian solidarity activist calls it, one of the most racist and violent annual expressions of Israeli nationalism, which has often prompted counterprotests. Tiamut (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2025 (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.
  1. ↑ Pita, Antonio (October 31, 2022). "Itamar Ben-Gvir, the ultranationalist star of the Israeli elections". El Pais. Retrieved December 1, 2025.