Talk:Israel/Archive 24

Amazing - anything but "Jewish Narrative" is instantly deleted
I don't see much difference between WP and "Jewish Encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing - you give no specific information, and your claim is completely bogus. okedem 09:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourtildas, if you could give specific reasons for your comments, that would be greatly appreciated and a discussion could be held. The way you present yourself here and elsewhere (I looked through your other "contributions") is neither constructive nor assuming WP:Assume Good Faith in editors who have put a lot of time and effort into some excellent articles.  If you truly feel this way, give some examples.  As it is, a large diverse consensus has worked hard and determined this to be NPOV.  The reviewers at Featured Articles believe this as well. --Jdcaust 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can give you an obvious example - there's no mention in this article that Israel is the only nation on earth to officially sanction and endorse torture (1987 Landau Commission, endorsed 1999, Hight Court of Justice).
 * In July 2002, Ha’aretz quoted a senior GSS official "who said that, since the High Court’s decision, ninety Palestinians had been defined as "ticking bombs" and "extraordinary interrogation methods," i.e. torture, was used against them". As Bob Cochran told the New Yorker "Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely".
 * On 18 December 2002, Israel voted (at least according to this blog quoting Ha'aretz) at the UN to approve the "Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" - but 2 days later it claimed there had been a technical error, and it changed its vote to oppose the protocol. Israel signed and ratified the 1991 "Convention on Torture" but has refused the agreed visits and inspections. All of this comes, of course, on top of the well-known testimony of independent observers and outraged Israelis themselves. PRtalk 12:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any actual listing of these "experts" that say it never happens? Because if the proper answer is the 'very rarely', which is more likely, lets take the whole situation in light. I can't offhand think of any nation under as much constant threat from terrorist action as Israel. I can't think of any 2 nations combined that are under as much constant threat from terrorist action as Israel. The simple fact is, even if it's 'very rare' that it's needed, Israel is a nation that most likely will face the situation, and face it multiple times, if anyone does. They get attacked enough invariably the 'very rare' occurs. I'm not saying I approve of torture. Then again, I also don't approve of the blowing up of women and children. If Israel has to make the choice, then I think if you're going to include the fact they use torture you also include WHY they have to use it. When the other side thinks skipping your military and government targets to blow up civilians is fair game, it isn't so white and black any more, but I doubt you want a shade of gray here. You just want to make one side seem horrible while ignoring what the other did to prompt it. Nothing in all this is that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really not notable enough. Many, many, nations use torture as one of their tools, and officially acknowledging it is not important. okedem 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's important if your goal is to single out Israel for ridiculous, cherry-picked criticism and force your POV down everyone's throats. But we never see THAT here. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It stinks doesn't it? I find that only Christian narratives are considered in articles on Great Britain, France, USA, and quite a few other countries. I suggest you go and correct them. Telaviv1 08:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

tariqabjotu and Shamir, can you guys come to a compromise?
I can understand both of your views, but I think the argument has come down to simple semantics. This is the way I see it and tell me if I'm wrong. tariqabjotu, you would like to keep the sentence the way it is since it is both succinct and simple. Shamir, I'm guessing you don't like "Unlike most Middle Eastern countries" part and how that doesn't exactly fit the source. Can you guys find a way to compromise and come up with a format that makes everyone happy?

Here's my suggestion:

Currently, Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy out of 18 countries in the Middle East.

To me, this is both simple and directly reflective of the source. What do you guys think? Again, if you both think I'm totally off here or butting in, let me know. I just want to help you guys settle this once and for all. As it is, the current revert skirmish (I don't think it qualifies as a war ;D ) is getting a little silly. --Jdcaust 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The source says:

"In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region). There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent)."

Just say exactly what the source says.--Mostargue 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, great, but there are two issues here. One, of Israel being a liberal democracy. Two - the definition of the middle east. When citing Freedom House, we'd have to explain that we're also using their definition of the ME. We can also use another definition, which includes Cyprus in the ME, and still cite Freedom House's findings. Then Israel wouldn't be the only liberal democracy in the ME. Using their findings doesn't obligate us to use their geographical definitions.
 * Mind you, they're not very strong in geography - seriously, they categorize Turkey as being in "Western Europe"... okedem 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. But if you want an explanation, it is most probably due to Turkey being a part of the Western European and Others Group at the United Nations. Secondly, it is their views that they express that we must accurately represent. They undisputedly express the view that Israel is the only one in that region that is a liberal democracy. "Then Israel wouldn't..." would be considered WP:Original research. --Shamir1 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... this already is a compromise. Okedem, LordAmeth, BoredCollegeStudent, and I all agreed with meeting halfway at "Unlike most countries in the Middle East..." as opposed to merely "Despite its international political problems, Israel is a developed country and a liberal democracy..." (which does not include a comparison to other countries) and "Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East" (which puts Israel as the only). We are not here to appease Shamir. --  tariq abjotu  17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariq, polls and the such do not create consensus. This isnt about appeasing me it is about following the basic rules of Wikipedia. Freedom House is hardly the only one that does not consider Cyprus to be in the Middle East. That, however, really does not matter. Since you would be using a different source to challenge it to try to say that Cyprus is sometimes considered to be in the Middle East, I suggested the idea of a footnote as a compromise, since those are not the words of the source we are using. This is the source's view (as well as that of others). Now, however, the sentence explicitly states that it is view and findings of Freedom House (in addition to the citation which was already there). Jdcaust is right to point out the words of the publication.
 * From Citing_sources:
 * "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.
 * The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research."
 * Jdcaust, your suggestion reflects the source's opinion as per the cited publication. Thus, it follows the rules of WP:REF. --Shamir1 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whenever I talk to you, I find myself repeating things I have already said over and over. As I mentioned earlier, the current wording does not exclude the possibility that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is a liberal democracy. It, however, unlike your version, leaves open other interpretations of the concept of the Middle East. Even if you were to discount that fact, your sole reasoning for including your wording is that you, for some unknown reason, believe that we have to use everything in the source. No, we don't have to. The source is for stating that Israel is a liberal democracy; the rest of that sentence does not have to be supported by the source (although, as I already stated in my prior explanation, it is). Your version resorts to an unnecessary emphasis on Freedom House just to get your way. Jdcaust's suggestion is just a re-hash of your version and is not in any sense a "compromise". What we have now is a compromise (you seem to have forgotten the original wording, even though I transcribed it above). The onus is on you to explain why we are wrong, not revert us continuously with a spurious explanation. I'm not budging any further. Period. And I will continuously revert you if you keep attempting to put your version back in against a consensus. Period. I'm tired of being forced to play nice while others with no reputation to lose are allowed to do what they please. --  tariq abjotu  20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As am I. Saying "Unlike most countries in the..." does not leave other interepretations as you claim it does, and it does not need to. (To quote you: "No, we don't have to.") Saying "unlike most" does not say what the source says at all. What the source undisputedly says is that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (or of eighteen countries in the Middle East). That is the source's view, and we cite it as such. That is what matters. "Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research." If you honestly wanted space for another interpretation from the source at hand (actually, the other source does not even refer to this but all is okay), I had already suggested the idea of a footnote. This is not my way. Stop with this talk. These are the ways of Wikipedia and I, unlike you, are taking the rules into consideration. Tariqabjotu, we would not be here if there were a "consensus". You can revert but you will have to explain to a mediator how WP:REF somehow does not apply. --Shamir1 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tariq. Now we have a new source, completely in line with the rules of WP:REF, which does state more explicitly what we need it to, and which we can cite from. Hopefully it won't face the same issues as the other source. LordAmeth 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've returned the Freedom House source. I don't think we should lose a good source just because of Shamir1's actions.
 * Shamir1, remember, again, that the whole "Unlike most countries in the..." is a compromise. If you don't like it, we can just avoid the whole comparison. If you revert to your version again, I will revert your edits, and will probably return to a version with no comparison. I won't fight for a compromise you don't even want. okedem 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who agrees with shamir? I'm going to have to side with tariq on this one.--Mostargue 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no set definition for the Middle East. This is their opinion. LordAmeth, the problem is not the source. What does RWB have to do with this? How does it cancel out the data of Freedom House?
 * Mostargue, you just said: "Just say exactly what the source says."
 * Okedem, I am for the source. Removing has nothing to do with me. The sentence needs to represent the opinion of the source with a citation, those are the rules. Period. Okedem, I took much feedback into consideration as well as WP:REF. Compromises must be made within the rules. I suggested a footnote on the sentence to state a view that differs from the words of the source as a compromise. I suggested writing in addition to the citation, that it according to a study by Freedom House and out of eighteen Middle Eastern countries (as they say) as a compromise. Don't give me that nonsense. Stick to the rules and then we can compromise from there, as opposed to compromising the rules.

To start from Jdcaust's suggestion. (I copied/pasted the " " so as not to get the references from all of those above):

Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East.

1. ^ Global Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom. Freedom House (2005-12-19). Retrieved on 2007-07-01. 2. ^ The research (Freedom House) does not consider Cyprus to be in the Middle East. When considering Cyprus a part of this geographic region, Israel is one of two liberal democracies in the Middle East.

This a) says the "opinion [on a particular issue ... by a specific group] and gives a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." b) includes the number of countries that are considered a part of the region and links to to a list of them c) includes a footnote mentioning the debated status of Cyprus. This seems good. --Shamir1 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your version is excessively specific about where the info comes from and is extremely limited in its definition of the Middle East. The footnote acts as a workaround to you having to accept the compromise. I hate to break it to you, but your interpretation of WP:CITE is way off. If you'd notice, we rarely – in this article and others – begin sentences with "Source X says..." or "Source Y says..." unless the source is not historical in nature or otherwise apocryphal (such as the Bible or the Qur'an), is a fringe source, or is part of ranking that varies drastically (i.e. for college rankings). Freedom House does not fall into one of those categories. There is little question that Israel is a liberal democracy and there is little question that Cyprus is a liberal democracy; the issue is a matter of geography – whether Cyprus is part of the Middle East. Freedom House is near (at?) the forefront of discussing human liberties available in individual countries, but they are not at the forefront of geography (and I don't think there's really any one organization that is). Thus, it would not make sense for us to say that Turkey is the only country in Western Europe that is not a liberal democracy since it clearly is not in Western Europe, no matter what Freedom House says. You can check any most good geographic sources or, you know, a map to figure that out. And that's not original research; that's common knowledge -- not the common kind, but the easily verifiable kind (yes, I know that's an essay, but that's Referencing 101). The question of whether Cyprus is in the Middle East is more complicated, and so it's tough to pinpoint a definition. Thus, we should not proclaim Freedom House's definition is it. --  tariq abjotu  01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read the entire discussion page (whew!) and felt compelled to sign-up and express my opinion. From what I understand, tariq says that Israel is not the only "free" state in the Middle East, when considering the disputed definition of the Middle East, which makes sense. Nevertheless, I must agree with Shamir when regarding the irreconcilable difference between "Most of the surrounding states are not free states" and "All of the surrounding states are not free states" - it's just an order of magnitude different. I believe we should aim to express Israel's exclusivity in the region while explicitly excluding Cyprus.

"Out of the 18 Middle Eastern countries ranked by Freedom House (which excludes Cyprus), Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy."

I would even consider the following to be better than saying "most":

"Currently, Israel and Cyprus are considered to be the only liberal democracies in the Middle East." Taz00 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, I must agree with Shamir when regarding the irreconcilable difference between "Most of the surrounding states are not free states" and "All of the surrounding states are not free states" -- Unfortunately for the Shamir camp (which is pretty much Shamir), that's not what this version says. It does not say "most of the surrounding states", but instead "most countries in the Middle East". The crucial difference is that whereas the former group does not include Israel, the latter does. We all seem to agree that Israel can be characterized as a liberal democracy, so the statement that "all of the countries in the Middle East" are not liberal democracies is clearly false. What's one tad below that? Most countries in the Middle East. That's what we currently have and leaves open the possibility that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that's a democracy (according to some definitions of the Middle East) while also leaving open the possibility that Israel is one of two (according to other definitions, which include Cyprus). --  tariq abjotu  01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right tariq. The way I worded it was completely and shamefully wrong (Shamir, I don't see how tariq's response was in any way WP:OR, he was just using basic logic!). Allow me please to try again:


 * "Israel is the only free country in the Middle East" vs. "Israel is part of a group of free countries in the Middle East".


