Talk:Israel/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Israel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

cuisine

Under culture there is no reference to Israeli cuisine but instead a reference to Jewish cuisine. Jewish cuisine does not belong here as it is different from Israeli cuisine.

deleted reference

I wonder why an academic source like the ecology research center of Ben Gurion University of the Negev is a "less pertinent source" for information on makhtashim. Deleting a reference because someone doesn't like the formatting seems a little odd to me.--Gilabrand 09:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The paper was titled "Body size and leg length variation in several species of darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) along a rainfall and altitudinal gradient in the Negev Desert (Israel)". It doesn't matter what lofty organization wrote the paper; the paper does not have "a clear decisive relevance to the matter in hand". -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not pertinent to people like you who are unable to get past the first sentence in a scientific document.--Gilabrand 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the title, not the first sentence of the paper. With that, I shouldn't have to get past the ~~first sentence~~ title to determine the paper is hardly related to the sentence the paper was used to support. I have little doubt the paper may indeed mention, or at least support, the statement that makhteshim are unique to Israel and the Sinai Peninsula. But, as the title notes, the paper is on a completely different topic – "Body size and leg length variation in several species of darkling beetles". Like I said, the standing of the person or organization writing and sponsoring the paper is irrelevant; the piece of information we are looking for stands as a small fact in discussing body size and leg length of beetles.

I don't have the time, the energy, or the desire to watch over this article to ensure it maintains the quality it had the day it was promoted on September 30. It's a shame there aren't more regular editors to this article who could help get rid of the trivial tidbits that you have recently added to the article ("At the Global Water Awards ceremony in Dubai in March 2006, an Israeli desalination plant won the top prize."? Who cares? How is that going to matter in ten years' time?). If you have a problem with me criticizing your unwillingness to format references in some manner, perhaps you should... you know... format your references. I have reminded you several times, on your talk page and other places, that you can't just stick a URL in between reference tags. All the while, you have criticized my writing abilities and gotten offended at the slightest bit of disagreement with you. How hypocritical of you. It takes very little time to format a reference – in some manner or another – and yet you leave it to me or someone else kind enough to fix the mess you make to the References section. If this were most other articles, I'd care very little. But this is a featured article, and an article that so many people, including myself, have put their heart and soul in. And yet here you are, introducing major quality issues with your unformatted references and your Google searches as sources. -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing again. That prize is the most coveted in the world of water technology. But of course why should you care about that. All you care about is your silly formatting of references. Your priorities are beyond belief. I will continue to add important information on Israeli life and culture, about which I happen to know much more than a snot-nosed kid like you. As far as I'm concerned it will be a happy day when you stop being the so-called guardian and defender of an article about a country that you know very little. There are other articles with messy reference sections to format - so why don't you get on with it.--Gilabrand 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You continue to hold this position that suggests you living in Israel makes you more qualified to write an article about the country. That's not the way things work around here, Gilabrand. This is the World Wide Web, and Wikipedia was designed with the idea in mind that anyone (from anywhere) can contribute to an article on Wikipedia. That's why there are policies such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability that enjoin everyone to use sources to back up statements and condemn efforts like yours that use your nationality and personal experience to debase the efforts of others.

I don't just care about "silly formatting of references". Do I need to remind you how messy this article looked just over four months ago? What truly infuriates me is your persistent unwillingness to acknowledge my contributions to this article. I'm not asking for you to give me an award, but you seem to have no respect for the fact that I am a primary reason this article got featured in the first place. Yes, sure, call it gloating or make some snide remark about me being "the person who thinks he is God's gift to Wikipedia", but any outside observer could see that I made great strides to making this article one of the best (by definition of featured articles) on Wikipedia. I have contributed more than my fair share to improving, not just the references, but the overall quality of the article, and I would like to keep it at that level of quality. You inserting unformatted URLs as references adds overt quality deficiencies, creating footnotes that extend across columns in the References section and, at times, add a horizontal scrollbar to the article page. If you have a problem with other editors criticizing and discussing your changes, especially when, in the case of the unformatted references, they are so blatantly incorrect, perhaps you shouldn't be working on this project. As it says at the bottom of every edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

