Talk:Kadima

"Liberalism"
In the box at the top of the page, their political ideology is described as "Liberalism, Centrism," which could mean just about anything. I am particularly troubled by the word liberalism, since it not only has widely varying (and often even mutually exclusive) definitions, depending on the era and the location. Does this mean economic liberalism, as in, being in favor of the free market? Does this mean the "liberalism" of the US similar to that of the Democratic Party? Does this "liberalism" refer to economic or social issues? Take a look at how clearly this is done in the box for the US Republican Party. It divides them up into "fiscal" and "social." --N-k, 14:20, 31 July, 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the free market and small government sense (which is its meaning everywhere outside the US). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That word means different things in different parts of the world, and should be clarified for the sake of the English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What ever you call them they are of the Loony Left. Their policies are very dangerous for the security of the state. The party is full of self loathing Jews who think they can appease the Arabs into making peace. Peace is not possible with the Arabs. Thankfully the people have leant from the Oslo and Gaza disasters and will not vote for Leftist parties unless they are of the 'intellectual elites' whose self loathing is blatantly evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.52.68 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion Polling for Israel
Does anyone know if there's ant opinion polling in Israel, and, if there is, can we put the results here, as the Olmert scandal could affect its popularity. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Centrist"
Kadima a 'centrist' party? Says who? Sharon "centrist"? Can someone explain this to me? Sonyes (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kadima is the centre-center party, the center-left party is "Labour", the center-right party is "Likud". The policies of Kadima lie between the traditional right and traditional left parties of Likud and Labour respectively, so it is centrist. Centrism is region dependent. The Center-right US Republican party would be considered far right in some European countries, likewise, some European centre-right parties would be considered far-left in the US. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

''centrist |ˈsentrəst| adjective'' having moderate political views or policies. So, what you are telling me is nonsense. Anyone else? Sonyes (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Or, how about: "Kadima is a political party in Israel, nationally known as 'centrist'. Sonyes (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard two separate US media outlets refer to it as center-left. I am changing it to say "centrist". Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a chew over what I wrote and see what you think Reargun (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've provided two sources that say the group is centrist. One says center, the other center-left. Albeit neither is an online source, but you can look the one up in the library; I think you will find many other sources saying similar things. However, I do not think we should center-left or center-right, unless we want to put both, as both are substantially sourced. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Socio-economic policy and political stance
I hate to exhaust anyone, but can someone explain in what sense the party adheres to liberalism, as that is a broad philosophy.

I looked up Liberal Zionism (see Zionism), and it the main page talked about it being an ancestor of Kadima (and modern-day Likud). Its references to the middle class and other terms sounded familiar to other aspects of Kadima's platform. Still, I would like to seek more insight.

I have collected several articles to open up a discussion on the economic policy of Kadima and where that fits on the political spectrum.

Please check out these sources.


 * Kadima: Changing the government's financial priorities and maximizing transparency; fighting all aspects of poverty an reducing the gaps between social echelons; increase Israel's financial growth; promoting minority rights; fighting crime and violence; investment in socioeconomic infrastructure; boosting the Negev and Galilee areas; protecting the environment, promoting a solution for civil marriage in Israel and strengthening Israel's ties with Jewish communities aboard.


 * Labor MK defects to Kadima The party's social-economic policies, including development in the Galilee and Negev and a war on poverty and crime, is also included.


 * Kadima Proposes Negative Tax, Civil Marriage and Secular Burial. Education Minister Meir Sheetrit has set out Kadima's socio-economic policy. It includes a negative income tax, civil marriage and secular burial. At the heart of Kadima's economic policy is a negative income tax, an idea that has been floated periodically in the media as a panacea for alleviating poverty. Such a tax, generally a graduated transfer payment made to persons who earn below a set amount, can be implemented in a multitude of ways. Sheetrit failed to reveal concrete details regarding Kadima's version of the idea. He said he hoped that a negative tax would break the cycle of unemployment and poverty.


 * Kadima pledges upgrade in education to get people back to work The three main goals of Kadima's economic platforms are to stop the spread of poverty, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and to raise the standard of living, which over the past 30 years has remained low in Israel in comparison with other Western countries.


 * Kadima proposes to introduce negative income tax payments for people earning up to the minimum wage, until 2008. Kadima's economic policy stresses the urgent need to implement incentives for the unemployed to move them back into the labor force via education reforms including a longer school day and interest-free student loans for university education. Other incentives for working parents include recognition of daycare costs for tax purposes and increasing subsidies for the old and disabled.