 * Using the word "most" basically says that there are two groups - a minority and a majority, which is a huge difference from saying there's a group and a singularity within it. Of course Shamir's solution of using a footnote is entirely unacceptable in my honest opinion - the term "Middle East" is linked to an article that specifically states:


 * "The Middle East defines a geographical area, but does not have precise defined borders... countries that are sometimes included in this definition are those of the Caucasus region (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia), Cyprus, and North Africa..."


 * If you define such a term you cannot change its definition on-the-fly, without any advance warning, only noting the change with a footnote (that most casual readers will never read). If you define a term, stick with it or else explicitly state any alterations/exceptions to the term, especially if you're citing sources that define the term differently! Since there is no single absolute term defining the countries included in the Middle East, you can't dismiss anyone's definition, including the one defined by Random House. Considering the somewhat unstable definition of the term, I would specify whose definition you're using when citing sources:


 * "Currently, Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy among the Middle Eastern countries [as] defined by Freedom House."


 * I hope you're getting my drift here... if none of the "compromises" are acceptable, I'd still favor writing that Israel is a liberal democracy, rather than saying it's the only liberal democracy while misleading the reader by not defining the term "Middle East". Taz00 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Taz, you mentioned linking. The term "eighteen countries" can be linked to a section where the group of Middle Eastern countries (as defined by Freedom House) are listed. That should make things easier. --Shamir1 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Source says "electoral democracy", not "liberal democracy".--Mostargue 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify Freedom House's methodology, they define a "free" country as a liberal democracy. Any liberal democracy is necessarily an electoral democracy, but an electoral democracy is not necessarily a liberal one. --Shamir1 00:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then the source should also list where Freedom House defines a "free" country.--Mostargue 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, for some reason you have this idea that the more people one has on their "side" (despite the different reasons and opinions) makes it more valid. That is not true and not supported by the rules of WP. Tariq, you say: "We all seem to agree that Israel can be characterized as a liberal democracy, so the statement that "all of the countries in the Middle East" are not liberal democracies is clearly false." What does WP say? "Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research"--both of which you have just exhibited. There is no set definition of Middle East. This is Freedom House's view. Saying "unlike most" does not leave the possibility that it is one or one of two, and does not represent the opinion of the cited source. Period. --Shamir1 04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wha... what??? (Insert disbelief here.)


 * "Tariq, you say: 'We all seem to agree that Israel can be characterized as a liberal democracy, so the statement that 'all of the countries in the Middle East' are not liberal democracies is clearly false.' What does WP say? 'Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research'--both of which you have just exhibited."


 * WHAT??? I am completely at a loss for words on how to respond to this. Seriously, Shamir, you need to stop talking about "the rules" as you clearly don't know how and when to apply them. The statement I highlighted just makes you look foolish. I can't be any nicer than that – foolish. Is someone here disputing our characterizing Israel as a liberal democracy (as, you know, we are doing just that in the intro)? If so, the issue about the use of this source is not even on the table yet. Ugh... you need a source for Israel being a liberal democracy??? UH... WE ALREADY HAVE ONE! It's the one we've been discussing the whole time. Shamir, I don't know if you're trying to waste my time, but if you are, you have succeeded with nonsense, uninformed comments like the one made above that seem so desperate to use "rules" to support your point that you make a stupid comment like that. --  tariq abjotu  07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shamir1, I'll say this again - I'm not going to fight for a compromise you don't want. If you don't like it, we'll just forget the whole comparison thing, and just state that Israel is a liberal democracy. okedem 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okedem I'll say this again - I've been fighting for a compromise for a long time. I just made several--in line with the WP:REF, other user's suggestions and other views. And I just pointed them out. But thanks.
 * Tariq, saying what is clearly false is your opinion and that conclusion is your original research. I am not going to spend time on that. You can continue nagging all you want, it does not change WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS! How is it that you don't get that? The rules (which you continue to mock--you really shouldnt make a comment like that to someone who is actually referring to them) are CLEAR. Now, I have just proposed a sentence (based on Jdcaust's and others' suggestions) that includes every view and represents the opinion of the source. Now matter how much you want to dance around it, what you are suggesting is not the opinion of the source. It is source's opinion that matters, and remember WP is not a place for your opinion, which you continue to push. However, I have suggested a sentence above that can include your opinion. Would you like to now agree on it? --Shamir1 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tariq, saying what is clearly false is your opinion and that conclusion is your original research."
 * Unbelievable. This must be some kind of joke, because this is stooping to a new low in sheer ineptitude. Let me clue you in to a bit of logic: "If Israel is a liberal democracy and if Israel is in the Middle East and if Israel is a country, then the statement, "All countries in the Middle East are not liberal democracies" is clearly false. This is not "original research" or "[my] opinion", but instead simple logic; if you can't understand that, I can't help you. Now if you believe one of those three preconditions is false, I'd be dying to hear which one you believe is so, as all three of those statements are backed up by the reference we have been talking about this whole time, as well basic duh knowledge. That you are citing policies left and right is meaningless if you don't know how to use them. Your characterization of my comment as "original research" even after I pointed out the foolishness of your previous response demonstrates how little you understand about the meaning of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your improper usage of them is just a sorry ploy to get people to see from your perspective, despite the fact that your position has been summarily shot down. You should be glad people are still responding to your comments despite this fact and despite ridiculous responses such as the one above that show you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I do not agree with your sentence (or any of your proposed sentences so far); we have already bargained this down enough. Your bullheadedness – the bullheadedness of one person – should not be enough to force everyone to agree to replacing a perfectly good sentence with one that includes numerous qualifications as to one organization's definition of the Middle East. Stop whining and accept that no one agrees with you. --  tariq abjotu  03:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is ridiculous. This is a stable, featured article and one person's semantics crusade should not derail a perfectly good section. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that there is really only one whiner here and that a few users have suggested support to change the sentence, it does not matter. Stop directing your comments at me and start concentrating on the sentence. I really dont know why you are saying anything about "All countries in the Middle East are not liberal democracies." This sentence has never been proposed and has nothing to do with the subject matter. What on earth are you bringing it up for?
 * Tariq, you havent even referred to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines let alone even attempt to prove that the edited sentence does not follow them. All you are saying is that you have some sort of posse that wants your sentence too. That does not help us.
 * The sentence is not "perfectly good". As other user's said too, it does not reflect the opinion of the source. We must say what the source says. Jdcaust pointed out that the source says "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region). There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent)." Jdcaust then proposed a sentence that he believes would make all happy and directly reflective of the source. Not your opinion, the source. And WP guidlines tell us to make our writing *verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion.* So, we have to write that opinion--the sentence taken out from that publication. Now, despite the fact that *All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source*, I am willing to have that challenge expressed in a footnote, side by side the citation, which would clarify your view. On top of that, I have linked "eighteen countries" to the list of eighteen countries that Freedom House groups in that region (which has never been completely defined) so that users can see themselves out of which group of countries Israel is the only one. --Shamir1 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You just don't get it, do you?
 * The whiner here is you. Not anyone else.
 * The "unlike most..." thing was suggested as a compromise. You obviously don't want it, so we can just go back to what everyone can agree is accurate - just stating that Israel is a liberal democracy, without any comparison to neighbors.
 * Everyone - please stop defending the compromise. He doesn't want it, so what's the point? okedem 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You just don't get, do you? How is it a compromise? I am fighting for what the source says, and your "compromise" does not say what the source says. Simple as that. What the source says is not hard to understand, it is easy to be accurate in representing its position. Besides constantly referring to every relevant WP guideline (which you should start doing, rather than arguing who is "whining"), I am editing a sentence based on others' views and suggestions, and most importantly, the opinion of the source, so if anything its you who doesnt want it, so what's the point? You havent even acknowledged the editing of the sentence or any of the ideas, so what's the point?
 * How about we get to what's important? I just outlined several major points of the sentence based on what was proposed as a compromise by Jdcaust, and clarified each change. It includes the source's words and the challenging view's point, and other links are made to sections for users to see for themselves. So rather than directing your attacks at me, let's start from there so we can actually review the sentence and refer to the policies. Hopefully it can make things better. --Shamir1 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITE (which says "Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring."), WP:V (which says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."), WP:NOR (which says "That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material."), and WP:NOT (which says "Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well."), your sentence is worse than the current version of the sentence and the previous one that said nothing about Israel in comparison to other Middle Eastern countries. There: I have cited policies and guidelines, just like you. --  tariq abjotu  03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done discussing so-called compromises with you. I'm against the whole comparison thing, and will use the Freedom House source only the back up the claim that Israel is a liberal democracy (we don't have to use everything in the source, you know). okedem 08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okedem, be done, none of your comments have made any difference or discussed any compromise.
 * Tariqabjotu, let's go throught the rules you have just picked out.
 * WP:CITE: "Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring."


 * 1) Two citations (one reference and one footnote) do not account for a scrolling reference list.
 * 2) This footnote is a comment, not a reference, and was not even suggested by the compromise proposed by Jdcaust. I added it to ease things and to clarify the challenge against the position by Freedom House, which WP:CITE even talks about. Many statements in this encyclopedia have footnotes, and this one is not directly supported by a source, but I would still agree to it.
 * WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."


 * 1) No article or post was used as any sort of source. I linked the "eighteen countries" to the list of eighteen countries grouped in the Middle East by the source. (A link is not a source.) This way, users can see for themselves the group out of which Israel is the only one.
 * Yes, you did quote guidelines and policies, but there is no scrolling reference list nor is there any article, post, or wiki that is used as a source.
 * Does the source give that comparison? Yes it does, and we should note their position held on this issue. The source's opinion is what is taken into consideration, whether a user his/herself personally agrees with it or not. That's Wikipedia. So lets start with writing a sentence that states the source's position. --Shamir1 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for butting in, and I don't mean to muddy the waters further but putting contentious Cyprus aside isn't Iraq now technically a democracy? It may seem an ambiguous fact but no one can deny that Iraq is Middle-Eastern and its government was democratically elected. So, I don't know how up-to-date are the sources used in this issue but it should be taken into account. However, I realise that some may raise the issue of distinctive prefixes like "liberal", "developing", etc. democracy is democracy and I believe adding aforementioned prefixes is pedantry. Please forgive any lack of Wikipedian protocol/formatting and what have you, this is meant to be a singular comment to maybe settle the argument as now (whether Cyprus is included or not) Israel cannot be the only democracy in the ME - one of the few - but not the only one. That's my two cents so to speak, Cheers.203.173.178.72 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This isnt up to us to decide, it is the source's opinion. As to Iraq, according to the research, it still lacks the necessary political rights to be even an electoral democracy, let alone a liberal democracy. (I'm not sure if you really understand these terms correctly.) See Freedom House's methodology. --Shamir1 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, you cannot deny the position taken by the source. If you continue to defy WP:Citing sources, you should explain why to a mediator. --Shamir1 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care what position the source takes on Israel's neighbors. We're only using it to justify calling Israel a liberal democracy. Besides that - whatever.
 * Shamir1, you can't go on making edits you know are against consensus. Your opinion has been heard, and you are the only one in support of it. Be glad there's any comparison at all - if I were the one to revert you, I'd revert to a version simply stating that Israel is a liberal democracy, saying absolutely nothing about other countries. Would you like that? okedem 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you continue to defy WP:Citing sources, you should explain why to a mediator. No, sorry, not gonna happen; this has gone on long enough. Any attempt on your part to advance this matter through dispute resolution processes will be met by my outright disinclination to participate. This isn't a dispute that needs resolving; it is a dispute that has already been resolved. Your position has been defeated in a landslide, but you are nevertheless trying to defend it by claiming some policy supports it. A policy is not relevant and supportive just because you say so. In the same manner you summarily dismissed my (intentionally) irrelevant invocations of four policies above, I am (or rather we are) summarily dismissing your constant, excruciatingly repetitive, and, ultimately, impertinent mentions of WP:CITE. I don't care if you type WP:CITE until your keyboard explodes; this "dispute" is over. --  tariq abjotu  19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this, I don't have the time, however I would object to any statement that "Israel is considered a liberal democracy" - Israel IS a Liberal democracy. There is no need for consideration on this issue. Telaviv1 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Tariqabjotu, this section was began by a user who tried to resolve this dispute (which exists, and has not been resolved). Nothing has been "defeated", this is not a game. And while I was mentioning WP:CITE, you constantly disregarded it, never proved how the proposed sentences would somehow violate this or any rule at all, and would go on with your constant, excruciatingly repetitive, and, ultimately impertinent mentions of how you say you have more people who agree with your personal opinion. Let a mediator decide whether this dispute is over. That's cooperation. --Shamir1 22:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem lies in the vagueness of the term Middle East Perhaps the Paragraph should be changed from:

"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country.[12] In the region, Israel is the least corrupt,[13] and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press,[14] economic competition,[15] and human development.[16]"

to

Unlike most countries in Southwest Asia, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country.[12] In the region, Israel is the least corrupt,[13] and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press,[14] economic competition,[15] and human development.[16]

The term Southwest Asia seems far better defined and clearly includes both Israel and Cyprus Would this work?Bored college student 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GDP Per Capita Figure - Infobox
The GDP/Capita adjusted for PPP is true but disconnected from all relevant links. The figure used (31k) is the revised figure of the OECD, following a change to the PPP methodology. The general GDP/Capita page contains lists by the IMF (30k) and CIA (26k) placing Israel at either 22nd or 29th place. Thus the infobox mentions one figure and the links next to it point to completely different ones. In addition, as the link to bankisrael.gov.il clearly shows, the 18th ranking is among OECD nations only. Thus the 18th rank is wrong and misleading. There are probaly several nations ahead of Israel in wealth (such as Qatar), which are not OECD members. It's also worth noting Israel is not an OECD member state (although it's in the process of accession). 82.166.189.33 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Roy

I have waited a sufficient amount of time and am now correcting the GDP figure according to the CIA world report list. 89.1.187.220 11:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Roy

Or maybe I'll wait the required four days... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royfalk (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Levant
The template History of the Levant now links to the article History of the State of Israel instead of Israel. So, IMHO it should be removed from this article. It could be replaced by an image related to Israel's history in the 60s and 70s. What do you think? --Victor12 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Rebellion of 1945 and the Role of US Immigration Quotas in the Fifth Aliyah
These two points seem to have been glossed over in the article. Does anyone know more about them? I only know the basics of the Rebellion and I can't seem to find the article I read about a year ago which discussed the marked increase in immigration to Israel following the establishment of US Quotas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.195 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Jewish Uprising against the British 1946-1948 (roughly). There is some stuff under The Jewish Resistance Movement. I agree the Israel article does not have enough material on this. I tried to insert some stuff and had it removed. For the moment I think we should conentrate on putting it in the History of the State of Israel where I have some links. Part of the problem is that there isn't a proper article about it on Wikipedia. We really need an article that goes into the whole shebang which we can then link to. At the moment I am working on the History of the State of Israel but I would like to create a central article on this stuff when I can. I think the US immigation quotas are not important enough to include in this article. Immigration restrictions on Jewish entry round the world in the first half of the twentieth century may be worth an article in themselves and one could insert a link but they cover a multitude of sins. Telaviv1 08:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I think one of the template groups at the bottom of the article is not working. It just reads "Template:Template group". I tried to fix it but to no avail. --Mika1h 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House text
What should be discussed here is the text of the source and Wikipedia's guidelines. Editors cannot shy away from these. All this must be mentioned for a discussion to take place. The text says, as already pointed out: "In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region. There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent)." The content cannot be adjusted to appease an editor's personal opinion.

After countless discussions, this has been edited and proposed: "Freedom House has ranked Israel as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East."

This sentence should hopefully have no issues. It is completely and undisputedly true, word for word. It is a fact that the organization Freedom House has ranked Israel as the only liberal democracy out of a regional group of eighteen countries in the Middle East. To make things even easier, readers have the opportunity to click "eighteen countries" and see the group for themselves, letting them see a list showing which countries are included that out of which Israel is the only one, as the view of the source. Especially with that, the source's name (Freedom House) does not per se actually need to be written. It is verifiable and follows Citing sources: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. ...find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion."

The sentence is cited and reflects the opinion of the source. In addition, it is stated that it is the source's view and their study. The sentence is verifiable. Editors are welcome to discuss the relevant policies regarding this sentence. "Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. (WP:REF)" All that must be done is write a sentence that accurately reflects the position of the source (not a WP editor--that could go on forever). That's where we begin. If the sentence is verifiable, it should not be the subject of an edit war. As to the definition of the Middle East, Freedom House is not defining it; more specifically, it is saying that Israel is the only one out of a group they have categorized to be in the Middle East. This edit would link to a list of exactly which countries are categorized in that group when it comes to this. Thank you. --Shamir1 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. okedem 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there an issue in terms of WP:CITE? Try discussing guidelines, or suggesting a sentence that includes the opinion of the source. --Shamir1 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. okedem 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --  tariq abjotu  08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. This is not material for the lead. If editors insist, it can be discussed in further detail and context in the body of the article where the opinions of groups and individuals other than Freedom House can be contrasted against this material. For example, Dr. Oren Yiftachel, professor of geography at Ben Gurion University in Beer-Sheeva and author of Israel, Ethnocracy: The Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine characterizes Israel as not a democracy, but rather an ethnocracy. Perhaps that deserves some mention in the article?  T i a m u t  08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's not notable, and not accurate. He uses a term which is not widely recognized, and seems to confuse the realities of a nation-state with discrimination. okedem 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, Yiftachel is a highly political figure, known as an avid post-zionist. He's not even close to being objective. okedem 09:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As both Okedem and Tariqabjotu said there is no issue with the sentence it will be added. --Shamir1 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sentence you are referring to, but if it's the one you suggested - no, it won't be added, everyone here opposes it. okedem 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on which policy? You personally do not like a comparison, but you cannot deny that there is one and a group they compare it to. --Shamir1 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also want to be familiar with No_original_research: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." --Shamir1 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, tell me, would "Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East" (Freedom House) not be Position A? "Cyprus is in the Middle East" (CIA World Factbook) is Position B. And hmmm... "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is considered a liberal democracy." And there we have it. Position C. The sentence violates WP:SYN. --Shamir1 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariq, please cooperate. In earlier discussions you were mentioning other positions that included Cyprus in the Middle East. You said Britannica and so-and-so hold this view. But joining it with the Freedom House source to advance your own position would not be acceptable (see above policy). Britannica and such sources have not published an argument in relation to the topic. --Shamir1 05:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you're misinterpreting a new policy, I'm going to have to temporarily break from ignoring you. First, let me reiterate again that the sentence does not say that Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that's a liberal democracy. It says it's a liberal democracy, unlike most countries in the Middle East. Israel is a country in the Middle East, so saying that all Middle Eastern countries aren't liberal democracies would be wrong. Saying most of them are, however, remains correct, regardless of whether Cyprus is included in the Middle East.
 * Regardless, let's take a look at the example given under WP:SYN:
 * A: The Chicago Manual of Style requires citation of the source actually consulted
 * B: The Chicago Manual of Style does not call neglecting to cite the source actually consulted plagiarism; it calls something else entirely plargarism.
 * Conclusion: "Jones did not commit plagiarism."
 * The conclusion has little to do with the Chicago Manual of Style. The people behind the Chicago MOS, a reasonably authoritative source on citations and plagiarism, knows nothing about Jones. The MOS isn't talking about Jones and the fact that it does not specifically say Jones is committing plagiarism does not mean that the Chicago MOS dictates he wasn't committing plagiarism. What the person in the example did was extrapolate and read between the lines (i.e. original research).
 * Here, we have something different:
 * A: Freedom House considers Israel and Cyprus to be liberal democracies.
 * B: The CIA (among other organizations) considers both Israel and Cyprus to be in the Middle East.
 * Conclusion: "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is considered a liberal democracy."
 * Aside from the explanation in the first paragraph in this comment, we also see that both of these sentences are actually talking about Israel – Freedom House is talking about the government type while the CIA is talking about geography. There is nothing innately wrong with using two sources together; WP:SYN is just cautioning against it. Note how you also "synthesized" this page and this page to derive the idea that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (at least according to Freedom House). Is that in itself wrong? --  tariq abjotu  06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about defining geography, this is about Israel's difference among the regional group it has been placed in in this study. "Saying most of them are, however, remains correct, regardless of whether Cyprus is included in the Middle East." That is untrue. Saying most are infers that the source suggests that there are others (other than Israel) that are considered liberal democracies. Most does not mean most or all. More importantly, you cite that sentence with a source, and the source does not say that. What remains correct is that Freedom House has categorized a regional group (Freedom in the World (report), and Israel is the only country in that group to be ranked as a free country in their study. No geography, this is simple a group of countries used for the survey. Be sure to correctly represent positions:

Position A: Freedom House considers Israel to be the only democracy in the regional group Middle East. Freedom House considers Cyprus to be a liberal democracy, but not part of the Middle East (as do other organizations).

Position B: The CIA (among others) considers Israel and Cyprus to be in the Middle East.

Position B has NOT published an argument in relation to the topic of position A. None. Zip. Nothing. You cannot conclude any sort of position C (which your sentence does).

The allegation of synthesizing the same source is nonsense. One page simply defines a term. --Shamir1 06:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to go ahead with WP:Mediation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but maybe if you ask me thirty-seven more times in the next 2.7 seconds, I'll say yes. --  tariq abjotu  07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should be civil and give a straight answer. Oh, excuse me for trying to go through dispute resolution. Tariq. Its just one simple point. Its not a matter of geography. Fact: Israel is the only one categorized in this group by Freedom House to be considered a liberal democracy. There is no ambiguity when it comes to that group. A list of the countries of that are included can be linked. Thats it--no challenging arguments, no synthesizing sources, nothing. That way it is verifiable and true. Is there an issue with that? --Shamir1 07:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. Shamir1, your proposed version has been rejected above by Tariqabjotu, Okedem, LordAmeth, Mostargue, Schrodingers Mongoose, and by El C in an edit summary. This is a scheduled feature article, the result of an uphill battle. In the interest of stability for this article, and its upcoming presentation as a featured article, I strongly suggest this dispute be dropped.SpiderMMB 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always disagreed with Shamir's ways of citing the source; it always put the term Middle East out of context with the rest of the article. But I must support his current suggestion, solely because he links the term "eighteen countries" to list of countries defined by Freedom House. I must also agree with him (and disagree with traiq for the first time) about WP:SYN - "Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. Cyprus is a free country." plus "Israel and Cyprus are both in the Middle East" does NOT equal "Israel is not the only free country in the Middle East". Up until now Shamir has been repeating the same old dead argument, a big mistake on his side which severely diminishes the credibility of his two new points that I believe we should consider: Linking and Synthesis. Even if he did talk about these points before, he most likely drowned them in an ocean of pointless altercations. This time he presented it in a clear and concise way, which, in my opinion, does not deserve one word responses. Taz00 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here is this - Shamir1 wants to have a comparison of Israel to the neighboring countries. Most of the other editors don't. The sentence "Israel is the only..." drew a lot of criticism, due to Freedom House's definition of the middle-east, which doesn't include Turkey or Cyprus. The critics say the sentence is inaccurate, and problematic, even if they concede the claim that Israel is a liberal democracy.
 * In an attempt to answer the criticism, and still have some sort of comparison (which, I remind you, practically only Shamir1 wants), a compromise was suggested - "Unlike most...". If Shamir1 doesn't want this compromise, there's no point in trying to push it. Most of us seem to think the article would do fine just saying Israel is a liberal democracy, not comparing it to anyone. The "Unlike most..." sentence was an attempt to reach a middle-ground with Shamir1, which failed. I won't fight for it. okedem 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that this is not a matter of defining geography. I am not fighting for a comparison, I am fighting for the stated opinion of the source. (I know it is your personal opinion that you do not want the comparison, but the comparison exists.) "Unlike most" is not supported by the source, and it would not make a difference if Turkey were included or not. What this is a matter of is the regional group that Freedom House has placed Israel in. The sentence is not saying whether Cyprus is or is not geographically a part of the Middle East. Indirectly, through links, it would say that Cyprus is not one of the eighteen countries in this regional group categorized by Freedom House. That is a fact. We are talking about a group of countries that Israel is a part of, not defining the Middle East. The difference is that the former is undisputable, while the latter is what is debatable. (Even if the latter were used, it is the view of the source, but you get the gist.) If we keep it specific to that, there is nothing technically to dispute, since it is simply a name of a group of countries and the list of those included in the group are visible and not disputed.
 * "The critics say the sentence is inaccurate, and problematic, even if they concede the claim that Israel is a liberal democracy." "The critics"? Who are the critics? Wikipedia editors? The fact is that Cyprus is not one of the eighteen countries categorized in that group for this study. There is nothing to criticize. We cannot go through these "critics"--we have to make our sentence verifiable. Israel's liberal democracy is, the seventeen other countries that share a group with it are, and the comparison of Israel to the rest of the group is. It is among these eighteen countries. It is not a "compromise" if it does not include the source's position. Synthesizing the source's position with the CIA that says Cyprus is in the Middle East is not acceptable. The CIA would have to say that Cyprus is one of the countries categorized in Freedom House's Middle East & North Africa group. That is what WP policy tells us. --Shamir1 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You linked to a discussion from an entire year ago. It's quite pathetic that your infatuation with Freedom House has been that long-lasting. While others have compromised on their positions in the time between then and now, you have remained stubborn.
 * The CIA would have to say that Cyprus is one of the countries categorized in Freedom House's Middle East & North Africa group. That is what WP policy tells us. I don't think I can adequately express how wrong you are. Shamir, leave interpreting policies to people that actually understand them. You just pull interpretations out of thin air to suit your position. --  tariq abjotu  22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "I must also agree with him (and disagree with traiq for the first time) about WP:SYN - 'Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. Cyprus is a free country.' plus 'Israel and Cyprus are both in the Middle East' does NOT equal 'Israel is not the only free country in the Middle East'."