This article is not for you or anyone else to share all the wonderful and fascinating things you have seen, heard, or otherwise learned about Israel. And so, I will continue to remove items that are insignificant to the country as a whole. There are quite a few quality country articles on Wikipedia to which you can compare the Israel article, and you would be hard-pressed to find some of the factoids you have recently inserted and deemed "important" here. I couldn't care less whether you live in or have been to Israel; if you cannot substantiate your arguments without resorting to petty attacks on my intelligence or calling me a "snot-nosed kid", you have no argument. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary - I have told you on several occasions that you were doing good work and that I appreciated your dedication to the article, but these were always acknowledged by you reverting any information I introduced to the article without the slightest care why it was put there. I don't have a monopoly over this article, but neither do you, and you have been consistently inconsiderate of others, using a haughty tone that has scared away many. If this article is any good, it's because of the "interesting facts" I have added to it. Four months ago, it was a litany of Israel's wars and conflict with the Palestinians. You will continue to delete, but I will continue to add. Maybe that's the difference between us.Gilabrand 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your response would have been better if you had links and other evidence to back up your assertions. If you had taken the time to do your homework before submitting your response, you would have seen that it was not based on the facts. Let me do the research for you:

"I have told you on several occasions that you were doing good work and that I appreciated your dedication to the article, but these were always acknowledged by you reverting any information I introduced to the article without the slightest care why it was put there."

This is not true. I found one – not several – statements acknowledging my work. It comes here, when you said "I think the article has come a long way and I appreciate your dedication to the cause". This statement was not "acknowledged by [me] reverting any information [you] introduced to the article without the slightest care why it was put there". Instead, I responded by incorporating an objection you posted on the talk page and responding to your other objections. On the other hand, you have contributed several exceptionally abrasive comments, often discrediting and attacking me:

"Instead of reversing all my edits, one by one, why don't you work on the article itself" -- User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Thirty-Two#my edits, 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"I object to your blanket reversion of my edits and "rewriting" the information in substandard English. Since when do you have the right to monopolize this article, erase everything and put back only what suits you? If you have a correction to make, fine, but the current system of reverting everything and writing that you will "reintroduce certain bits later" is unacceptable." -- Archive 21#Second Lebanon War, 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"The phrase "I take issue" already shows me you are in a militant state of mind." -- User:Gilabrand#Museums per capita, 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"If tariq tries to remove my edits, I will declare an edit war" -- edit summary, 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"The culture section before I edited it was a disaster (and still needs much work). The English was poor and the information clearly written by someone who doesn't have a clue about Israel or Israeli culture." -- Archive 22#culture in israel, 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"From the way you are blanket reverting my edits, for the umpteenth time, I see I was not far from the mark at all. I wish you would take it easy, Tariq, and work with me rather than against me." -- User:Gilabrand#Museums per capita, 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"...your methods of reversing what anyone else has written (and not only me), rather than putting in a correction where needed, is presumptuous, inflammatory and destructive...What I will not accept is these blanket reverts, accompanied by statements to the effect that I have ruined some great masterpiece of English style and historical accuracy that was there before." -- Archive 22#culture in israel, 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Your lack of knowledge of Israel and Jerusalem cries to the heavens." -- Archive 22#Gilabrand's image, 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Before you write libelous stuff like that, stop a minute and give it some thought. Your current attempt to "repair" these simple statements of fact,which constitute a short digest of material in the article, have resulted in a convoluted mess, using the same words over and over to say the same thing" -- Archive 22#plagiarism, 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"You have a lot to learn, my young fellow, and dealing with other people should be high on your list (from the comments on these and other pages, I am clearly not the only target of your outbursts)." -- Archive 22#plagiarism, 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Well, maybe it's not pertinent to people like you who are unable to get past the first sentence in a scientific document." -- #deleted reference, 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"I will continue to add important information on Israeli life and culture, about which I happen to know much more than a snot-nosed kid like you." -- #deleted reference, 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"An answer to the person who thinks he is God's gift to Wikipedia" -- edit summary, 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"again, another putdown by the putdown artist of Wikipedia" -- edit summary, 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [this one I'm unsure about, because, since I can't imagine you're talking about me here, I think this could just be a sarcastic reference to yourself]

"...and you have been consistently inconsiderate of others, using a haughty tone that has scared away many."