 * Sheetrit added that the more people will get out of the cycle of entitlements and into the labor force, the more money will be freed up that could be used to reduce poverty and generate growth. In addition, Kadima wants to reduce the number of foreign workers in Israel in an effort to raise wages.


 * Kadima's plan pledges more transparency through compulsory tax reports, which in turn would provide more clarity about the need and allocation of welfare assistance.


 * The 2006 Israeli Elections: A Primer Social Issues – Kadima proposes education reform, a focus on increasing immigration and improving absorption, providing a safety net for the elderly and disabled as well as fighting violence while strengthening law enforcement.
 * Economic Issues – With the economic crisis over, Kadima plans to reduce the gaps between rich and poor. The party intends to change the State budget priorities, working to reduce the size of the government sector and improve investments and consumption while providing efficient services at reasonable prices. Parallel, the platform offers the protection of fair wages for workers, while providing incentives to go out and work and aid only for those unable to work.


 * Column One: Enter the Netanyahu gov't: Netanyahu's free market economic philosophy is shared by Kadima and Israel Beiteinu. It is not shared by Shas or Habayit Hayehudi. The National Union is neutral on this issue. So to cut income taxes by 20 percent, as Netanyahu has pledged, a coalition with Kadima is preferable to its rightist alternative. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu will probably be able to push his economic policies through the Knesset with either governing coalition, particularly if he proposes them quickly.

Please discuss and explain the political ideology it seems a part of. --Shamir1 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Platform
I searched for the source of the "Platform" section of the Kadima Article. All I found was an article on Haaretz, but it was deleted, so I finally found it via the waybackmachine. If one of the Kadima article authors likes to add the source, the URL is:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051130030757/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/651003.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.119.221 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Political center and center-left
There seems to be no problem with the way I described Kadima in the lead. Should explanation ever be needed, there are 3 important reasons why I included "of the political center and center-left":
 * 1) In addition to the "centrist" description, Kadima is described as center-left by some mainstream sources
 * 2) Kadima is considered a part of the left-wing bloc in the Knesset, and is naturally allied with Labor and Meretz
 * 3) Kadima is made up of politicians from Likud and Labor, though, unlike those from Likud, the former Labor politicians are not said to have gone any major ideological transformation.