 * Okay; thanks for sharing. This statement would not have been meaningless but for the fact that this is not what the sentence says. Everyone – you, me, any random passerby – can easily read exactly what the article says and yet still we are getting people who conjure up their own sentence and then refute that. We've seen more than our fair share of Shamir's straw man arguments; we don't need you to add a few more. As has been said several times before (including earlier today), the statement not only does not say "Israel is not the only free country in the Middle East", but in fact is open to the idea that Israel could be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. We have to be open to the fact that the "Middle East" is a vague term and can mean any number of countries. Shamir has, unfortunately, not seen that and instead has been drowning in his false interpretations of policy. --  tariq abjotu  22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since policy has played a large part in this debate, I feel the need to reiterate my post regarding WP:Consensus since there was no reply to it. This proposed change has been rejected by Tariqabjotu, Okedem, LordAmeth, Mostargue, Schrodingers Mongoose, and by El C in an edit summary. I think these six explicit rejections, over the course of two weeks, and the lack of support on the other side, should bring this debate to a close. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's important to note that these rejections were in the context of discussion, not straw polling, and thus meet the consensus requirements.

The talk page has been swamped with this debate for a good couple of weeks. This is beating a dead horse. It is disrupting the stability of a featured article, as Schrodingers Mongoose rightly pointed out on 5 October 2007. SpiderMMB 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, end your personal attacks. (But it is not pathetic for Okedem, right? Uh huh, okay. That dispute was settled long ago, only to be resurrected by Boredcollegestudent.) Really, get over it. You do not even know what to be criticizing. Stop trying to mock things that arent even bad or relevant. That is pathetic.
 * I am focusing on the sentence and on the policies. Now you are claiming that I am "misinterpreting" (which is clearly untrue), but you do not even explain how (presumably because you cannot). As for your ridiculous allegation that I did, the policy tells us "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." That is what I expressed, as much as you want to deny it. Position B has not published any argument in relation to the categorizion of the Middle East group by Freedom House or of any position taken by Freedom House.
 * You say: "but in fact is open to the idea that Israel could be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East." No, it is not open to that idea; it says "unlike most", meaning there are others. That suggests a different idea. Furthermore, it does not represent the opinion of the source which it is cited to.
 * You say "We have to be open to the fact that the 'Middle East' is a vague term and can mean any number of countries." I so just went over this. If that is the issue, then we can make it less vague.
 * Middle East is not a vague term in this case; it is a regional group categorized by Freedom House. It canNOT mean any number of countries, the sentence specifically states "out of eighteen countries in the Middle East." On top of that, there is nothing vague or ambiguous to this or which countries make up the eighteen--a link is made from eighteen countries to Freedom in the World (report). There, that leaves nothing vague and leaves everything verifiable. --Shamir1 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Freedom House's definition of the Middle East is irrelevant; we need to talk about the actual Middle East. We would never say something so asinine as "Turkey is the only country that is not a liberal democracy in Western Europe" or even "Freedom House has ranked Turkey as the only country that is not a liberal democracy out of twenty-five countries in Western Europe." because their definitions of geographic locations does not trump actual geographic locations (i.e. those defined by most geographic sources). Turkey is clearly not in Western Europe. The same applies here; you need to stop focusing on the Freedom House's definition of the Middle East and talk about the actual definition of the Middle East, the one most (particularly geographic sources) use. Many, I'm sure, concur that Cyprus is not the Middle East, but many others say that it is; there's no general consensus. So, we can't be definitive about this.


 * As I have basically explained to you until my face has turned blue, the statement in your third paragraph –


 * "You say: 'but in fact is open to the idea that Israel could be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.' No, it is not open to that idea; it says 'unlike most', meaning there are others. That suggests a different idea. Furthermore, it does not represent the opinion of the source which it is cited to."


 * – is wrong. Because I'm not getting through to you (or because you're being obstinate because you don't want to concede that I'm correct), let me rephrase the current sentence a different way: "Most countries in the Middle East are not liberal democracies, but Israel is one." This does not imply that there are at least two countries (Israel and some other country) that are not liberal democracies in the Middle East; this implies (and actually states) that there is at least one. That one is Israel. Whether there are more than one is not stated (and is hard to state in the first place, because the definition of the Middle East, as already stated, is vague). What we have now is a rewording of that. "Unlike most" implies that there is at least one country in the Middle East that is a liberal democracy. That country is Israel.


 * Let me make this clear, as you seem to think repeating your same points is going to make a difference: your sentence is not going in the article against a 6-1 consensus. Period. Mediation will not help at all because there are several stipulations surrounding it. First, there must be "a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives". I have no desire to find a compromise that goes any further than the one we have. We have discussed this matter to death and there's no reason to go further; the resolution has already been established. Second, "Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building." However, you want mediation to be a substitute for community-wide consensus building. We have achieved a clear consensus, and you're unhappy with it, so you want a mediation to usurp it. Lastly, mediation is intended to be private and confidential (i.e. inadmissible in later dispute resolution proceedings, such as an ArbCom case). If you should ever go to ArbCom or something similar, I do not want you to be able to hide behind a cloak of confidentiality. --  tariq abjotu  20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
Why not just remove the whole comparison thing and simply say that the State of Israel is a Liberal Democracy and is ranked Free by Freedom house. Or something like that. Telaviv1 10:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the position of many here on the talk page. The whole "Unlike most" was an attempt to reach a compromise with Shamir1, only he decided to attack that phrasing as well. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm for dropping the whole comparison thing. okedem 10:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --  tariq abjotu  11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, stick with what is relevant, don't allege what I 'want.' I suggested a mediator discuss these policies. That is just dispute resolution. Get over it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there have been editors who have found these points to have merit.
 * Okedem, stop saying that was a "compromise". It does not represent the opinion of the source, it cannot be a compromise. I didnt just decide to "attack" it. Taz00 has likewise stated the issue with the wording of that sentence. It does not say what Tariq is making it out to be, and is an opinion that has been synthesized with a different and unrelated view from another source. I have proposed a compromise that eliminates what was called vague.
 * Other than this, User:Jdcaust had proposed a sentence to agree on, and User:Taz00 seems to believe this more recently proposed sentence considers the issues that have been discussed User:Tariqabjotu and others.
 * We have to start with the undisputed facts. Do not synthesize sources. That seems so hard for some editors to accept. These "geographic sources" have not published an argument in relation to the topic of the categorization of this group of countries or any other position taken by Freedom House.
 * The fact is that Freedom House makes that comparison (This has nothing to do with Turkey). We are not defining the Middle East--that is what is arguable. What is not arguable are the eighteen countries that make up the Middle East group in this research. This way it cannot apply to any number of countries, or any single country. It is verifiable. It represents the opinion of the source. These are undisputed points. You said before that the issue is over how many and which countries are included in that group. They are not defining a region, they are categorizing a group of countries (albeit primarily based on region), but that is different. What there is general consensus about is which eighteen countries are part of Freedom House's regional group. The source is comparing Israel to this group of countries. That is undisputable and verifiable. That way, the source's stated position is written, and it eliminates all ambiguity of the definiton of that regional group. Readers can see that for themselves. This takes WP:CITE and WP:SYN into consideration. We start from here, it takes all issues into consideration. This sentence seems acceptable unless an editor can name an issue per WP policy. Otherwise, it seems t is based on the source, states only the undisputed facts, leaves no room for ambiguity, and is clearly visible for readers to see for themselves exactly what this regional group is in this survey.

Again, to start with : "Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East." --Shamir1 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the sentence back to its original form. By "original," I mean the form it was in when this article received featured status.  Let's not compromise this any further -- and by that, I mean let's not compromise the integrity of this article, and the stability of its featured status.


 * Shamir1, your proposed version has been summarily rejected. In the conversation you linked to from one year ago, I saw similar rejections being made.  I won't deny you've had some support, but none of that support has been to directly insert your sentence, it has only come in the form of sympathizing with your position.  All things considered, the sentence as it stands overwhelmingly represents the consensus version.  Your actions over the past two weeks have led to the current suggestion by TelAviv1, which is to shorten the sentence even further.  I assume this is not what you want.  Consider where this debate has taken us so far.  In the interest of civility, will you drop this, and let the current version stand?  SpiderMMB 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version suggests an idea different from the one stated in the source it is cited to, and it synthesizes sources which is not acceptable (WP:SYN). While I am sure that TelAviv1's proposal was made in good faith, it only brought us back to Tariq's position (based on no policies), and did not address any guidelines. What about Jdcaust's suggestion? Also, Taz00 has backed a suggestion that he seems to believe addresses the issues. In the interest of civility and policy, it can be dropped there.
 * Basically, if the issue is that the term Middle East is vague to the reader and could apply to a number of countries, that has been solved. In this case, it is not an undefinable geographic region, but a defined group of countries categorized by the source. There is no ambiguity in which countries have been categorized in Freedom House's Middle East & North Africa group. And if the source is comparing Israel to that group of countries, then that's that. (WP:CITE) This group is clearly visible to all. This way, all issues are solved and it follows all relevant policies. This way, we can all drop it. --Shamir1 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, I think, is that Freedom House is being relied on as the be-all, end-all, when it is not. Both the institution itself and its methodology have been criticized.  There is consensus here that Israel is a liberal democracy, and that this stands in contrast to most of its neighbors.  The Freedom House cite aptly represents that.  There is not consensus, however, that Freedom House is without error.  The current dispute has been limited to criticism of Freedom House's geography, but Okedem and Tariq have also pointed out that similar claims could (and have) be brought politically, and to avoid that they have settled on the current version.  The Freedom House cite could just as easily be replaced, and Tariq has tried at least once to remove it.  Okedem reverted him, because consensus here seems to be having Freedom House back up the sentence, but not parroting Freedom House exactly because of its perceived inadequacies.  We are making too big a deal over the cite itself, and less over the consensus that has been reached.  If the cite is changed, WP:Cite and WP:SYN will be irrelevant.  SpiderMMB 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if the citation is not changed, WP:CITE and WP:SYN still don't contradict this sentence. These are red herring arguments, as demonstrated by the patently false explanations of these policies. My favorite is the one he used 20:31, 12 Oct:
 * "Synthesizing the source's position with the CIA that says Cyprus is in the Middle East is not acceptable. The CIA would have to say that Cyprus is one of the countries categorized in Freedom House's Middle East & North Africa group. That is what WP policy tells us."
 * I'm sure it does tell us that. --  tariq abjotu  01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "While I am sure that TelAviv1's proposal was made in good faith, it only brought us back to Tariq's position (based on no policies), and did not address any guidelines."


