Talk:Yair Golan

Holocaust Day speech

On two occasions anonymous IP editors have removed this content from the article. (I'm not sure whether IP editors are allowed to edit this page, but I'm willing to set that aside). It seems like the thing to do is to open up space her to talk about why it is appropriate, or not, for the article.

The case for including it is straightforward: This is *the* single action that has thrust Golan into the limelight. Most Deputy Chiefs of Staff are not household names in Israel, but Golan was after this speech. Most Deputy Chiefs of Staff are hardly mentioned in the international press, much less the New York Times. Arguably this is the most notable thing he's done. If we don't include it in the article we're shirking our responsibility as editors.

Other comments? PPX (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't remove sourced content in Haaretz and Breaking the Silence, I would take you more seriously.--181.170.158.61 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The place to talk about any of those edits is on those talk pages. As to whether it applies here, see WP:POINT

Can anyone put forward a rationale for not including this information? PPX (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:I think the speech is notable , and deserves inclusion, but not the way it was previously in the article. The article shouldn't feature a lengthy quote from Golan. Instead, it should describe the fact that he gave such a speech, with its main point (that he sees parallels between Germany of the 1930s and current day Israel) , and then describe the widespread public criticism of that foolish comparison, and the fact that Golan later denied making such a comparison. Epson Salts (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Great. There's no doubt that a revision of what I did will help. The absence of its mention was glaring to me, and I did not intend that what I put up would not be improved upon. Will you take a crack at suggesting better wording? PPX (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous IP editors keep making reverts. Please note that this is a violation of ARBPIA. PPX (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to add that this discussion has yet to offer any policy rationally for why the text initially added is wrong. There was a rationale in the edit history that it is a POV violation, but I do not understand what's meant by that in this instance. I welcome elaboration.PPX (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Will anybody make a suggestion for text to include? If none are forthcoming, I intend to reinstate the text we had earlier. PPX (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the IP editor who made the most recent edit. True, anonymous editors aren't supposed to edit the article. But it's nice work! PPX (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh. I see copyright violations in the text "heavy handed" for instance.