--Shamir1 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no clear definition to what "left-wing bloc" means. The source in the article for the assertion is a single Haaretz poll. The source for the "naturally allied with Labor and Meretz" clearly doesn't mean that they are always natural allies, but only that they were at the time and context of the coalition negotiations. <-- That Haaretz source defines Kadima as leading "the center-left bloc", so can't even be claimed that Haaretz takes the stance that Kadima leads the left-bloc. The only objective thing that can be said is that they lead the opposition. Overall the entire article, and the "place in political spectrum" section in particular, relies too much on primary "real-time" sources and not enough on secondary and tertiary "in retrospect" sources.  Rami  R  20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing I thought this through in April. :) The only thing I regret is forgetting to add the sources that call it center-left. I think you may be a bit confused. For a long time now (if not since Israel's establishment), the Knesset parties have been split between a right-wing bloc and a left-wing bloc. The Haaretz source is NOT the only one that does this, and the idea you seem to have that this is only since they have lead the opposition is false. Kadima has been considered part of the left-wing bloc since its creation. (And by left-wing bloc is synonymous with left-Arab bloc, center-left bloc, left-liberal bloc, etc... I've seen all those. I've likewise seen the right-wing bloc called the right-wing/religious bloc...) --Shamir1 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the article again. Kadima is not "centre and centre-left", it is pure centre. Look at the party's composition - most of the senior people in it (Livni, Mofaz, Hanegbi etc - of the top 10 on its Knesset list, only one was a member of Labor, whilst eight were Likudniks). And there are also sources that describe the party as being to the right of centre (or this one, which states the party has "a strong right-wing"). пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  09:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (@Shamir1) "And by left-wing bloc is synonymous with left-Arab bloc, center-left bloc, left-liberal bloc, etc... " - that is not a verifiable claim, only your point of view. The very source you give for your assertion that Kadima was always part of the left bloc starts by defining Kadima as "centrist". While true that Israeli politics are traditionally defined by blocs, their definition has always been hazy, more nowadays than ever (The "leftist" Labor is part of rightist Likud lead government, kinda undermining the whole "bloc theory").  Rami  R  10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * N57, what does that mean 'Look at the party's composition'? Are you suggesting we all go OR on this? MY POV sees Kadima on the left, not centrist at all, but I have to admit that it is widely seen as centre-left in the mass media. --Shuki (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting we go OR, otherwise I would have edited the article itself to say "Kadima is right-wing because most of its senior leaders are former Likud members". Instead, I was making the point that whilst right-wingers see Kadima as being a centre-left party, it can also be viewed as a centre-right party (as demonstrated above, there are several reliable sources which label it as such). To insist that the party is centre-left whilst major reliable sources totally contradict it, is a major NPOV issue. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get you. Shamir's major sources calling it centre-left are not okay, but your's are? And who cares 'now' where the members came from? I'm sure you learnt a long time ago, especially before you became admin, that that 'reasoning' is not acceptable on WP. It's not relevant to today who was a Likud, especially since they soonafter supported the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, the 'convergence', and other traditional Meretz leftist platforms. Why would they be viewed as 'centre-right'? Because of some latent national Zionist security platforms? I once remarked that it seemed that two different people were using your account because sometimes it seemed that WP responsibility was lacking in some discussions. --Shuki (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shuki, your comment is a tad on the personal side. I advise you avoid that. N57 isn't saying that his sources are better than Shamir's. He's saying (N57, correct me if I'm wrong) that there are reliable sources for both the "center-right" and "center-left" stance; therefor we can't just state that Kadima is "center-left" as if that was a statement of fact (we can't state that it is "center-right" either).  Rami  R  17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my point. I would not use my sources in the article (or at least not in the lead) to describe Kadima as centre-right, because I don't think the party is. Nor, as you can clearly guess, do I believe it is centre-left. All these sources could and probably should be used in the "Place in the political spectrum" section, but they just prove that the party cannot be labelled as leaning either left or right, as it is accused of both. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think RamiR knows what he is talking about in regards to left- and right-wing blocs in the Knesset. Such blocs have always exist. The point of the Jewish Journal article was not to say that Kadima is not centrist but to say that it has been within the left-wing bloc since its formation. In regards to the OR conclusions about Kadima's composition; that is just that, OR. Because they were formally a part of a center-right party does not make them center-right, especially since they are by and large regarded to have undergone some sort of ideological transformation. This is unlike their Labor members. What is more significant is the President [[Shimon Peres] has said that Kadima is "exactly" the same as Labor.

Anyway, Number57's sources are very much lacking, in terms of notability, strength, and many of them don't even say what he purport's them to say. In addition, many of them are random opinion pieces, not articles.

Saying a party has a strong right-wing does not mean that party is right of center on the political spectrum, but rather solely within the party. For example check out The Left's Right referring to a faction within the U.S. Democratic Party. Some also say that David Ben-Gurion took the right wing of (the left-wing organization) Poale Zion to form his moderate left party, while the left wing of that group went on to form Mapam. Get the gist?

The BBC source you use (I added this source by the way) is from 2006, describing the party as it was first originally formed with no clear platform, and it says that this is in strictly economic terms. Since then, the party has advocated for generous welfare benefits and at times even voted to the left of Labor. (See the Land Reform Bill.) In any case, even if that were true today it is strictly in economic terms. One might say the same of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Labour Party (U.K.)--but that alone does not make a center-right party or even suggest it.

This is not about not calling the party centrist. I have included that in the infobox and its first sentence. Still, we need clarity on the political spectrum. That is why I long ago added that compromising and comprehensive phrase in order to reflect what mass media seems to reporting.

In addition to the wide range of strong and notable sources I included above, I'll add another clarification from the New York Times: "In other words, Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish."