I'd love to see examples of where my "haughty tone" has "scared away many". You have presented no evidence of this, and I am certain whatever evidence you could present would be flimsy.

If this article is any good, it's because of the "interesting facts" I have added to it.

Yeah, okay, you keep thinking that. Never mind the vast amounts of work I put into just about every section of the article, including ones that discuss more than Israel's war history.

You will continue to delete, but I will continue to add. Maybe that's the difference between us.

Like I said in my previous statement, this article is not for you to share all the wonderful things you have learned about Israel. Adding things is not automatically a good thing and deleting things is not automatically a bad thing.

You have continued your bad habit of resorting to attacks, often based on things that aren't true, when you have lost an argument. This section was over something so simple and clear as the formatting of references and yet you have taken advantage of the opportunity to once again attack me and explain how much more knowledgeable you are then me. Look, if you want to make jabs at my faults, especially at faults that don't exist, I am willing to expose yours. My patience for your hypocritical nature is running on empty. -- tariqabjotu 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Melting pot in CULTURE should be "a mosaic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.93.126 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Omission?

Hi there,

I am wondering why the Al-Aqsa Mosque was omitted as one of the buildings of religious significance in Jerusalem under the Religion heading?

Thanks very much

--Columbe 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... because there's no reason to. "Such as" tells the reader that those are not all the religiously significant buildings in Jerusalem. There are obviously others. -- tariqabjotu 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No reason to????? So the fact that it's the most important site in Jerusalem for Muslims is no reason to include it in the list??!!!

Anyway, I see it's been changed... that's great...

60.234.244.140 08:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Since there has recently been a campaign to qualify the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and I see there were a few changes to the infobox to reflect this, let me say this:

Yes, I understand many may come to this article (or the Jerusalem article) shocked, saying wait, what? I thought Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel. An explanatory note on Jerusalem – and perhaps even here – might be okay, but let's stick to the facts. Anyone who arrives here thinking Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel is not "right" or "kind of right" or "right if you think about it this way". No, he or she is wrong. UN Resolution 478, which was (erroneously) quoted as the source of the idea that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, does not say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. It condemns one of Israel's basic laws (known as the Jerusalem Law) in strong terms, but it does not in any way, shape, or form say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. So, if you want to put an explanatory note that says many (or most?) countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, that certainly is on the table. However, if you want to go farther and say Tel Aviv is the capital, that's not correct; Israel can choose its capital and it has chosen Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly call a couple of edits by two editors a "campaign", but I certainly have no problem with the issue being taken to another section instead of the info box. The only purpose of my edit was to bring a little sense to the original editor's message. Newtman (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; let me clarify: the same thing has been going on at Template:Asian capitals. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed the fun that's been happening over at the Asian capitals page. I can see why you were calling it a campaign. BTW, given your comment on Resolution 478, it might be good to clarify the content of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 page, so as to provide less ammo for trolls and good faith misunderstandings. Newtman (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the capital city!!! aghh! whats wrong with you. its a disputed region. the creation of Palestine will contain Jerusalem as its capital, as it rightfully belongs, according to the internationally renowned borders, created in 1947.cause The era of colonisation is over, and if done today is considered illegal under international law, as its simply 'steeling land'. Its a disgrace Israelis can even write it down, after all the suffering it has caused. 40 years of illegal occupation! and illegal settlement building! why dont you write about that! israeli oppression of innocent, and mass punishments! everything one of those points, make Israel a defiant nation, that has no respect for law. How can they even sit amoungst other nations, which that attitude. They hate the laws that go aaginst them, but love the ones that are for them. Cherry-picking!! agh very annoying (Anna) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.179.254 (talk)

