User talk:Igorb2008

Lydda/Lod
You are making a mess of the English in that article. Please stop reverting and adding material sourced to religious texts. Discuss on talk instead. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As you're reverting a lot, please make yourself familiar with WP:3RR. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy
Hi, I've reverted your addition of Isreal as I'm not happy with the pre-existing uncited "general agreement" argument and not comfortable seeing it expanded.

If you want to add Israel to the list, please provide a citation for the general agreement. Ideally there would be citations backing the other countries listed as well.

Israel's a bit of a special case as it follows democratic norms, but it also has existed essentially in a war footing for the past 40 to 60 years and freedoms that would be taken for granted in most liberal societies are curtailed; no matter how much the inhabitants wish things were otherwise. This is similar to the situation in Sri Lanka.'' Kiore (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kiore.

I added Israel to the list, since it was there until it was removed without explanation about a year ago, and I not provided citation, since almost all other countries mentioned had no citations also. You, of course, have the right to revert edits without source, and I will not add Israel again until I find one. I disagree with you however, that Israel is a special case, because of conflict, US has USA PATRIOT Act for example, and still considered liberal democracy. After all, Israel falls into definition as described in the article, with free competitive elections(the only banned party ever was racist Kach party, and restrictions on hate speech exist in other liberal democracies also), universal suffrage,protections of individual rights from government power,rule of law,separation of powers,an independent judiciary, a system of checks and balances between branches of government, discriminatory behavior prohibited, such as refusal by owners of public accommodations to serve persons on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation,formation of a significant middle class and a broad and flourishing civil society.Regards, Igorb2008 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Igor.

Other than using the United States as a good example of a liberal democracy, as the US is widely recognised as a special case, I find myself agreeing with you. If you've put your paragraph above in the article's talk page and referenced it in in the edit summary I would have just moved on to the next change in my watch list. Equally, if you'd provided an in-line citation I wouldn't have worried.

Based on 2 minutes googling, can I suggest using Israel's Higher Law: Religion and Liberal Democracy in the Jewish State By Steven V. Mazie (ISBN 0739114859 ) as a citation. I have no idea if "Assistant Professor of Politics at Bard High School Early College" indicates he's a glorified high school teacher or an academic, but an article by Mazie is already referenced in Basic Laws of Israel so he's presumably got some credibility.

My problem with lists like the one in the article involved is that if it's a good list, everyone wants their country in it, and if it's a bad list nobody wants to be there. If you saw Tonga Tuvalu and Samoa being added to the list without explanation would you know which of the three is a liberal democracy?

Best wishes

Kiore (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Tedious edit at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations
There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. harlan (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute your opinion to a stalemated edit conflict
Since you have been active on the Talk page of the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, I would like to invite you to contribute your opinion regarding the current stalemated discussion under the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section. I sought a "Third Opinion" on this, but the Third Opinion editor indicated that on pages like this where there is a lot of editor discussion, the views of other editors should be solicited. To clarify just what the current stalemate is about, you can read from Para. 1.1 on in the "'Reverted Contribution' continued" section, that is, from where a Third Opinion was requested. Thank you for your participation. Tempered (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)