Again, please also make note of the other sources above. I think the way it's been before N57's edits, was the most clear and comprehensive. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Rami does know what he was talking about. There were no left/right blocs in the Knesset for long periods - e.g. 1967-1970 - Gahal and the Alignment governed together, 1984-1990 - Likud and the Alignment governed together, 2001-2003, 2005 - Likud and Labor governed together. If you really want clarity on the political spectrum, why are you not inserting material into that section, but trying to frontload the debate by claiming the party leans left in the introduction? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Number 57, there is really something wrong with your arguments. Very wrong. You say: "why are you not inserting material into that section, but trying to frontload the debate by claiming the party leans left in the introduction?" My gosh, Number 7. Do you know how much I have inserted into that section? A lot. I have done a good job clarifying it in the lead too, using great sources and being as clear as possible about how and why they were formed and what they represent. Clearly, you too, do not understand the left/right blocs in the Knesset. The unity governments you are referring to have nothing to do with that. The left/right blocs exist regardless of coalition or opposition. For example, using history, Mapam would've been considered still part of the left-wing bloc although it was left out of the leftist government. Anyway, the argument you provided against what I wrote (I don't even think you wrote one...) is weak and unsupported. For reasons of clarity and accuracy, I will re-add the sentence. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't have anything else to add. We have reliable sources stating that Kadima is a centre-right party, and we have reliable sources stating that it is centre left. Only using one side of the argument, especially in the introduction, is unacceptable, and I will continue to revert your POV edits. If you want to dispute Kadima's place in the political spectrum, there is a whole section in the article for it. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  23:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You clearly do not understand what a POV edit is. It's funny how you accuse me (with proper sources and careful/clear editing) of bias when only one of us has been filling his edit summaries with his with WP:original research and stating his own point of view. :D Anyway, your claim that "we have reliable sources stating that Kadima is centre-right" has been debunked. Did you not read the above? Your small number of "sources" were made up of random op-eds (rather than articles) and, leaving the severe problems of lack of notability and reliability completely aside, most of them did not even say what you were purporting it said. The center-left articles on the other hand, are abundant, all come from mainstream reliable sources, are articles (not opinion pieces), and it includes the very specific New York Times article. I really think that with the explanation in the infobox, all the carefully chosen words in the lead, and all the reliable sources out there, adding (in just one sentence) "center and center-left" accurately reflects the party's position. If you have a problem with the sources (which you apparently think are "retarded") then consult the journalists who wrote them, not Wikipedia. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my sources have not been debunked, you just fail to agree with them. Claiming the The Times is not a notable or reliable source is laughable. Your repeated addition of the phrase "centre-left" to the introduction is a clear NPOV violation. If I was being an arse, I could change the introduction completely using the sources I found to describe the party as centre-right, but I won't because it would make the article biased. As I've said multiple times, there is a place for making claims that Kadima leans towards either side of the political debate, and it's not in the intro. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Number57, you are in violation of 3rr over the past two days. I suggest you revert your last edit until consensus can be achieved. --Shuki (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shuki, I suggest you read WP:3RR. More than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period are needed to violate it. I'm only counting two.  Rami  R  19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that page from which I quote this exception: Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached. You know, 3RR in 24 hours is the main guideline but admins working on the page regularly go beyond that 24hours if there is clear evidence of an edit war (no brainer here). In this specific case, by an admin no less, who is merely 'warring' and not even bothering to modify the legitimate edits (that go against his admitted OR). --Shuki (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I will not self-revert to a biased version of the article. The aim of Wikipedia is to present a factual NPOV encyclopedia article. The preferred version of Shamir1 is not that, for the reasons cited above. I am here to preserve Wikipedia's integrity, and on that I will not compromise. Secondly, there is no "OR" as you claim, and nor have I admitted to any OR. I've presented several reliable sources that state that Kadima is a centre-right party, so this is clearly not original research. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough foolish attacks. What on earth makes it "biased"? Because it's clear and comprehensive and properly sourced? You cited NO reasons above. None. Number57, I've gone through all the links you provided. I think maybe (just maybe) one of them says what you are purporting it says. The rest of them don't even say "center-right" or anything like that at all, or are random opinion pieces. (Do you really not see this?) And yes, all you stated in your summaries was OR. All your opinions, no sources or facts.