 * This statement shows how narrow-minded Shamir is on this matter. Now he's claiming just saying "Israel is a liberal democracy" is against some policy. Any ounce of credibility Shamir had before ought to have been destroyed in that sentence; all he seems to know is that the only sentence that fits policy and guidelines is his (or some incarnation of his). I am two steps away from filing a request for comment; this ceased to be a content dispute awhile ago and is approaching the point of textbook disruptive editing. --  tariq abjotu  01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I appreciate your insight. Clearly you are dedicated to this article. I also think, however, that you and Shamir have argued about all there is to argue between the two of you. I'm hoping to break this repetitive cycle. I hope both of you will take a step back, make this less personal, and let the other editors step into this discussion a bit more.

Shamir, I would appreciate if you would reply to my comment above Tariq's. I'm only interested in the content of the dispute, not any personal animosity between the two of you, so please try to leave that out of any reply you might have. SpiderMMB 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I rejected the intervention of a mediator from MedCom on this matter earlier so I would kindly ask you not to play the role of one. The arguments have been spelled out so many times and none of them have related to some "personal animosity" or begged for someone to "make this less personal". Other editors have "step[ped] in" – the consensus that has arisen from the many editors opposing Shamir is why there is a problem here. Additionally, one quasi-agreement that would appear to put these discussion threads to rest was reverted by you (why?). So, the above remark just sounds condescending, inaccurate, and, ultimately, unproductive. I thought you were following this discussion, but your failed attempt at quelling it suggests to me otherwise. If that is indeed the case (and even if that is not), please don't try to put out this fire with gasoline. --  tariq abjotu  03:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How dare you? So we stop as soon as you agree to a suggestion, even though User:Jdcaust, and User:Taz00 have given their input. That's narrow-mindedness. Tariqabjotu, I was NOT talking about the sentence that you just edited. I never said any of that in relation to that sentence. I was talking about the sentence that SpiderMMB just reverted. (See how he said "current sentence"). Chill out. And that was pretty clear too, as I was responding to him.
 * Yes, WP policy does tell us that. Yes, I filled in the blanks based on this situation, but it is still from that policy, which is not hard to follow. But besides that, what are you really fighting for? We know which group of countries Israel is being compared to here already. No explanation has been made that the proposed sentence (Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East.) contradicts any rule, WP:CITE, WP:SYN or any other. Tariq stated an issue he believed, and it was solved.
 * SpiderMMB, you make me very happy when you say "I'm only interested in the content of the dispute, not any personal animosity between the two of you, so please try to leave that out of any reply you might have." Tariq has directed personal attacks against me, way too much irrelevance, and centered his arguments on me rather than the content. Tariqabjotu says he doesnt want mediation, he is threatening to file a request on comment (even though he was mistaken in what he thought I wrote, but I dont think that matters either way). I am not afraid of a request for comment, mediation, or any of the such.
 * To address your points SpiderMMB:


 * "The problem, I think, is that Freedom House is being relied on as the be-all, end-all, when it is not." -- ?? It is a source, and it is relied on as a source. For one sentence. No be-all, end-all.
 * "There is consensus here that Israel is a liberal democracy, and that this stands in contrast to most of its neighbors. The Freedom House cite aptly represents that." Well I don't know about "neighbors", what we are talking about is members of the group.  The group that Freedom House has categorized (this is not just any wobbly term, it is an actual group of countries that we can link to), leaves Israel to be the only liberal democracy. These ideas are all directly from the source.
 * "There is not consensus, however, that Freedom House is without error." No there isnt, and neither is there that the United Nations is, or any other organization or study, that does not change the fact that Israel was ranked as the only free country out of eighteen countries in the group its part of in the Freedom House study.
 * "The current dispute has been limited to criticism of Freedom House's geography," -- by who? I havent seen a reliable source that has criticized Freedom House's geography--or more correctly suited to this case, Freedom House's organization of countries into regional groupings. This is what would be demanded according to WP:SYN: "only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
 * "but Okedem and Tariq have also pointed out that similar claims could (and have) be brought politically, and to avoid that they have settled on the current version. The Freedom House cite could just as easily be replaced, and Tariq has tried at least once to remove it.  Okedem reverted him, because consensus here seems to be having Freedom House back up the sentence, but not parroting Freedom House exactly because of its perceived inadequacies." Not all of that is correct, but it doesnt make much difference. None of this changes the fact that the Freedom House research exists, or what they have found and stated as their positions--which the sentence must reflect if cited to. This source is sufficient for this sentence and the opinion of it can be stated correctly. To avoid any trouble with the 'Middle East', we can link "eighteen countries" to the group of eighteen countries grouped together in this study for readers to see. That way, all can see exactly which countries the source is comparing Israel to. There shouldnt be an issue with that, and this way it is all verifiable. I hope that helped. --Shamir1 04:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, but you see - once you acknowledge that the comparison was made within a group of 18 countries, chosen by Freedom House for some not completely clear reason - you make that sentence irrelevant to the reader - why should he care about some comparison to a bunch or arbitrarily chosen countries?
 * Also, by claiming "...out of eighteen countries in the Middle East.", you claim that the full 18 countries listed in Freedom House's study are in the ME. A contestable claim, given FH includes Morocco in that group.
 * Get over it. We just gonna drop the whole comparison business altogether. Save us a lot of trouble. okedem 09:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, I was NOT talking about the sentence that you just edited. I never said any of that in relation to that sentence. I was talking about the sentence that SpiderMMB just reverted. Uh... yes... and I was too. The sentence Spider just reverted is the one that simply says "Israel is a liberal democracy". You stated: "While I am sure that TelAviv1's proposal was made in good faith, it only brought us back to Tariq's position (based on no policies), and did not address any guidelines." That states in no uncertain terms that you believe TelAviv1's proposal – the one that says simply "Israel is a liberal democracy" – only brought us back to what you think is a version based on no policies and that does not address any guidelines. If that is not what you meant to say, you need to rewrite your sentence. However, as of right now, both that statement and your latest comment corroborate my point that you believe simply saying "Israel is a liberal democracy" is against some policy. I have no idea what you could be referring to when you talk about "the sentence [I] just edited"; as the history will tell you, I haven't edited the article in days.


 * We are not "stop[ping] as soon as [I] agree to a suggestion"; au contraire it appears you are unwilling to drop this matter until your sentence gets implemented. A consensus has arisen on this matter, and that consensus has even taken into account your desire to have a comparison to other Middle Eastern countries. And yet, you still complain. You have ignored the arguments presented by others and proceeded to misrepresent them as well as Wikipedia's policies. Taz and Jdcaust have indeed commented here, but their positions were based on clear misconceptions about the situation here. Jdcaust said,


 * "This is the way I see it and tell me if I'm wrong. tariqabjotu, you would like to keep the sentence the way it is since it is both succinct and simple. Shamir, I'm guessing you don't like 'Unlike most Middle Eastern countries' part and how that doesn't exactly fit the source."


 * But this is wrong. That is not my position at all; this is about the fact that the Middle East is a vague concept and that Freedom House should not be the organization used to define it. Additionally, there are several people – at least six – that concur with it, while the opposing side has just one party (you). Taz said,


 * "I must also agree with him (and disagree with traiq for the first time) about WP:SYN - 'Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. Cyprus is a free country.' plus 'Israel and Cyprus are both in the Middle East' does NOT equal 'Israel is not the only free country in the Middle East'."


 * As I suggested in my response to this post, I can't imagine where Taz got the impression this is what is said in the article. It doesn't say that. At all. Are we all looking at the same sentence? Neither Taz nor Jdcaust have stepped up to notice my responses and adjust their positions accordingly. You act as if mediation is some sort of requirement; it's not. It's voluntary for a reason; you can't hold my disinclination against me. This is not about some fear; this about an unwillingness to keep this a content dispute when this is really about one disruptive editor – you – unwilling to admit when he or she is wrong. --  tariq abjotu  15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think comparing Israel to the rest of the Middle East reflects badly on us. It looks like we're putting down our neighbours. I suggest you say that Freedom House rates Israel as free without going into the whole middle east thing. Telaviv1 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, with respect, if anything "sounds condescending, inaccurate, and, ultimately, unproductive," it is your response to me. I have indeed been following this discussion, and did not step in to "mediate." I stepped in because you and Shamir have been going in circles with your arguments. I agree consensus has been reached, I am the one who pointed it out. I felt the need to step in because clearly you two are not going to convince one another, and because all I have seen from either of you, at this point, are personal attacks. As for why I reverted the sentence, it is the same reason Okedem reverted your attempt at a new citation: I do not feel one person's actions should be responsible for changing the article. If that is not clear to you I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Whatever your attachment to this article, and whatever your frustration with other users, please refrain from insulting the intelligence of those who are trying to wind down the situation.

As for the issue at hand, I agree this has gone on long enough. TelAviv1, I'm willing to support your suggestion. Before that occurs again, I would like to suggest one last alternative. It seems to me that the problem is the citation. There is nothing wrong with the statement: "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy." This statement represents the consensus view of this discussion. The problem for Shamir, it seems, is that this statement does not adequately represent the Freedom House citation. Why, then, don't we just remove the Freedom House citation, and replace it with one that represents the consensus? SpiderMMB 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what you're suggesting is that we remove a good, comprehensible source, easily accessible, with lots of information, just because one user can't seem to accept anyone else's opinion. I say we remove the comparison, and be done with it. okedem 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your response did little to assuage my opinion that you are attempting to mediate this discussion. You've said you're "stepp[ing] in" and "trying to wind down the situation". You basically asked for Shamir and I to stop commenting for a bit and let others insert their opinion. You even topped it off with a empty compliment, "Tariq, I appreciate your insight". Sounds like mediating to me. If your intelligence feels insulted, consider it an adverse reaction to criticism.


 * I don't know how you can suggest that we remove the Freedom House citation (which is what Okedem reverted) and then say the reason you reverted the removal of "Unlike..." is because one person's actions shouldn't be responsible for changing the article. For the record, I'm more for removing the comparison.


 * No personal attacks is vague on what constitutes a personal attack, so I'm not sure I can speak to that. You find some things here personal attacks, while I don't see any comments by anyone so far (in this discussion, at least) personal attacks. I don't have a problem with Shamir (I have even responded to another issue he raised without alluding to this discussion). Instead, my primary issue at this point is his persistence against consensus. Ignoring Shamir has proven an ineffective remedy, as he has reverted to his version multiple times regardless (see Israel history). If you have a problem with me invoking Disruptive editing, be aware that it lists the following items as evidence of disruptive editing:


 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
 * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.