Ok, how about you take your bias and anger somewhere else, it has no place on Wikipedia. Come back when you've matured and can participate in a reasonable discussion. Newtman (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the impression that Tel-Aviv is the capital is partly based on most countries maintaining their embassies there rather than Jerusalem. Green Giant (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that being the case, but that doesn't mean Jerusalem isn't the capital. Even the US, which has it's embassy in Tel Aviv, publicly (Congress and the President) acknowledges Jerusalem as the true Capital of Israel, through the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Giving the standards of national sovereignty, nations generally get to define their own capital. Newtman (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got all redundant on you and said the same thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys,

First, I had to realise I was partially wrong about UN Resolution 478. I just misread the sentence, and tought that the resolution was taken under chapt. 7 =_= Sorry for that.

Anyway I think that the "controversy" about Israeli capital deserves a footnote. Even if the "official" international right do not recognize the nullity of Jerusalem Law, the fact that 90% of the world countries have their ambassy in Tel-Aviv and not not recognize Jerusalem as the capital is important enough to consider the resolution as "soft law" or "custom law" considering however the "persistant objector view" of Israel.

Rember that one of the main role of a capital is to host ambassies. If 95% (exluding Bolivia and Paraguay and including US whose president do not ratify the ambassy move) of the world's country consider you'r capital chose as "irrelevant", it's certainely a problem, this case is nearly unique.

Let's keep Jerusalem as capital with the footnote previously added. I think it's fair and it does not seem to be considered a problem among others editors. ;) Mrpouetpouet (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There already is a footnote regarding the controversy over Jerusalem. I don't understand the issue. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a sensitive question and I think that we should be more careful. Citing it as the Israeli capital without clearer explanation is clearly POV. A footnote is not enough.

Wikipedia should not be making judgments on something than the BBC, the United Nations, the European Union, the British, Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian Foreign Offices (among others) have felt unable to. Even the US Government, which accepts it as the capital, clearly says that the status of Jerusalem is disputed. The references to the Jerusalem Law are interesting, but only in that they show the Israeli view of the position of Jerusalem, which is still undoubtedly disputed territory. I would to change the sentence to:

“ Jerusalem is the nation's seat of government, largest city[1] and capital city (internationally disputed).” [1]

I know my reference isn’t great, but it seemed to be the one which contained the most accessible information. There is information on the Israeli government site about the disputed status but the relevant but is halfway down a long page.

I don’t want to change things without discussion so I will wait for comment. Shambles2007 (talk)shambles 26 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The main role of a capital is to host the nation's center of government, hosting embassies is secondary. The UN does not have the right to determine where the capital of a soveriegn nation is. Also, take into consideration that the other nations did not wish to place their embassies in the center of a religiously motivated dispute that has in the past erupted into combat. That's a good enough excuse to not put the embassy in the capitol, but not a good one for telling Isreal where its capital is. Jerusalem should maintain it's position as capital. Tyrnell (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Change in the introduction

I think that the last paragraph of the introduction section should be modified so that it doesn't compare Israel with its neighbours in terms of democracy, corruption, development etc. For instance, instead of saying "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country." I suggest it should be modified to just "Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country". The comparison with its neighbours doesn't add any real value to the introduction and makes it less objective in tone. Israel is better than many other countries when it comes to democracy and human development indices. Highlighting these differences with just its neighbours is hence unfair and unnecessary. Truetyper (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair? There was a very lengthy discussion about this very sentence in September and October. That's not to say it cannot be changed, but highlighting a major difference (or major differences) between Israel and other countries in the Middle East is not "unfair". -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument about the "developped country" is wrong. Quatar or Dubaï are developped too (look at GDP per capital PPP). You can compare Israel with other country in his region but the sentence "Unlike most countries in the Middle East" is typically useless and agressive.