What is your reason for the complete disregard of all other sources? Your disregard for Kadima's inclusion in the Knesset's left-wing bloc ( if you really need more help, which you probably do ], and the very clear sources provided--all from articles published by very notable, very mainstream sources (among them, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, BBC News, The Economist... One of them (The New York Times even clarifies your personal argument, N57: "In other words, Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish." Obviously more factual and comprehensive considering the reliable sources out there. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reason I have stated it is biased was put clearly enough, but if not, I'll try again. We have reliable sources calling the party centre-left, centrist and centre-right (and if the Times isn't good enough for you, how about Deloitte, The Australian, The Age, The Times again). To only include one of the other opinions on the party (centre-left) in the introduction, when there are also sources stating that the party is centre-right, cannot be justified under NPOV. Either we amend the introduction to state that the "party classifies itself as centrist and liberal, though it is also seen as being centre-left or centre-right", or this is discussed in the Place in the political spectrum section. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Number57, I have been trying to make this article as clear and comprehensive as possible. Your allegations of bias are baseless. First of all, a party that is right-of-center on the Israeli political spectrum cannot be part of the left-wing bloc in the Knesset.[ I do not know why you are considering [[Deloitte]] to be a reliable source to describe Kadima in this context. Do you know what Deloitte is? It's an accounting firm, not a news or political source. (I could have used similar sources in standing, but chose to stick with notable ones.) Do you really think this somehow trumps the description the New York Times gives? Your other article is a repeat; The Australian, does not even say what you purport it to say, on the contrary, they have referred to Kadima as centre-left; as does The Age {http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/gaza-war-a-vote-winner-for-opposition/2009/02/02/1233423135056.html]. So once again, there is no opposing case here. Not only is it in the Knesset left-wing bloc, but the New York Times specifically describes its leftward drift. This is very significant and cannot be ignored. Furthermore, many reliable, notable, mainstream sources have used that term to refer to Kadima.

--Shamir1 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as you have reverted yet again and don't seem to understand what is wrong, I have added centre-right to the introduction as suggested above in the interests of NPOV. Also, you're clearly not reading the links - from the Australian link "ISRAEL'S leadership is hanging in the balance after exit polls showed that Tzipi Livni, the centre-right Kadima Party chairwoman, was narrowly ahead in todays general elections, but might still not be able to form the new Government." пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That link is broken. (Unlike the functioning Australian article which refers to Kadima as center-left). Please cease your edit war. What about this do you not understand? You have provided but one weak source to prove your case while the original text of the article (been there for months) is properly sourced with strong, descriptive sources. A right-of-center party cannot be part of the left-wing bloc. Simple as that. Your edit will be reverted for reasons of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NOTE. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the link is broken, you can still see the start of the article. I have not provided "one weak source", by my counts I have given you at least ten links which describe the party as centre-right in some way. I've compromised to let your assertion that the party is centre-left into the lead, but on the basis that the opposing view is also presented. This is what NPOV means, and any attempts to ignore it will be reverted. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I have asked for an outside opinion from an editor who concentrates on political articles but is not involved in the Israel sphere. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not have "ten links which describe the party as centre-right in some way." That list was baloney. All of them, except maybe one, fell into irrelevance on the grounds that they, a) first and foremost did not even say anything close to what you wanted them to say, never even using the terms you purport that they use, and b) are OP-EDS (you are supposed to be using ARTICLES). (Aside from the fact that many of them are outdated, not notable, and not published by reliable sources, to say the least.) You also very much do not understand the terms in the articles you gave (somehow believing they are suggesting Kadima to be a center-right party when they most certainly are not. In fact, they often say the opposite.) You completely disregard the fact Kadima is in the Knesset's left-wing bloc (which cannot include a party that is right of center on the Israeli political spectrum). You have no case. You have virtually no articles to support it either. And aside from that (your "sources" and arguments about them were long debunked already--see above), the articles I have shown are strong, abundant, come from mainstream sources, are ARTICLES (not op-eds), and are descriptive. --Shamir1 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the sources? Just to start with,
 * The centre-right party is choosing a new leader at a critical time The Times
 * Tzipi Livni's centre-right Kadima party Sydney Morning Herald
 * Ehud Olmert’s Kadima, the centre-right party Agence Global
 * Tzipi Livni, the centre-right Kadima Party chairwoman The Australian
 * as soon as his centre-right party, Kadima The Age
 * Tzipi Livni, the centre-right Kadima party chairwoman The Times
 * I think this illustrates your claim that "all of them, except maybe one... did not even say anything close to what I wanted them to say, never even used the terms you purport them to use" is rubbish пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Describe it as centre in the infobox and make mention of the divergent classification in the media in the main text. Problem solved. — Nightstallion 20:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no divergent classification in the media. We are not here to appease Number56 with his unverifiable arguments. This is about accuracy. Did you read this complete discussion? Did you view all the sources? A party of the left-wing bloc, cannot be considered right of center. Furthermore, Israeli President Shimon Peres (who has been a member of both Labor and Kadima) says there "is no difference" between Kadima and Labor. THE NEW YORK TIMES EXPLICITLY SAYS THIS: "In other words, Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish."