 * There's no question this has been going on. I'm just calling a spade a spade. --  tariq abjotu  17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to follow-up on SpiderMMB's suggestion by offering Beverly Milton-Edwards' book, Contemporary Politics in the Middle East as a source. According to her assessment of the work of a variety of scholars there is no consensus surrounding the idea of Israel as a "liberal democracy" with some scholars preferring to term it an ethnocracy or "ethnic democracy". There does however seem to be consensus around describing Israel's system as a parliamentary democracy. Does anyone have other sources that indicate that terming Israel a "liberal democracy" is in fact a consensus point of view?  T i a m u t  17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again with that? Please stop misrepresenting sources, presenting your own conclusions as if they were the source's.
 * To everyone in this discussion - if you wish to address Tiamut's claim, please take the time to actually read the source, and what I said about it in the following section ("Change to lead"). okedem 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop making false accusations. The book says: "The debate about democratic exceptionalism in the Middle East has regularly cited Israel as the only trule representative example of a democratic polity in the region. For a number of decades this claim remained unchallenged and the benefits of the Israel model were regularly explored ... More recently, however, a number of critics have emerged to challenge the notion of liberal democracy in relation both to Israel's 'other' ethnic population - the Arabs - and within the Jewish community of the country itself. There is, however, little agreement over the alternative definition or the degrees of democratic or non-democratic tendencies exhibited by the system. Sammy Smooha, for example, prefers to classify Israel as an 'ethnic democracy' ... Ghanem and Rouhana, however, both prefer the appellation of 'ethnic state'... Peled and Shafir take the issue of semnatics one step further by concluding that Israel is best described as an 'ethnorepublic'... Finaly authors such as Yiftachel ... argue[s] that 'the Israeli polity is governed not by a democratic regime, but rather by an 'ethnocracy''"
 * In other words, my description of its contents is fair. And further down, by way of contrast, Milton-Edwards describes Israel as "parliamentary democracy" without any accompanying qualifications. Now, do you have a source that also surveys the existing scholarship on Israel as regards its democratic credentials and which states conclusively that "liberal democracy" represents a consensus point of view? Thanks.  T i a m u t  —Preceding comment was added at 17:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The very words the author chose mean the "liberal democracy" view is still held by the great majority of scholars: "...more recently, however, a number of critics have emerged to challenge the notion".
 * She didn't choose anything like "most no longer think so", not "that's an outdated view", not "most scholar, though, now think", or anything else. She is only describing the fact that there are some ("a number of") dissenting views. Big deal. okedem 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with okedem; the source only supports that the view of Israel as a liberal democracy is no longer unanimous. --  tariq abjotu  18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to convince you that I'm not mediating, suffice it to say that inserting an opinion which is neither yours nor Shamir's, and asking that the both of you "cool off," is not mediation. Frankly, I'm unconcerned with how "vague" Wikipedia policy is on personal attacks. Policy has played too large a role in this already. The two of you have been uncivil and repeatedly attacking one another, to what end? I'm entitled to voice my opinion on the discussion page, regardless of how that sits with either you or Shamir. That aside, think what you will, I don't intend to waste time on this.

Now, as to the issue at hand, I'll explain. The current truncated version does nothing to refute Shamir's policy arguments. If you shorten it to "Israel is a liberal democracy" and cite to Freedom House, he can still make all the same arguments about how Freedom House is improperly cited. Why not just be done with it, and cite to something else? Then no argument can be made that we aren't "citing Freedom House properly." SpiderMMB 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get off this personal attacks thing. I want to know what specifically you believe is a personal attack. I don't care much for what you believe are Shamir's personal attacks; I would like to know what you believe mine are.


 * I can't tell what Shamir thinks about just "Israel is a liberal democracy", but if there is a complaint about even then, I redirect you back to the edit summary okedem put when reverting the removal of the Freedom House source. Freedom House is a good source on the level of freedoms in individual countries and we don't really need to eliminate it over Shamir. I won't spend time refuting Shamir's arguments against just "Israel is a liberal democracy" until he says what they are. --  tariq abjotu  20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a long discussion has occured. Like nearly all of Okedem's comments, it did not make any sense. Okedem, it is you who needs to get over your personal opinion and start getting to the rules. You dont like the comparison, so you dont need to make it. But the source does. And to who? To a group of eighteen countries they have categorized. That is not contestable, there are 18 countries in that regional grouping by Freedom House in this data. Dont talk nonsense. What does any of all that have to do with WP:REF? Nothing, like everything else you have talked about.
 * TelAviv1, I understand that is your opinion, but the opinion of the source that ought to be represented, whether a user agrees with it his/herself or not. When looking at countries in Europe, there are countless comparisons of a country to the rest of the European Union (richest, poorest, largest, smallest, most exports, only.. in EU, lowest crime rate in EU, etc.)
 * For some reason, all Tariqabjotu talks about is me. Rather than staying on track with the content or the rules, the criticism was against me, not the sentence. Sometimes his only argument against the sentence was a list of people who disagree with it (despite the fact that each sentence was edited as new, although the list would continue as if the same.) I have not directed any personal attacks, although he has, SpiderMMB. There are not any arguments that the sentence would contradict any policy. It has been edited in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:SYN.
 * There is no reason for us to remove a perfectly reliable source. SpiderMMB, any criticism against it cannot be from just an editor, but must be from a reliable source that has published an argument in relation to that topic. There is only one Middle East & North Africa group in the Freedom House data, that is a fact. There is nothing vague about which countries are included, that data is also clearly available to the reader. Taz00 shared an issue with Tariq, and he seems to believe that can be solved with linking "eighteen countries" to the group of eighteen countries categorized in the group. (Like the United Nations Regional Groups, there are countries grouped together. The countries in each group is a fact, there is no debate or ambiguity.) That way, readers can see exactly which countries Israel is being compared to in the context of this. That issue is solved.
 * Furthermore, in the interest of all of this, while I do not see how this is necessary at all as the group of eighteen countries is completely defined and this source's position is verified, after seeing List of countries by Human Development Index, I would again agree to, in addition to this, a footnote with even more clarification if wanted. Looking at the article I just pointed out, and at notes 5 through 11, there are a handful of these. I encourage editors to see this and brainstorm. Thanks. --Shamir1 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of this. Now you claim we can't just say "Israel is a liberal democracy", and cite FH as the source for that? That because FH compares Israel to other countries, we have to?
 * That's it. Your claims have lost their last bit of reason. I'm done arguing with you. From now on, any attempt on your part to change the phrasing of that sentence will be reverted by me, and I'm not gonna bother discussing it with you. Good night. okedem 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I don't see the point in this, but since you requested it Tariq, I would consider referring to Shamir as foolish and his actions as pathetic are uncivil, regardless of whether or not they meet the "vague" standards of Wikipedia's personal attacks. As you requested, I will not bring up similar uncivil conduct by Shamir.

To get back to the issue at hand (which frankly is more important than the absurd level of ego that has been involved in all of this) we are not bound by the Freedom House citation. There is no rule saying that we must cite to it. However "authoratative" it may be, it has caused far too much trouble. Frankly, I remember confrontation about it before this current dispute. See the archives Talk:Israel/Archive_21:

...The liberal democracy point is based on the Freedom House index, which I believe does not define Lebanon as such (though I haven't checked in a bit)...Tewfik Talk 06:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Is Freedom House an uncontroversial source for these things?...I can understand Lebanon being "less free" than Israel, given the former's problems with instability, foreign interference, corruption, press restrictions, and so on; but I don't understand the claim that it isn't an electoral democracy.--G-Dett 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

...As far as I know, Freedom House is the premier index for such things, and anyways, the label is that of liberal democracy. No one is claiming that Lebanon is not an electoral democracy, which is somewhat different.
 * Actually, Freedom House is claiming just that, in the press release cited by our lead. That press release doesn't once mention "liberal democracy."  Instead it refers again and again to "electoral democracies" (nine times).  The following sentence is presumably the source for our article's claim: "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region)."--G-Dett 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We should remove it and be done with all this. This was a solution voiced by Lord Ameth on October 1, and one you yourself voiced on October 3. Why don't we simply replace it with the cite you used on October 3, Tariq, or one similar to it? There is no need to rely on Freedom House. It has caused too much controversy and is not worth fighting for. Remove it, cite to something simpler, and this unending debate about the Freedom House citation will disappear. SpiderMMB 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I will not let Shamir's actions damage this article. We'll just drop the comparison. okedem 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There were solutions voiced by User:Jdcaust and User:Taz00 that addressed the issues of all sides. We should be done with it then. SpiderMMB, I have answered your concerns and made more suggestions. --Shamir1 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My actions? My actions, Okedem? All that is being done is reflecting the position of the source. (That is such a basic principle of Wikipedia.) Has the source 'dropped' the comparison? I dont think so. Start paying attention to policy. I have made suggestions to clarify all of these issues. Oh yes, what damage. Please, who are you kidding? --Shamir1 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what - just so your position is clear to everyone:
 * Are you claiming that because Freedom House makes a comparison between Israel and other countries, we have to include that comparison? That just writing "Israel is a liberal democracy" and citing FH as the source for that claim would breach policy?
 * Please answer "Yes" or "No". okedem 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, I have read through your suggestions. However, I believe your desire is still to get the sentence you wrote into the article. I believe the sentence should be the same as it was when this article received FA status, that is: "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy." That represented the consensus version. In fact, it is still the consensus version. This debate has called the sentence into question, but has not diminished the consensus around it.

Okedem, the debate about Freedom House that I posted above is three months old. This current dispute, now over two weeks old, is similar to a debate from a year ago. It is my opinion that the Freedom House citation, itself, has invited much of this confrontation. I strongly suggest it be removed. SpiderMMB 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you get it, I'm not sure if you want to, but I think you do. That "consensus" sentence (what makes the sentence even before [a year ago] that not "consensus"?) is synthesizing two different and unrelated viewpoints of two different sources. It does not represent the stated view of the cited source, it is bended in order to synthesize an unrelated one. Any challenge against Freedom House's position must come from a reliable source (not an editor's own opinion) in relation to the topic of that position. --Shamir1 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Change to lead
I made the following change to this paragraph in the lead:

Israel has been described as a liberal democracy, though such a characterization is disputed by those who claim it is an ethnocracy. It has been ranked as the most progressive countries in the Middle East in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and overall human development.

The notion that Israel is a "liberal democracy" is a disputed one. I tried to summaraize that dispute using scholarly sources in an NPOV fashion. Comments on how to further improve the addition are welcome.  T i a m u t  08:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edit. Israel complies with all criteria of a liberal democracy, and is widely recognized as such. One geographer making a claim is hardly a notable source. okedem 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yiftachel is a respected Israeli geographer at Ben Gurion University and has written a book on the subject (which I added as a ref in my edit). He's also not alone in his opinion. Beverly Milton-Edwards, in her book, Contemporary Politics in the Middle East notes that the claim of Israeli exceptionalism (i.e. its being the only democracy in the Middle East) is an outdated view that has been replaced with an understanding of Israel as an "ethnic democracy" (Smooha, Peled, et al.) or ethnocracy. See: . In any case, the idea that Israel is considered a liberal democracy and that there is no debate surrounding this issue is patently false. Can you please restore my edit? Thanks.  T i a m u t  14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I will not. Yiftachel, as I've said, is a highly political and controversial figure, not an objective source. He's not even qualified at this topic - being a geographer, not a political scientist or anything similar. As Telaviv1 said below, applying Yiftachel's standards to the western world would leave very few liberal democracies, basically disqualifying most nation-states.
 * In the few short pages I read from his book (via your link), I could see just how inaccurate and one-sided his claims are.
 * There's debate surrounding everything about Israel. However, some things are in consensus, accepted by a majority of academics - Israel being a liberal democracy, comparable to other Western democracies, is one of them. okedem 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Peled is a Marxist/Stalinist and a bitter opponent of all things Liberal. His opinions can hardly be described as up-to-date (I was a student of his). Unless you think Ralph Miliband is the latest word. I think that Smoocha is also a Marxist and therefore somewhat outmoded.

If anyone systematically applied the ethnocracy standards around the world most countries would fail the test including most notably the USA (I believe 40% are WASPs). Its a bit of a contrived argument.