Mrpouetpouet (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubai is not a country and Qatar is not a developed country. Also, please explain why you believe comparing Israel to other countries in the Middle East is "useless" and "aggressive". -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By developed country (or part of State as Qatar it dosen't change anything) most of people understand High income country, if we want to give it another signification here it must be precised for the reader.

I don't say that comparing "Israel to other countries in the Middle East is "useless" and "aggressive"". =_= I said : "the sentence "Unlike most countries in the Middle East" is typically useless and agressive." That's very different. You can compare Israel with other countries no problem but saying that this way is, assuming good faith, exposing a point of view which is in opposition with the well-known NPOV rule. We have to act very carefully when making a judgement on an article as this one and this sentence expresses "prima facie" a point of view even if it's perhaps not the goal of the editor.

I really cannot understand the problem with this version ??? : "Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. In the Middle-East, Israel is the least corrupt, and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development."

If any editor have a major problem with this formulation please remove but don't forget to explain your arguments here and to assume good faith.

Then, for the soccer => football. It's a convention that soccer is called football as it is the name used by most of humans on earth and I suppose also in Israel, expected when it must be differentiated from other football for exemple American football. Same for rugby, when you speak about only Rugby, the readers assume you speak of Rugby union. Look at the name of the 2007 world cup : 2007 Rugby World Cup => It's Rugby union =_= There is a little problem with football because of the american version, which is also very popular. However the reader can easily understand which one you'r talking about considering the article. The sport played in Israel is football (soccer) not american football, isn't it ?? So we have to speak about football.

Mrpouetpouet (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and really liked the introduction until the last paragraph which is obviously POV. That is my opinion of it anyway. I changed it to make it sound less stridently pro-Israel and more encyclopedic (sorry, I should have checked the talk page first, now I see that this is an issue of contention). One of the editors (who I note watches the page and is like a guardian of the page), reverted my change and said that very opinion-laden paragraph is "a statement of fact." Without the last paragraph phrased the way it is, editorializing about the entire region, the article has some great attributes. It's too bad there isn't any way to have a neutral party (like an administrator or someone else who doesn't have a political or regional bias) decide about that last paragraph rather than having the article's protectors' deciding what should be written here and what should not be. I thought Wikipedia was suppossed to be moving towards being an encyclopedia not a newspaper editiorial page.--Markisgreen (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

like an administrator or someone else who doesn't have a political or regional bias

This reflects two very common phenomena on Wikipedia. (1) Many editors think administrators are the arbiters of truth. (Not true.) (2) Many editors believe those who disagree with them on sensitive issues are "biased". -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

am sorry

How the hell is this an FA article?did ya buy the administrators or what?this article is sad!it to biased in most of the senteced i read!its like propagandaEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you have a positive attitude, assume good faith, and clearly detail your claims. okedem (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

hes got a point thoug? How DID this article get FA status, I dont mean to question the obviously perfect judiciary, but It does seem a bit iffy for one of the most disputed articles I have seen personally on wikipedia.172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unlike most countries..."

Again, this sentence has been debated ad nauseum:

If you're going to denounce the sentence (and particularly the word "most") as "POV", "argumentative", and "vituperative", you better be prepared to back that up – and well. I don't think any of the people changing the sentence are prepared to do that. Even if they are, I highly doubt those efforts would be successful. Look: Arab countries are in a worse condition than Israel on several metrics. Get over it; that's a fact of life (for now, at least). It's not "POV" to say that. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your possibly not looking at the paragraph objectively. Is it something you would find in a textbook or say in a room full of scholars without expecting to create instant, heated debate? Clearly there is a factual basis for the paragraph. It is the phrasing that is controversial. An encyclopedia article talks about facts and realities and events and people and ideas, it doesn't make subjective claims as to whether politician A is better than politician B or whether country Y is better than country Z. I think it is clear that the pro-Israel editors are holding off anyone who disagrees with this paragraph rather than coming to a compromise that re-phrases the paragraph: For example,

Unlike many countries in the Middle East, Israel is a progressive liberal democracy (references:[10][11]) and is considered a developed country. (reference:[12]) As a liberal democracy, surrounded by less democratic nations, Israel is constantly seeking to eliminate corruption from its branches of government and protect freedom of the press, human rights and an economic freemarket. (references 13, 14, 15 and 16).