In regards to Number57's sources (something is not getting into his head): here you go:
 * 1.
 * 1) Op-ed. (You must use ARTICLES.)
 * 2) Op-ed published by un-notable source.
 * 3) Article does not exist. A functioning and recent article from The Australian refers to Kadima as "centre-left."
 * 4) Outdated. A more recent The Age article refers to Kadima as "centre-left"
 * 5) You already used The Times.

Kadima in the left-wing bloc of parties in the Knesset. Fact.

Here, all articles, recent, and published by notable mainstream sources:
 * The New York Times: "In other words, Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish.", "With 99 percent of the votes counted, the center-left Kadima Party of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni held a one-seat lead..."
 * BBC News: "Centre-left Kadima is projected to be in first place..."
 * Reuters: "the center-left Kadima party of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni..."
 * MSNBC: "compared to 55 for center-left and Arab parties."
 * The Washington Post: "Kadima leads what's known as the center-left bloc."
 * Al Jazeera: "Media polls have given Livni's centrist-left Kadima party with 28 seats..."
 * The Economist: "Today's centre-left opposition party in Israel is Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni." "Tzipi Livni, leader of the centre-left Kadima party, which won most seats but struggled in vain to form a ruling coalition..."
 * The Age: "the centre-left parties, including Kadima and Labour"
 * The Australian: "While the centre-left Kadima under Tzipi Livni..."
 * ABC News (Australia): "the centre left Kadima has fewer allies"
 * AllExperts: "they could possibly be seen as centrist or centre-left, from an Israeli perspective"
 * MidEastWeb: "Israelis gave the largest number of votes to the center-left Kadima party..."

Israeli President Shimon Peres: “What are the differences today between Labor and Kadima? Nothing. In the previous government there was a prominent different between the two large parties because of (Likud Chairman) Benjamin Netanyahu, whose economic policy neither Olmert nor Ariel Sharon liked, and certainly I didn’t either. But now? There is no difference."

Please. Let's keep this factual and accurate, reflective of Israel's society and mainstream sources.

--Shamir1 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Number57, you might have a case with providing some WP:RS, but it is certainly WP:UNDUE in this case. The vast majority of the media, especially the major media organizations describe Kadima as centre-left, while your examples from RS, and in the obscure minority. ALong with that, I hold you to a higher standard with respect to edit warring. Someone awarded admin status should have the knowledge and will to settle this overexagerated conflict with proper dispute resolution. I don't want to report you on admin noticeboard, I expect you to do/be better and avoid that. --Shuki (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's time to leave this discussion and use the energy on something else. I think Shamir1 has settled it with conclusive arguments and rebuttal of counterarguments. --Jonund (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that all significant view points must be covered in the article. While the claim that Kadima is center-right is not as prominent as the center-left claim, it is still a significant. Too claim that The times, NPR and Al Arabiya constitute undue weight is flat out ridiculous.