Liberal Democracy is not a perfect system and discrmination can take place against minorities without a country ceasing to be a "Liberal Democracy". Of course Liberal Democracy is not a clearly defined term and we could discuss it ad nauseum. For example women only got the vote in Britain in the twenties. So was Britain a democracy before then? Freedom House is the generally accepted standard for these things so I suggest refering to Smoocha in the footnote. Foregive me for saying so but my impression is that standards of human rights and democracy in the Arab world are so appalling that any comparison is absurd. Telaviv1 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am using reliable sources. I'm not interested in having polemical debates about whether so and so is a Marxist or not. The first source I provided above was Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli geographer who wrote a book entitle Israel, Ethnocracy, the second was Beverly Milton-Edwards, entitled Contemporary Politics in the Middle East. Both books challenge the idea that Israel can be characterized a liberal democracy. Why are we using a phraseology that is out-of-date, not supported in scholarship and rather vague, without any qualification? How are the sources I have provided not reliable? The edit should be restored and the ref I provided added. But being used to stone-walling here, I don't think I will hold my breath.  T i a m u t  15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try quoting objective researchers, not political figures, outside of their field of expertise (i.e. Yiftachel). okedem 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care to engage you on Yiftachel; however, you're ignoring the other source Beverly Milton-Edwards, whose bookContemporary Politics in the Middle East notes that the claim of Israeli exceptionalism (i.e. its being the only democracy in the Middle East) is an outdated view. See: . Is she also outside of her field of her expertise? Or do you have some other excuse for why she cannot be used?  T i a m u t  15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You source doesn't say that. She doesn't say it's outdated, she only says that recently some people have begun to claim Israel isn't a liberal democracy, whereas before basically no one challenged that claim. The emergence of some criticism does not mean the claim is "outdated", or that it slipped out of consensus. She doesn't even take a stand in the matter (at least not in the pages available via your link), only reports what some critics call Israel. okedem 15:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source clearly states that there is growing critique around the idea of Israel constituting a liberal democracy. It also states while there is a lack of consensus on what to call it instead (citing example of ethnocracy, ethnic state, ethnic democracy, etc.) there is no doubt that the idea that it is an island of liberal democracy in the Middle East is no longer unchallenged. How do you propose we word the text to reflect this fact?  T i a m u t  15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Growing critic" does not equal "outdated". Try not to misrepresent your sources.
 * Since nothing is unchallenged, your claim is practically meaningless. The text needs only to reflect the consensus view. As the claim of "liberal democracy" remains in consensus, no change to the text is required. okedem 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. You accuse me of misrepresenting the text in the same breath that you make your own ridiculous conclusions. The text does not say that "liberal democracy" represents a consensus opinion. It uses the term "parliamentary democracy" without difficulty but explains why liberal democracy cannot be used without qualifications in the case of Israel citing over seven different scholars who offer alternative characterizations, as I explained above. As usual, its absolutely impossible to get you to consider alternate views. You have no interest in NPOV and I have none in arguing with a wall. G'day.  T i a m u t  15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, Tiamut, really. Resorting to silly straw men arguments? When did I ever claim that your source says anything about the consensus? It doesn't say the view of liberal democracy is or isn't in consensus.
 * Just because you want a source to say something, doesn't mean it really does. It only says this:
 * In the past, the claim that Israel is a liberal democracy went unchallenged.
 * Recently, that claim has been criticized by some.
 * The critics can't agree on what to call it instead of liberal democracy. They all use some inflection of "ethnic".
 * The author herself doesn't state what she thinks of the matter, only citing the critics. She doesn't say how widespread the criticism is.
 * From these points, you can't claim anything about consensus. You see, the word "consensus" does not mean "everyone thinks X". It only means - "a very large majority thinks X". So, if before 100% thought Israel is a liberal democracy, and now only 98% think so (a possibility not contradicted by your source), the notion is still in consensus. okedem 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it disputed? Don't assume that it is not possible for an "ethnocracy" to be a liberal democracy. I am also skeptical of the credibility of the source, especially when standing alongside Freedom House. --Shamir1 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to compare Israel to other countries in the Middle East, there are other, more notable, comparisons to be made. For example:
 * while all the other Middle Eastern countries recognize each other and have diplomatic relations with each other, only three Middle Eastern countries recognize Israel

Surely a dispute whether Israel even has the right to exist is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead.Bless sins 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear a no. --  tariq abjotu  01:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get it...? --Shamir1 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Demographics in lead
"With a population of about 7.2 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state. It is also home to Muslim Arabs, Christians and Druze, as well as other religious and ethnic minority groups."

When looking at other country articles that talk about the population in the lead:
 * Egypt: The vast majority of its estimated 78 million people (2007) live near the banks of the Nile River in an area of about 40,000 km² (15,000 sq mi) where the only arable agricultural land is found.
 * Australia: The population is 21 million, and is concentrated in the mainland state capitals of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide.
 * Ireland: The population of the island is slightly under six million (2006/7), with almost 4.25 million in the Republic of Ireland[4] (1.7 million in Greater Dublin[5]) and an estimated 1.75 million in Northern Ireland[6] (0.6 million in Greater Belfast [7]).
 * South Korea: Approximately one-half of South Korea's population lives in or near the capital Seoul, the country's largest city.

It appears that in the introduction, the largest conurbation of the population is mentioned, rather than listing ethnic and religious groups. The mention of ethnic and religious groups (which would leave some out if in the lead) is generally meant for the demographics section, and this article has already covered that.

What do editors think of: "The Israeli population is about 7.2 million, and is most concentrated in the metropolitan area of the coastal city of Tel Aviv." "Metropolitan area" links to Gush Dan. I chose "coastal city", but editors can brainstorm other adjectives/introductory phrases that have been used for the city--cosmopolitan, primary business hub, etc. --Shamir1 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ethnic and religious diversity doesn't play such an important role in the countries mentioned above as in Israel, don't you think? Squash Racket 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that is what a demographics section is for. --Shamir1 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Australian mainland has been inhabited for more than 42,000 years by Indigenous Australians." I found that in the lead of the article Australia, one of your examples. Is that history, demography or just a very important info worth mentioning in the lead? Squash Racket 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is mentioning who has been inhabiting the mainland in history. It is not listing all the ethnic and religious groups that currently live there, which is almost always something explained in demographics. --Shamir1 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the current sentence in the intro. None of those countries you described can be considered the world's only Jewish state; this one is unique. The part about religious and ethnic minorities is present to clarify the country is not just Jews. --  tariq abjotu  05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe just a mention of Israel being a Jewish state as sufficient and is unique. As to clarifying that the country is not just Jews (which is clarified in Demographics), by saying "With a population of about 7.2 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state" infers that it is because of a Jewish majority population that makes Israel a Jewish state. The reason that makes it a Jewish state is rather complex, and not particularly for us to decide. No, I'm not saying we decided that, but I feel like the structure of the sentence directly infers that idea, which I believe it should not. Britannica writes: "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period, and the region that now falls within its borders has a lengthy and rich history that dates from pre-biblical times." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. --  tariq abjotu  05:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did make some typo's, I see how that could have confused you. Anyway, I believe that following the mention of "the majority of whom are Jews" immediately with "Israel is is the the world's only Jewish state" gives the wrong impression that it is Israel's Jewish majority that makes it a Jewish state. This can be true, but I do not believe that that idea should be made. I hope that helped clarify things. Also, Britannica's sentence does not require a clarification of demographics. --Shamir1 05:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Where I believe there is an issue is with the sentence "With a population of about 7.2 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state." I believe there is more to the reason of Israel being a Jewish than it's population. The structure of this sentence infers that since the majority of the population is Jewish, it is a Jewish state. Israel calls itself a Jewish state but on grounds other than this, starting from the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel or even earlier.

Simply saying that it is a Jewish state is unique, following the model of Britannica. The population of the country can be styled in the same way that the other countries do in the lead; the demographics section can go into as much details as necessary. --Shamir1 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

headings
Tariq has reverted my attempt to improve the titles of the history sections in this article, most of which are misleading and do not sum up the material they contain. The section which tariq entitled "series of conflicts," for example, is not just about conflicts, but about Israel making peace with Egypt. "Early roots" is meaningless. If labeling them accurately is a problem because it creates too many subsections, then I suggest going back to the original chronological breakdown. --Gilabrand 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the titles are problematic. "Series of conflicts" could apply to Israel's entire history - from the 1948 war and the Suez crisis in the previous section, to the second intifada and the second Lebanon war, in the following section. And having the peace treaty with Egypt in the "conflicts" section, preceding the "Peace negotiations" section, is just weird.
 * What were your suggestions? I don't have the patience to go through all the previous versions in the article's history. okedem 10:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this may be too many sections, but they should at least be considered, rather than blanket-reverted - Antiquity to Ottoman era, Zionism and the British Mandate, War of Independence, Building the State, From the Six-Day War to peace with Egypt, War with Lebanon and Palestinian violence, From Oslo to peace with Jordan, Peace talks and withdrawal from Gaza, Second Lebanon War and aftermath. Who says you can't have a section devoted to "just 15 years" - as Tariq claims?--Gilabrand 10:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like just too many sections. You suggesting a section for every paragraph (in later years), and I think that's excessive. okedem 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was "a section devoted to "just 15 years""; I said there were three sections devoted to fifteen years. That's excessive. I have no objection to changing the names of and shifting sections, but there's no reason to have nine subsections for the history. --  tariq abjotu  15:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Never meant to stoke the fires...
Well guys, I just wanted to help, but apparently my attempt lead to way more debate than it meant to cause. My attempt at compromise was simply that. I thought I was going to aid in mediating the revert war, but instead I naively stoked the flames and restarted the fire. I don't think I realized just how stubborn some people can be. I apologize to both sides for not being around to comment on this debate or post my thoughts sooner, but I've been busy studying for my boards. Here's my solution now: Shamir, please drop it. I originally could sympathesize with you to a degree, as I honestly thought you were trying to improve the article. I don't know why this has you so passionate, but its just not worth it. We're all attempting to be constructive here (and I believe including you), but arguing over the wording of one sentence is completely counterintuitive to this. It would be best for all to let this die. I've posted my thoughts on the associated request for comments page. --Jdcaust 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have descided to follow Jdcaust's lead.

Telaviv1 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More on the intro
I've been debating whether to comment on this, given the recent lengthy discussion, but I have decided to go for it.

I'm not fond of this recent change to the intro. It was not "minor" at all; whereas before we only had four comparisons to other countries in the region, we now have seven in just two sentences. It now sounds like we're just gloating. We can easily cut down on some of the comparisons though. The human development index, developed country status, and advanced economy status overlap in various ways. The "least corrupt" piece makes for a rather unorthodox comparison and probably is not needed. I also don't believe it was right to remove "is considered" and "has been ranked" from the sentences, although I think the number of comparisons is the bigger issue. Yes, I know accommodating for those changes would put us back to what we had before the change; I see no problem with that. --  tariq abjotu  01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mark that change as minor, I said "additions" and minor re-wording (please don't mislead) which refers to the changing of "most progressive...freedom of the press" to "has the freest press" and so on. You may want to see South Korea, Finland, Canada, Sweden, and some others. "Considered" wasnt particularly necessary (it was my addition, back in the day), I believe User:Telaviv1 had an issue with it. Developed country has more to do with industrialization as opposed to the human development index, which measures progress. --Shamir1 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See developed country. I see little reason to doubt the connection established between HDI, advanced economies, and developed countries. Other country articles, like the ones you mention, do talk about their standing in the world in the introduction, but they have fewer comparisons than this article. For those that have what appear to be quite a few comparisons (and even for many that don't), they tend to be more quantitative (Country Q is the x-highest in Category M) rather than superlative (Country Q is better than a group of countries in Category M). In the introduction here, we have mostly superlative comparisons – and quite a few of them. Having the comparisons close together also increases the gloating effect. --  tariq abjotu  02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most country articles point out impressive facts in the last paragraphs. Many even have separate sections boasting their international rankings. (South Korea has two such paragraphs in the intro and more explanations of each survey/index.) There are a few surveys here but its written in a pretty concise way, each is short and they all share the same introductory phrase. I think it has less issues that way. Of course ive seen the developed country article, and I didnt say there was not a connection. The article uses those maps to show the different sense of development. But an index of how well a country's human population is developing is different from a country being developed. To ease things, I removed the "advanced economy." That one doesnt really have anything to link to anyway. That does not mean that it is not notable or verifiable. It is, but I hope that a removal can ease things a bit. That should be better for now. --Shamir1 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, is there any reason why you removed the rank of political corruption? I dont see how it can be judged as "unusual", or what that has to do with policy. (Finland also mentions low corruption levels.) It fits in with the rest and is political/economic, it seems just as notable. The rank is there.

