Talk:Yehudah Glick

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

Writing claims as facts[edit]

It is absurd to characterize his position as "equal access to the Temple Mount for Jews", unless you think that "equal access" includes the right to replace the Dome of the Rock by a new Jewish Temple. At the very least, this "equal access" should be presented as the claim made, not as an objective fact. Zerotalk 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Glick's (unusual, Utopian, strange, idiosyncratic) stated goal - repeatedly stated goal - is to have Al Aqsa Mosque, Dome of the Rock, Muslim prayer services, Jewish prayer services, tourists, prayers of all kinds - Plus (this is where it gets really, er, unique - PLUS - a large ancient-type altar for offering sacrifices (actual burnt offerings, sheep, doves - no non-halal animals). This would be located in the spot where he says that the Bible says the ancient altar was located, a number of yards to the east of the Dome of the Rock (for those who have never been there, the Temple Mont is an enormous and usually empty open space.)
I am adding this here because Glick is many things, but he is not an advocate of replacing the Dome of the Rock. His ideas are stranger than that.ShulMaven (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the Dome, incorporating the Dome, ask any Muslim if there is a difference. Glick considers the Holy of Holies to be located at the rock inside the Dome and there is an ice-cube's chance in hell that Glick will allow any Muslim (or even most Jews, you know the rules) to go near it. That's why he proposes some sort of altar to be built away from it. His plan will eliminate the Dome as an Islamic site whether or not the physical building is destroyed. Zerotalk 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're writing claims as facts. Also, as delicate as the sensibilities of Muslims may be to the prospect of sharing the Temple Mount with other religions, it doesn't actually make it similar to destroying buildings, or makes the Dome not a Muslim site. 79.181.65.163 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an Islamic site. It is a Jewish site. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. Denying this fact is anti-Semitic. Not allowing Jews to pray at their holiest site is anti-Semitic. Allowing Muslims to control the holiest site in Judaism is anti-Semitic. How would you feel if Mecca was controlled by Jews, and no Muslims were allowed to pray there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.95.231.100 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing false info from lede[edit]

Temple Mount politics are complex, but Glick does not support the destruction./ removal, or replacement of either the Dome of the Rock or the [[[Al Aqsa]] mosque. [1]ShulMaven (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed, and incorrectly claimed was slanderous, was "and for rebuilding a Jewish temple at the religiously important site". It wasn't anything about destruction of Islamic sites. It is also 100% factual. Of course Glick wants to rebuild the temple. The article you refer to does not present a clear view of his position, but this interview does. Read it in his own words. It is true that he has a strange idea about incorporating the Dome of the Rock into the temple, but this is all conditional on Islamic cooperation and in any case only someone with the same strange ideas would see it as anything other than a Jewish takeover of the Dome. Zerotalk 22:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, you are treading very thin ice in putting that kind of assertion in a Bio of a Living Person.Note 1) that your source [2], Al Jazeera, does not appear to have interviewed Glick and does not quote Glick, it cites the position of an organization of which he used ot be the director. He does indeed continue to work with that organizaiton, whether he endorses every position they take is an open quetion, I believe that I have put the date in a more appropriate place/phrasing. 2) 2 articles in newspapers (Haarets, and Jewish Daily Forward) that are reliable, left-of-center, hostile to the idea of (this stuff is so crazy, I feel absurd just keying this in) rebuilding the ancient Jewish Temple and (believe it or not, people actually want to do this) holding animal sacrifices there like in the olden days, describe Glick's position very differently.[3] and [4]. I can't say that I believe in miracles, however surviving 4 bullets fired at point-blank range certainly seems like a miracle. He is already receiving visits from politicians in his hospital room (today's news cycle). There will be interviews as he regains strength, as surely as day follows night. I strongly suggest that we agree not to include allegations about the man's political positions on highly controversial topics in the article until/unless better sources appear.ShulMaven (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Should there be a separate article on the assassination attempt[edit]