Also, Shuki, put up or shut up. Think N57 is edit-warring? Take it to WP:ANEW. You'll of course be told that never exceeding 2 reverts per day (only 1 yesterday) combined w/ proper edit summaries and talk page participation is not a blockable offense.  Rami  R  10:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yawn, quite sad when poor behaviour gets kneejerk defence from the bleachers. It's quite clear that he is edit warring, and I would rather not report anything at this point. Go read 3RR, seriously. At least read the beginning: An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion.. There is a penalty for breaking 3RR within 24 hours, but edit warring clearly includes this meaningless ping pong as well. Number57 or you for that mannerhas not proven why this obscure minority centre-right claim should deserve equal weight and I know that he can be quite eloquent, so there is no reason to defend his poor actions here. Don't revert the article unless you can add something to back your POV edit. Go bring more sources to show that centre-right is equally used in a wide variety of sources. That is all that is being requested here. --Shuki (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Political center and center-left, discussion restart
Number57, please do not fan any flames by making a controversial edit. You heavily rely on outdated sources, op-eds, un-notable media or a combination thereof. Even then, the list remains short and weak. I have already provided an extensive rebuttal of your past arguments, and this has been accepted by many involved editors. Kadima, is in fact, of the left-wing bloc in Israel. A party cannot be right of center on the Israeli political spectrum and yet be included in the left-wing bloc of parties. I have presented several strong, clear, mainstream sources that describe Kadima as center-left, and have been very fair and careful in the lead that I wrote. In your edit summary, you included a poorly written source whose publisher has no article on this site. It is based on assertion of individuals---it is not stating what you are saying as fact. Furthermore, it is easily trumped by other news analyses, like these two. Please refrain from making a controversial change unless it garners enough support. At the moment, it does not. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit is not controversial. If I had tried to claim Kadima was a centre-right party, that would be controversial. Claiming the party is centralist is NPOV and common sense when we have sources claiming it is either side of the centre. As for not having enough support, I suggest you re-read the discussion above. On one side there is you and Shuki (and very briefly Jonund; on the other myself and Rami - hardly a conclusive outcome. An RFC (which does not involve the usual Israel-Palestine POV pushers who usually ruin them) would probably be a good move if you're unwilling to compromise? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cease your edit war. You do not have sources claiming anything that you say it does. I will not discuss issues that have long been debunked. So many of the statements you continue to make have already been proven false. You continually bring up sources that you claim prove your point but do not so. In any case, it is a fact that Kadima is included in the Knesset's left-wing bloc. It is not possible for a party to be right-of-center and yet in the left-of-center bloc of parties. The New York Times, and all current, mainstream, and strong sources are very clear. Please stop cherry-picking random, outdated, and un-notable sources (many of which are opinion) and twisting them around to suggest they say something that most do not. If you continue to be stubborn about these facts (this is not a debate), you or I may open an RfC, although many of these past arguments have long been debunked. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been "debunked" because there is evidence to support both points of view - I strongly suggest you stop making untrue accusations (such as the claim above about having support) and focus on the actual debate. I would be willing to insert a section in the introduction stating something along the lines of "the party is widely viewed as centrist, but also considered to be centre-right or centre-left by journalists." пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Number57, when someone extensively critiques your argument, the smart thing thing to do is to provide a rebuttal that addresses the specific concerns raised. You have not done that. Saying simply "re-read the discussion above" does not cut it. I have had it up to hear with you alleging that sources call Kadima center-right when they do no such thing, listing broken links from sources that actually call Kadima center-left, and twisting around completely un-notable sources. Nowhere in your random American Chronicle article do they call Kadima a "center-right party." There is one line where they note an assertion of an individual, but that means nothing since they do not describe it as center-right party. Furthermore, what is the American Chronicle? Please review WP:NOTE.

Your one potential ally, Rami R, did not seem to comprehend the basics of Israeli politics. His statements very clearly suggest that he does not actually understanding what the left-Arab bloc is and what the right-religious bloc is, and on that matter, neither do you. After this fact is pointed out, you have no explanation as to why or how a right-of-center party on the Israeli political spectrum can wind up in the left-wing bloc of parties in the Israeli Knesset. That does not make sense, because it is not true. Lots of parties range and are described from centrist to center-left. You also have added a LOT of original research and personal opinion in your explanations and your edit summaries. You claim that because many of them are from Likud, they can only be centrist. This is your original research, which is completely false anyway since the Democratic Party of Japan, also relatively new, is described as centrist to center-left, and is largely made up of defectors from the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). Another example of centrist/center-left is the Liberal Democrats of the United Kingdom.

You have no consensus for your edits, and as you admitted, the original edit, very carefully written that includes center-left in the right place, has more support. Please explain why the New York Times is completely wrong in their article: "Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish." Not to mention the several other notable, mainstream articles that clearly call it center-left. What's outlandish is you try to compare a short list of incredibly weak source (that you often talk up to claim they say something they do not) to a much longer, stronger list of mainstream sources that actually describe Kadima as "center-left" and specifically explain its politics, drift, and place on the spectrum of Israeli politics. I have not changed the description of Kadima on every line, the lead is very clear.

I critiqued your sources step by step. Until you can step by step try specifically address my specific comments regarding your sources, and collect enough strong sources and support here for your edit, I strongly discourage you from edit-warring. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I've provided several sources that contradict the "centre-left" claim by noting that Kadima is centre-right. The last one I referenced in the edit summary is particularly useful as it is actually specifically a detailed article about defining left- and right-wing in Israel, as opposed to an article which briefly mentions the political alignment the author assigns to the party. In particular I draw your attention to the part of the article:
 * "Left", in general parlance in Israel, has tended to mean pro-peace. "Extreme left" means willing to get on with negotiations with the Palestinians to the extent of being prepared to make explicit territorial concessions. "Right" generally indicates an anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian stance -- including favoring of the ongoing and even vigorous settlement project in the West Bank.