As to the wording in terms of verbs, I dont see either as a problem. My concern was the Global Competitiveness Report, which uses 'competitiveness' rather than 'competition', so I thought that writing "is the most economically competitive" might be better. Anyway, as I said, I dont see either as a problem, but I thought you should know the reasons. --Shamir1 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't really say much about the Finland article. The article is not exactly the gold standard for articles. Although it is an A-class article, its biggest pitfall appears to be the very heavy emphasis on rankings. There are tons of rankings and comparisons in the introduction and the article even has its own international rankings section. That's certainly not something we should be striving for here, and something that needs to be fixed on the Finland article. --  tariq abjotu  06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt expect you say much about it, I agree we should concentrate on this article. I feel that that the Corruption Perceptions Index fits in with the other studies that are ranked in the article. It's a good source and is political and economic, it seems just as notable as the rest. This is my suggestion with it, unless you have a way that you would like to word it.

"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. In the region, Israel is the least corrupt, and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development." --Shamir1 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

finland is compared in the intro to global standards or to European standards. Saying israel is the least corrupt in the middle east isn't really that meaningful since middle eastern standards are so dismal to begin with. Telaviv1 07:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these ranks same the same introductory phrase, so its not like we are making a new and separate issue. Middle Eastern standards are generally dismal with what is being measured in all of these studies, but I dont see how it makes the inclusion of this in any way 'bad.' So still, this one seems just as notable and fits in, and comes from a good source. Are there any other actual issues with the source or the wording? I really dont see this as problematic at all. --Shamir1 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a critical issue for me. It does seem to attract a lot of abuse, but as long as you're handling it I don't mind. ;-) Telaviv1 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all rules considered, this really should not have any problems. --Shamir1 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagrant omissions- this article fails to presents the state and history of Israel from a global academic perspective
Israel is characterised by recent demarcation and colonisation, it is a military state which has been in a state of permanent conflict since its formation, whether it be due to all-out war or internal terrorism. some of the most important facts regarding Israel are that the us the size has doubled since the original demarcation and due in equal parts to Israeli and Arab offensive, Israel currently holds control over a large refugee population- I'm not for either side, but I'm disappointed that wiki has not represented this topic in a way that perhaps an Oxford academic or external observer would have  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean by "demarcation and colonisation"? what is a "military state"? what do you mean by "internal terrorism"? "the us the size has doubled since the original demarcation"? You need to explain what you mean by "global academic standards" and how those terms relate too such standards. Telaviv1 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Israeli control of the occupied territories and Palestinian refugees is briefly covered in the 'Occupied territories' section of the page. A 'refugees' hyperlink leads to a fairly detailed article about the Palestinian refugees. Royfalk 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification?
"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country.[12] In the region, Israel is the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press,[13] economic competition,[14] and human development.[15]"

I pasted the following quote above from the main Israel Page. I think those statements are inaccurate in some ways. If Israel is a liberal democracy then why doesn't it seperate church from state like America? I understand that Israel wants to maintain Judaism as the state's main religion and that is already understood by its creation in the beginning. Second the statement says that Israel is the most progressive in terms of freedom from the press. This is inaccurate in many ways. One example is the recent illegal intrusion into Syrian airspace and the bombing of a certain site. The Israeli government threatened to punish any media outlet in Israel if they cover the news or carry out inquiries. Third the statement that says Israel is the most progressive in human development is also the most inaccurate in many ways. If Israel is for human development then why doesn't it recognize the rights of the Palestinians to have a homeland? Why does the Israel systems discriminate against non-Jew citizens of Israel? If Israel is for human development then why does it have different levels of citizenship for Jews to non-Jews? If Israel is for human rights and development then why does the government regulary humiliate the Palestinians? If Israel is for human development then why do most of the goverment leaders call the Palestinians "lice" and "cancer" like previous ministers such as Rehavam Ze'evi? The following quote above needs to re-edited by Wikipedia administrators to reflect accurate facts. The sources that were used for quote above are from people who are Pro-Israel who only produce reports based on selective areas and not the whole truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyqs (talk • contribs) 01:26, October 22, 2007


 * These sound like great questions for the sources, not for us. Also, the sources are very critical in "selective areas". Either way, these are the sources. --Shamir1 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your post has way too many false claims and conclusions to even discuss. okedem 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Shamir1 did not elaborate, I will. 1. A liberal democracy does not need to have seperation of state and church, merely freedom of religion. Most European countries have an official state church and they are still liberal democracies. 2. Legal is almost always within the context of a specific country. The few exceptions are Genocide, crimes against humanity, etc which the attack wasn't. These are dealt in the various international courts in Hague. More to the point, the Israeli media is rife with coverage of the air attack.Military censorship prevents releasing official responses and information. Anything coming from media or sources abroad is fine. Searching for 'Syria' on the English version of ynet.co.il news site returns numerous references to the attack. 3. HDI does not measure these things. "The Human Development Index (HDI) is the measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare." (from the HDI article). 4. Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to a homeland numerous times. See for example the 'Road map for peace'. 5. Non-Jewish Israelis serve as cabinet ministers, supreme court justice and generals in the police and army. You'll have to be more specific. 6. I'm not familiar with different levels of citizenship. You can however be a resident without being a citizen. See PR in Singapore and green card in the US for some comparable cases. 7. Minister Ze'evi was never a representative of the average Israeli or the Israeli government. 8. As for the rest, you'll have to be more specific if you want answers. While the talk page isn't a forum, I have taken the time to answer most claims as they tend to surface every now and then. Royfalk 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About the HDI index, I assume this does not include the Palestinians within Israel's border, how would it compare to neighboring countries if they were? I'm not an expert, but the killing of 811 Palestinian minors and over 4000 Palestinians by the Israeli army seems to be a crime against humanity to me. Men under 25 are not allowed out of Gaza, and the state systematically evacuates Palestinian citizens to give its own citizen's housing. Much like designated 'native' areas in the US and apartheid-controlled South Africa, the owners of the land before invasion/colonisation are given poor, infertile land pockets in between rich, fertile land given to settlers. Note: Most of the facts are from the Christian Aid page on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the men under 25 quarantine I heard on a news report a while ago, I may be wrong on the age, and the land is from anecdotal evidence. I can't find any actual listing of human rights, but surely that must be breaking some? Also, saying there are too many false claims to discuss invalidates the whole point of a talk page, Okedem. The reason for the page is to discuss the validity/neutrality of a claim. You don't have to answer every point some you disagree with makes, yet you chose to answer none. What is the point if even posting to say someone is wrong, and then refusing to say what's wrong? Caruut 23:25, 25 October 2007 (GMT)


 * I'm not going to waste my time answering every single false claim, or discussing very faulty reasoning. Everything on the article is sourced, using good sources, and that's enough. The original poster's knowledge on the issue seems very patchy and partial, and I'm not here to educate anyone. okedem 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't even know what you want by this: "I can't find any actual listing of human rights, but surely that must be breaking some?". okedem 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Palestinians within the borders of Israel are Israeli citizens and as such are included in all official Israeli publications. I assume the UN report got the figure from the Israeli bureau of statistics. Israeli Palestinians are sometimes known as Israeli Arabs and should be distinguished from Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. * Your statistics regarding Palestinian fatalities are correct though outdated somewhat.B'tselem list 4204 dead overall, of which 858 were minors.However, this is spread over 8 years of low intensity conflict with Israeli casualties on the same order of magnitude. I don't have a histogram of fatalities but Palestinian casualties are predominantly male between the ages of 15 and 25 or so. Considering the intensity of the conflict, overall and minor fatalities are nowhere near a crime against humanity. Compare this with a 1000 a week in Dharfur. * Citizens from Gaza are generally not allowed to enter Israel. They have the alternative of leaving via Egypt which borders Gaza to the south. This is no different from any border control. * All agricultural claims concerning Israel/Palestine are rubbish. Israel is a semi-arid land. The fertile land is now almost completely suburbs. More specifically, Gaza is a desert beach and the west bank is combination desert/mountain. If you're European or American consider your own farmers. They require heavy subsidy's despite growing on extremely fertile land. Now apply this to the high population density and low rainfall figures and you'll understand why I wrote the rubbish comment. * Hope this answers some of your questions/claims. All of it is easily verifiable via CIA as well as wikipedia. 82.166.206.218 11:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Royfalk 11:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Answers to questions about HDI are obtainable from http://78.136.31.142/en/statistics/indices/hdi/. Interestingly, Algeria, Egypt and Syria have lower HDI's then the occupied territories. I assume this is because health care and education standards under Israeli rule have not been too bad, Israel generally ensured everyone had electricity, running water and schools.  I think most of the problems are because of settlers and anti-terrorist measures.

I have seen attempts by Israeli Arabs to derive seperate HDI figures. Technically it should be possible. I didn't trust the results because they seemed too low. Standards of living in the Galillee seem fairly high, and while there is massive poverty amnong the Bedouin in the Negev it is highly unlikely HDI figures for Israeli Arabs would be lower then for the occupied territories. See also Arab-Israeli_conflict_facts,_figures,_and_statistics Perhaps we should mention this in the occupied territories section? Telaviv1 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Media
I just noticed List of newspapers in Israel and wondered if we shouldn't have a prominent link to it somewhere. Any thoughts on the subject?

Telaviv1 09:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a subsection about media in general - TV, newspapers, etc., but I'm not willing to write it at the moment. Maybe you can? I think it would be a great contribution. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

what do you think of this? Should it be a seperate article? Telaviv1 10:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant political turbulence has helped make many Israelis into news-junkies. Some radio stations broadcast new reports twice an hour.

The Israeli press is dominated by three newspapaers, the intellectual and left-leaning Haaretz, and two more populist papers, Yediot Ahronot (which claims about 70% of readership) and Maariv. Haaretz, Yediot , the Jerusalem Post , (financial paper) Globes and Israel radio  have English language websites.

In addition to the Hebrew press there are Arabic newspapers and a large Russian language press as well as newspapers in Yiddish, English and French. There are also papers serving the Orthodox Jewish sector and two daily financial papers. Over two thirds of Israelis have access to the internet and, although newspaper readership is very high, there has been a decline in newspaper sales as many people have switiched to reading the news online.

The most popular radio stations are Kol Yisrael and the Army radio station, Galei Tzahal. News broadcasts designed for new immigrants are available in a wide variety of languages. At one time the Israel radio Persian language (Farsi) broadcast had millions of listeners across the world and was the single most popular Israeli radio station, it remains popular and is frequently jammed by the Iranian government.

A military censor exists with the right to prevent articles being published if they are certain that an article will damage national security. Journalists can protest to the high court.

Israeli TV broadcasts began in 1968. The national TV station is funded by a license fee. In 1993 a second channel funded by advertising went live. There is also a cable service and a sattelite service. Most Israelis subscribe to one of these services which relay a wide variety of programs including broadcasts from across the Arab world and Europe. ---
 * Missing references to economic papers (Globes, TheMarker), English language newspapers (Haaretz English Edition & Jerusalem Post), papers with a religious orientation (Makor Rishon, Hamodia), local city papers (Kol Ha'ir, Zman Tel Aviv). Too much on censorship. Nothing on the critical importance of radio news broadcasts, which Israelis listen to every hour of the day, and the evening news, watched by almost everyone (these are important cultural features of Israel.--Gilabrand 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to accomodate some of your criticisms but I can't list all the papers... there is a site for that List of newspapers in Israel which might be worth editing. I linked to it. I think some mention of censorship is necessary because of all the people who assume our news is heavily censored, its also interesting in its own right.

Do you think I should put it into the Israel page? Telaviv1 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the article needs a Media section. I see many featured country articles do just fine without one and there is nothing particularly unique about Israeli media that warrants a whole section. As a result, the proposed section just appears to list major news sources in the country (with words in between to develop the list into a couple short paragraphs). If one were to add a Media section to this article, I would not want it to be the one proposed above. It doesn't live up to the quality standards demanded by a featured article. --  tariq abjotu  14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Telaviv, this is definitely better and you have brought in some interesting material (althought it could use some copyediting). I don't object to having a media section if others think it is warranted, because I do think that keeping close watch on the news is much more significant in Israeli culture than it is in some other countries. But if others think it doesn't belong, please add this information to "culture of Israel" or whatever subarticle you think it fits in with.--Gilabrand 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)