I think so. So that the material about consequences of the assassination attempt does not overwhelm the article on the man. Perhaps more necessary in this context than in most since the assassination is being used for political purposes by both sides in a volatile and ongoing contest.ShulMaven (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that myself. I am not sure if it would fit into WP:NOTNEWS or not even though it fits WP:GNG. Its a pretty big story right now but I don't know if its the type of incident that would stick around. This incident is the reason he is in the news right now but not sure if it will have longevity. If this incident breeds a new revolution for Jews on the temple mount it for sure needs its own page, but right now I can see both sides of the argument. - Galatz (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"civil rights activist"[edit]

This does not seem like a neutral characterisation. In fact, one of the sources given, Haaretz, is very much not describing him thusly, in the context the phrase appears. "Activist" is certainly a popular descriptor, sometimes unqualified, but also "Temple Mount activist", "Hardline Jewish activist", and so on. Suggest either a more neutral term, or a range of them to cover the varying assessments of them. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Webster defines the term activist as "support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue". Additionally they define civil rights as "the rights that every person should have regardless of his or her sex, race, or religion". Therefore the term I believe agrees to what is stated in the article. Right now muslims can pray on the temple mount and no one else can, and it mentions he wants everyone to be able to. Based on this I think the term fits. It might strike you differently but I am going based on dictionary definition, not personal view of the term, - Galatz (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid to say that's classic OR and SYNTH logic, though the line of reasoning does have some support in some sources -- minority ones that are being given undue weight here. I'm simply suggesting we reflect accurately what the balance of reliable sources say, and proposing we begin a discussion as to how best to do that. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

civil rights activist[edit]

The Anshel Pfeffer quote does not support this, because it shows, quite correctly, that Yehuda Glick is described in many ways, not only as a civil rights activist, which is a POV, like the other terms. The word 'civil rights activist' is in any case inappropriate for someone whose activism is restricted to one issue, obtaining Jewish rights not only to pray on the Temple Mount, but to build the Third Temple there. He is by all accounts a peaceful man, but there is no evidence he has interests other than establishing a Jewish right to worship there. It is also part of the record that those he frequents are extremists, notable for seeing the project he is involved in as imposing Jewish ascendency over the very Muslims Glick would have as co-worshippers in an ecumenical monotheism. I have added this, since numerous sources state the connection. Only Seth Mandel's piece, polemically, describes him as nothing but a 'civil rights activist', while noting others view his position as radical, or far-rightest, or whatever. Calling him as 'religious rights activist' is about the only neutral term out there. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this silly edit must be reverted because the quote is in the notes to indicate why it does not support the 'civil rights' activist construction for the lead. An editor asserted the source supported this, whereas Pfeffer does not support it, but named several descriptors used of Glick, either of which could have been, unscrupulously depending on POV, picked to back anything from 'far right extremist' to 'civil rights activist'. He is neither, though he spends much of his time in the formers' company.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So post the quote to the talk page. As it stands, it doesn't support the article and is there for blackwashing purpose. 212.76.112.113 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based case has been made for its removal. Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A picture at entrance of a location place is not WP:NOTE. 'extremist' is WP:UNDUE and WP:BLE. Why not write it in the article if you think it belongs? 212.76.112.113 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reread the above, which answered the question you repeat. In any case, you are questioning a perfectly good source for the politico-religious environment in which Glick works.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't find anything better then a picture at the entrance? This is silly. As for the quotes, they don't support the paragraph. Why is it even there? you want to dispute 'civil ...', the talk page is the place for it (BTW, I agree with you on this one). If you think it should be in the article, put it in, otherwise, placing it in a quote is just a back door. I can find countless source which will regard to Mahmoud Abbas as terrorist (just an example) and place it in a quote in a source. 212.76.112.113 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. 'I' reported what the Haaretz journalist found on visiting a talk given by Glick. You are confusing me with the source. There is no implication that Glick is a terrorist. To the contrary, the sources I introduced say otherwise. They simply note that many of his acquaintances are extremist, and some belong to organizations who think it an halakhic duty to wipe out Palestinians (Amalek). It's not the first time that a pacific chap has thugs in his train: Christ, the legend says, had apostles ready to wield swords. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. You want to write that he is a Kahanist, find a source that supports this directly. A source that says they met over breakfast will result with that fact in the article? Editors should use their judgement and you can't 'blame' it on the source. Invest the time to find a real source rather than waste time on this nonsense.
As for your lengthy quote, once again, it doesn't support the text so it doesn't belong. It should be on the talk page since you try to make a point with it. 212.76.112.113 (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consult WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which your remarks, talking past another edit, egregiously illustrate.Nishidani (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT reads "...long after the consensus..." and "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"". 212.76.112.113 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Nishidani's history found this. Why is criticism on the UN website of Falk BLP and smear but a reporter writing extremist is completely OK? 31.44.136.75 (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the context of the extended quote which shows the range of opinions about Glick, one of which is that he is a 'civil rights activist', used rarely, but there. Those who wish to selectively use this are ignoring the fact that by the same token any POV pusher could cite the other, negative assessments, in Anshel Pfeffer's remark, a remark which undercuts both extremists by showing that opinions on him are wild in their exaggerations.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
for WP:REF - A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. Extremist is applicable for what is referenced. This compilation to 'prove' he isn't a civil... is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and doesn't belong. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote cites the full text in order to clarify what POV pushers refuse to understand, i.e., that opinions are varied, and no one has a right to slect one and repress the others. In my edit, I chose none of those phrases, but devised a neutral descriptor which covers his activism+rights+religious interests.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a talk page for this where all conversations are archived. I guess it is time to add the title terrorist to Mohammed Deif as there is no lack of source who says that. If you insist, it can be attributed. The word terror isn't even mentioned. Nice whitewashing of a man regarded by many as archterrorist. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got to do with the price of chips? This is not a tit-for-tat POV game. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not a tit-for-tat POV game" said the man who had an argument about religious vs civil activist and in reposnse inserted a redicules phrase about a picture. Show me please the policy that says quotes can be used to "clarify what POV pushers refuse to understand". I already showed otherwise. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin stating it is clearly BLP. In addition, this is op-ed which can't be used to support statements of fact, per WP:RS. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, can you pls explain why you so insist on "religious rights"? Do you think that right to pray isn't a civil one?
Even your current Lede version doesn't prove such religious only aspect:

Yehuda Joshua Glick... is an American-born Israeli rabbi and religious rights activist[2][3][4][5] who campaigns for expanding Jewish access to the Temple Mount.[6][7] Glick is the leader of HaLiba, a coalition of groups dedicated to “reaching complete and comprehensive freedom and civil rights for Jews on the Temple Mount.”[8] Glick was awarded the 2015 Moskowitz Prize for Zionism for being "Active for human rights and religious freedom on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount".[9]

Moreover, even Aesopian language of NYT authors does prove what you're trying to deny:
++ Stockman condemns recent wave of terror attacks in Israel, "A week later there was an assassination attempt against Yehuda Glick, a civil rights activist who advocates for the right of Jews to be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount...", etc.
And it's the same JOSHUA MITNICK, but at Nov. 4, 2014 :
  • "Mr. Glick, an activist who regularly defied the ban on Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount, was severely wounded in the attack."
  • "... the situation on the Temple Mount is beginning to change. Jewish extremists have been replaced by activists who say prayer there is a civil-rights issue. Some rabbis have reconsidered the bans..."
  • "The Temple Institute says it isn’t inciting extremism but advocating for civil rights. Rabbi Chaim Richman, its director, said the group seeks to allow worship for all faiths, including Christians, at the site..."
--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a civil rights activist. A religious right is not a civil right. The European court has upheld France's secular Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, which bans the use of a burqa or niqab in public space, because it is a private religious duty perhaps, but not consonant, in France's view, with civil society's basic rules. If he were a civil rights activist in the broad sense, one would see him insisting that at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Jewish people touring the area, take off their shoes, rather than tramping in over the carpets in defiance of the historic rule to show respect by removing one's footgear, mor be remonstrating at Mea Shearim to get the ultra-orthodox to stop harassing anyone outside the fold who ventures there. A civil right is one that is non-denominational, a religious right is denominational. People raised in Western democracies that have as their premise the distinction between secular and religious spheres, the separation of Church and State, understand this. People who are fundamentalist do not understand the distinction. Glick is very clever to adopt, as an American, the rhetoric of 'civil rights' as though he were fighting for everyone's social rights by pushing for one constituency's right to wrest control of the site from Jordan. It plays to the American constituency. It is not a civil right to insist on kosher or halal food in MacDonald's. The area concerned is technically a waqf, is not, under common consent, a civic space under one nation's sovereignty.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A religious right is not a civil right" (@Nishidani)
As usual, you try to present your own POV only as a fact :)
  • justice.gov: "Religious freedom is one of the United States’ founding principles, protected by the First Amendment and other federal laws. The right against religious discrimination is likewise one of our basic civil rights..."
  • from Civil and political rights :
    • "The phrase "civil rights" is a translation of Latin ius civis (rights of a citizen). Roman citizens could be either free (libertas) or servile (servitus), but they all had rights in law.[5] After the Edict of Milan in 313, these rights included the freedom of religion.[6]
    • "First-generation rights, often called "blue" rights, deal essentially with liberty and participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature, as well as strongly individualistic... First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, (in some countries) the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and voting rights."
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18
    • "1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching..."
--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reverting a tag[edit]