 * The Kadima ("Future") party that Livni heads (founded by the now-stricken Ariel Sharon, who is apparently in a vegetative state in a nursing home in Israel) is now described by some as "centrist", while others call Kadima "center-right".


 * "Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg yesterday told BBC World Television's Lyse Doucet that Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) Party was 'right', while he described the two leading parties (Kadima and Likud) as 'center'."
 * So not only does the article look at the alignment, it quotes an Israeli political scientist (Gerald M. Steinberg), who is used by another reliable source. Are you going to argue that Steinberg is not an expert in the field? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Number57, you're not getting it. You're really not. I already mentioned that this one specific source (whose publication is not notable) mentioned an assertion of an individual (i.e., citing it as the opinion of an individual). This is as opposed to citing it as fact (i.e., "the center-left Kadima party..."). But that is not the problem here.


 * Pick your battles, Number57. You were attempting to neutralize the wide array of sources describing Kadima as center-left by saying it is center-right, yet now it appears you are quoting this analyst who describes it as center. That is fine. That is already included. That part is not a debate. Pick your battles, what is your point? I left it there and have already very clearly described Kadima's place in the lead and in the article: "political center" is in, in addition to the centrist ideology. So what's the problem? That is there. All of Kadima's natural allies are left-of-center parties. I strive for accuracy in every article, and I want to be accurate and inclusive of the facts. I have included the description of other mainstream sources the same way is done for the Democratic Party of Japan and the Liberal Democrats.


 * At this point, I already went step-by-step critiquing your very short and weak list of sources. You have not provided a rebuttal. You have no sources to counter anything, and have no merits to remove accurate and well-sourced material. Please stop.

Sources, again: Fact: Kadima in the left-wing bloc of parties in the Knesset. Fact.


 * The New York Times: "In other words, Kadima has edged closer to the position of Labor, making it more left-of-center than centrist at a time when the national mood may be more hawkish.", "With 99 percent of the votes counted, the center-left Kadima Party of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni held a one-seat lead..."
 * BBC News: "Centre-left Kadima is projected to be in first place..."
 * Reuters: "the center-left Kadima party of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni..."
 * MSNBC: "compared to 55 for center-left and Arab parties."
 * The Washington Post: "Kadima leads what's known as the center-left bloc."
 * The Washington Times: " Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, standard-bearer of the ruling center-left Kadima Party in Tuesday's election...", "The center-left (broadly speaking, defined as Kadima, as well as Labor..."
 * Time: "...center-left bloc led by Livni."
 * Al Jazeera: "Media polls have given Livni's centrist-left Kadima party with 28 seats..."
 * The Economist: "Today's centre-left opposition party in Israel is Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni." "Tzipi Livni, leader of the centre-left Kadima party, which won most seats but struggled in vain to form a ruling coalition..."
 * The Age: "the centre-left parties, including Kadima and Labour"
 * The Australian: "While the centre-left Kadima under Tzipi Livni..."
 * ABC News (Australia): "the centre left Kadima has fewer allies"
 * Christian Science Monitor: "In that case, Netanyahu would become reliant on the center-left Kadima party, and political rival Tzippi Livni."
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "Kadima arguably can now claim [Labor’s place in Israel’s political spectrum as the party of the center-left.]", "Most significantly, the center-left parties — Kadima, Labor, the Pensioners...",
 * AllExperts: "they could possibly be seen as centrist or centre-left, from an Israeli perspective"
 * MidEastWeb: "Israelis gave the largest number of votes to the center-left Kadima party..."

Published material:
 * Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010): "...compared to 28 seats won by its main rival, the centre-left party Kadima."
 * The Middle East and South Asia (2007): "Center-left Kadima"
 * Ehud Olmert: Prime Minister of Israel (2007): "Together with Olmert, Sharon formed a new center-left coalition party called Kadima..."

--Shamir1 (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's plain sad to see an admin edit warring. It is also sadder that the information being added is commonly accepted and well sourced. --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand. He made a case, but I provided a step-by-step rebuttal per WP policy. If he thinks he still has one, despite the fact that he realizes it lacks consensus, then why doesn't he address my rebuttal? What is he talking about now? --Shamir1 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)