User talk:Taz00

I am really fighting for the position held by the cited source in Talk:Israel to be correctly represented. I took your suggestion into consideration, and on top of that, linked eighteen countries to the list of the eighteen countries that Freedom House includes in that region, and on top of that added a footnote (which I am not sure if it is even called for as per WP guidelines) to clarify Tariqabjotu's apparent view, despite the fact that WP:REF reminds us that WP is not the place for our own opinions or original research). But anyway, I did that--to express the opinion of the source citing a publication in which it holds that position, linking to a list of countries that are considered by the source to be a part of this never-completely-defined region so users can see out of which countries, and including a challenge against the position of the source. As I constantly say, all of this is pretty much covered in WP:Citing sources. I saw that you recognized the need to refer to the source, and I am happy to see you cooperate. I see you havent edited in the last few days. If you would, I think a comment would be helpful. --Shamir1 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your goal, but I must disagree with your reasons. Even though what you suggest is entirely within the rules of Wikipedia, it betrays the trust of the reader. You do not know what the reader perceives as the Middle East, whether it's an expanded or contracted list of countries, the definition simply isn't solid enough. When you state that Israel is the only country in the Middle East, you are explicitly saying that Cyprus isn't since you must assume all accepted definitions of the Middle East are correct. Specifying that you are only talking about 18 countries does not solve the problem, because the reader might still consider Cyprus to be one of those 18 countries. The source must not be cited out of context with the rest of the article. A footnote is simply not sufficient. Applying a definition of the Middle East to only a certain section of the article, just to make a point, is not NPOV in my opinion.


 * I still strive to emphasis Israel's uniqueness in the region, but not while compromising the neutrality of the article. I'm sorry, but I cannot support your argument as I do not agree with your solution. I've already put several of my suggestion forth, and did not receive any comments about it. If you believe it's favorable, go ahead and express your support for it on the talk page. Other than that, I unfortunately don't have anything more to contribute on the matter. Taz00 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For starters, it is the source's view and what it has called Israel that matters. I am not going to debate which countries are in the Middle East. It is the source's definition of Middle East that is important when it comes to this. HOWEVER, on top of that, if you haven't seen I added a link to "eighteen countries" in the sentence that links to Freedom in the World (report)--that way readers can see exactly what the source perceives as the Middle East and visually see out of which eighteen countries Israel is the only one. That should be good. I want the source's text to be accurately represented, as per WP:Citing sources. --Shamir1 07:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Shamir1
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Shamir1. -- --  tariq abjotu  03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)