Wikitext Both Fatah and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the failed assassination attempt. Reverted by All Rows4.

If Fatah had claimed responsibility for an attempted assassination, Israel would have arrested Abbas, and the EU and the United States would have suspended funding the PA. That is how things work there. So that is an exceptional claim, and requires good, multiple sources. What source do we have? One

ELHANAN MILLER AND STUART WINER Temple Mount reopens after rioting forces closure 5 November , 2014.

Perhaps I am a bad researcher but I can find no results other than this in Israeli and Western mainstream newspapers for the idea 'Fatah claims responsibility'. What Elhanan and Winer write, in toto is this.

Fatah, as well as Islamic Jihad, has claimed responsibility for the attempt on Glick’s life by Begin Center employee Mu’taz Hijazi. Following his killing by Israeli security forces on October 30, Abbas sent a condolence letter to Hijazi’s family, referring to him as a martyr — a move that prompted bitter criticism from Netanyahu, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and others.

The 2 links below that statement are actually one, meaning the editor at the ToL was distracted. Follow the link and you get this.

Islamic Jihad and Hamas both praised the shooting of Glick on Thursday. Islamic Jihad spokesperson in Gaza Daud Shihab said that the “radical Zionist” got what was coming to him, and called him one of the most dangerous inciters. Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum praised the “heroic attack” and called on East Jerusalem residents and Palestinians in general to carry out more terrorist attacks against Israel. Fatah’s youth movement in Jordan also claimed in a message posted Thursday morning on the movement’s Facebook page that Hijazi belonged to the organization.

I make no presumption about the bolded last part being translated into 'Fatah claimed responsibility for the attempt of Glick's life'. But it is obvious that, since we have no source other than this, and no mainstream cross-confirmation 8as yet) that, as an extraordinary claim, it requires multiple independent sourcing, apart from being dubious (PA funding cut off if so, and the PA arrests and gaols many Islamic Jihad militants).Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know nor care if you are a good or bad researcher, but I do know that Wikipedia does not allow original research, which is what you are doing above ('e.g "If Fatah had claimed responsibility for an attempted assassination, Israel would have arrested Abbas...') . So, good or bad, just stop your research, and use what reliable sources state. .All Rows4 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did no original research. Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing, and if an editor finds a statement that strikes her as unusual, it is absolutely normal for him to tag it. If you can't find another source, then it goes back in.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And instead of lazy reverting, do some work, and find a second mainstream source to independently confirm that odd claim. That's what most editors do, they check and cross check to ensure that readers are not pulled in by bad sourcing, or unusual claims that cannot be independently verified.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never met an editor who would accept that the Golan Heights is in Israel because the New York Times claimed it was once. The same goes for The Times of Israel. All newspapers fuck up, esp. in this area, right, left, and centre.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly performed original research . Wikipedia requires that you discuss any tag you put in the article, which you failed to do. Now you are discussing it, which is a good first step, perhaps we can get you to follow all the rest of Wikipedia polices. Now: we have a reliable source that states , explicitly, the statement you tagged. There is nothing dubious about it whatsoever. If you want to re-add the tag, you will need to bring another source which refutes this claim or disputes it(as would easily be done in the GH example, above). All Rows4 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I was actually being intelligent. I happen to like trying to understand what tabloids say. Since obviously fatah claiming responsibility for a political assassination is huge news, obviously you can provide me with a reliable source that confirms what, so far, two writers stated on the Times of Israel article. If you can't, it's a singleton, and as such, requires per policy independent corroboration via a dubious tag. I'd appreciate you finding corroborative witness to this claim. It shouldn't be hard, if it is true.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request to editors. Can anyone find a reliable mainstream source which backs up Elhanan et al.,'s remark that Fatah claimed responsibility for the attempt on Glick's life. I'll email a jar of vaginamite to anyone who comes up with the goods.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“We in Fatah are not ashamed to take responsibility for the heroic act he carried out today…”. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good piece of research, and helpful. It doesn't bear out The Times of Israel report that 'Fatah claimed responsibility' however.
Anav Silverman, 'Fatah Lauds Palestinian Shooter of Rabbi Glick; Continues to Encourage Terrorism,' Tazpit News Agency/Jewish Press.com 4 November 2014.

Adnan Gaith, the director of the Jerusalem branch of Abbas’ Fatah movement and resident of Silwan, expressed pride in the shooting and deemed a “heroic act” in an exclusive interview to the Quds News Network, as cited by PMW. “The Martyr Mutaz Hijazi, who carried out the assassination attempt, was a member of Fatah and one of its activists in [Jerusalem]. Since his release from the occupation prisons in 2012, he participated in all the movement’s events and was active in it,” said Gaith.“We in Fatah are not ashamed to take responsibility for the heroic act he carried out today.” added Gaith, a prominent Fatah figure.'

Actually he is director of the Silwan branch of Fatah. The claim that Mutaz Hijazi was a Fatah activist in Jerusalem, should be read together with Islamic Jihad's formal declaration that Mutaz Hijazi was an Islamic Jihad member.
These declarations by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah activists are usually for internal consumption in a faction-ridden society, and are not treated seriously by analysts (compare the Arouri declaration that Hamas was behind the kidnapping and murder of three teenagers. The Shin Bet recently said Arouri was probably trying to gain leverage in an infra-hamas factional fight by the declaration. If the local Silwan suburb Fatah leader is entitled to speak officially for the whole of Fatah, then that means any declaration by any Israeli or Palestinian militant or politician, even if he or she is a fringe figure, becomes quotable as party policy. I.e.
The connection fringe sources are trying to make is the same anyone might make by saying it is the official policy of Likud to annihilate anyone in the Gaza Strip who supports Hamas because Moshe Feiglin advocates it, or that it is Likud policy to create concentration camps in the Gaza Strip on the basis of his remarks; or that it is Likud policy to treat bomb the mothers of people defined as terrorists because otherwise they will breed more "little snakes". In short, you need an official Fatah declaration of responsibility, which is still lacking. So far we have evidence that some Fatah politicians claimed responsibility.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 95.86.114.137 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banned by court[edit]

WP:LEDE tells us that we ought to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, and the fact that he has been banned by a Jerusalem court to enter the Temple Mount while the legal proceedings against him are ongoing, it is a highly notable controversy, in particular because the Mount is at the core of his activism. I have tagged the lead accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to include the assassination attempt, and the current legal proceedings against him. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing activists[edit]

Many reliable sources describe Glick as a "right-wing activist", which is is not reflected in the article. For NPOV, we ought to describe significant viewpoints and this is clearly one of them. Sources below:

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I don't personally think it's correct to say he is a 'right wing activist'. It is true to say that mainstream sources often depict him that way, as they do the converse. The New York Times, Isabelle Kershner herself, describes him as an 'American Israeli agitator'. Glick is a religious fundamentalist, and probably political categories don't sit easy with him. He is intensely naïve, doesn't appear to be aware of 1929, and what a squabble over a seat and a curtain at the West Wall can lead to. On the other hand, he might well be, as an American, very media-savvy and cluey about how to handle a right-wing claim before the world public. But we can't deduce that. For a background portrait, partial but with many angles not given here see Yardena Schwartz, 'The man who may spark a religious war wants Jews to pray alongside Muslims on the Temple Mount. Is his dream a death wish?,' December 10, 2014 Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need to follow the sources. If he is described as a right-wing activits, or an agitator, we report that in the article per NPOV, proportionally.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means we are neutral as to all partisan claims, which meaans not using any of these terms in the lead. The list of terms used to define him should be lower down, not in the lead. Rather than remove the evidence for this variety, it should be placed in a subsection below. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like to come back to an article, such as Yehuda Glick, after a few months to review again the sentences I questioned before in my own mind. I agree with Nishidani in that, the sentence should be moved to a subsection since its more of an opinion by some people, but not all. At the very least, since no one can claim that everyone refers to him as a right-wing activist, the sentence could be modified to say "Some people have referred to him as a right-wing activist." GoGeo (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious rights activist[edit]

I'm doubtful about this term. The sources being used to support it are all op-eds; to use them we'd have to attribute the use of the term, and I don't think that's desirable for the lead. Also, I'm not sure that any of the sources actually use that precise term. What we need here for a lead characterisation of some sort is a high quality source that is not an op-ed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was my provisory edit based on the fact that numerous sources call him an 'activist', numerous sources, a agitator for a 'right' to Jewish access to the Temple Mount, and all sources concur his fundamental motivation is 'religious'. It was a standby pro-tem solution to avoid edit-warring by parties editing to privilege one of those three terms to the exclusion of the other two. When I did it, I wasn't satisfied because he is not s 'religious rights activist' in the broad sense: he is only concerned with monotheisms. One should also note that his point is (a) to gain parity of rights to prayer (b) that then translates into parity of rights to a structure of worship which (c) means constructing a Jewish temple on the site of Al-Aqsa by enveloping it inside the larger building, as an ostensibly inclusive ecumenical institution which however (d) makes no mention of, if his logic were correct, parity for Christians to construct therein on the same site, their house of worship (e) and for demographic reasons it would destroy the site: bar mitzvah seeking families competing with Muslims (f) It all tallies with the realist principle underlying Zionism, 'another dunam, another goat' of 'toehold', 'foothold', 'expropriation', 'exclusive use' (when the first three steps arouse antagonistic responses). It would end up worse than the 'Holy Sepulchre' as well with competing versions of ultra-orthodox asserting all sorts of exceptions for women, for halakhic procedures in sacred space. Anyone can see this, except the journalists who write these articles, Glick and those who back him. Perhaps they can see it, and weloome the 'end of time' aspocalyptic effects of such a project's realization. By the way, his official profession is 'tour guide', which should be registered here.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That characterization is mostly from friendly op-eds. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely fast way to close a talk.
There are multiple sources supporting Right wing, religious or civil rights activist. They are all good description which are on point. Somehow the conclusion is right-wing which is the least descriptive of what he stands for. Civil right is probably whitewashing, right-wing is too general. I believe religious activist is the most appropriate and there are enough RS which support this. 95.86.114.137 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I see there is consensus for a Religious rights activist.
So what is remaining yet is to recognize that Religious rights are a part of Civil rights: see my 22:13, 21 June 2015 reply above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose to use all - Religious [refs]/ Civil [refs] rights activist + ~"Some sources - right wing [refs]" - definitions with corresponding attribution. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not in the lead, where a single neutral descriptor is required. That can then be nuanced in an appropriate section. I answered your point about religious rights not being understood in the modern Western world a interchangeable with civil rights: civil here means 'secular space', whereas religious rights here means sacred space, and the two are different spheres.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani - right-wing in an article in I/P area is also misleading 'in the modern Western world'. religion activist Is the most precise and more neutral. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source for inclusion[edit]

This has quite a lot of background Dan Cohen and Tamar Aviyah, 'Yehuda Glick’s meteoric rise from messianic margins to Israeli parliament,' Mondoweiss May 31, 2016 Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yehudah_Glick&oldid=1207441439"