I don't consider myself the greatest writer (or editor) or my suggestion above to be the final word, but some compromise is obviously needed since the paragraph is raising the ire of so many readers/editors. I am neither Arabic nor Jewish. I have no bias about Israels goodness or better-ness than other countries in the region and that paragraph immediately jumped out at me as being pasted on to the rest of the introduction, terribly POV (pro-Israel) and unnecessary.--Markisgreen (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things in this article I couldn't say in a room full of scholars without expecting an instant, heating debate (e.g. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel). That does not mean they are not worthy of inclusion in this article. The sentence says that unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy (sourced) and developed country (sourced). It also says that, among Middle Eastern countries, it's the least corrupt (sourced), most progressive in terms of freedom of the press (sourced), economic competition (sourced), and human development (sourced). If you have sources from similarly reliable sources that depict the contrary, please present them. If you think we should have fewer comparisons, well... I'd agree with sacrificing one ("least corrupt"), as that was never part of the discussions within the threads I linked to earlier. Otherwise, you don't have much of a case. We are not compelled to be soft on Arab or Middle Eastern countries; that's not what WP:NPOV requests. Numerous talk page discussions support the great notability of the comparison between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, and so it ought to remain in a succinct manner that is not intended, as your rewrite is, to dilute the truth. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't we in a similar fashion write in the intro that Israel, unlike most countries in the Middle East, is an occupying power, steals water from its neighbours, has the regional record in ethnically cleansed towns and villages, builds an apartheid wall/security fence on other peoples territory, has political parties that openly call for ethnic cleansing, has the regional record in number of homes demolished, possesses weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons), has the highest number of un condemnations, the highest number of illegal settlements on occupied territory, the highest number of curfews imposed on civilian population, has the highest military spending etc etc..? Suladna 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation in the disputed territories is mentioned in the article already. The rest of your comments are self-evidently POV (and often outright false). Please don't use this talk page as a soapbox. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then specify which of the comments that are pov or "false". Suladna 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than possession of nuclear weapons, all of your statements are POV (or phrased in a POV manner), false, irrelevant to the article or some combination thereof. I am not going to carry on an argument here, that isn't what this page is for. If you have constructive suggestions for improving the article, please make them. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

" Again, this sentence has been debated ad nauseum:

You answered yourself do you think it's normal to have so many discussion about that I really don't understand why you absolutely want to keep this sentence exactly in the sam terms: "Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. In the Middle-East, Israel is the least corrupt, and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development.""

Consensus is one of wikipedia's pillar if you cannot agree to a so little change, guy type lists of GDP which (nearly) don't suffer any controvery. The edit policy on wikipedia is "to asumme other editors good faith". We are following a perfect good faith in saying that part of the sentence is totally unacceptable. The new sentence just correct that problem can you find something wrong in "Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. In the Middle-East, Israel is the least corrupt, and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development." ?????????? It isn't dilute the truth, is it ???

"Look: Arab countries are in a worse condition than Israel on several metrics. Get over it; that's a fact of life (for now, at least)" It's not the fact the problem it's the way of saying these facts.

For exemple I can add that Israel is around the end of the developed country list in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development. It will certainely be a fact and a NPOV one (in your vision) and I can argue that it's useful to compare Israel with other developed country =_= It will just be agressive and useless as the present text is.

Guy, let stop this stupid editwar now. Such a little edit doesn't deserve that really. Thanks for understanding. Just look at above if we reach a consensus for Jerusalem as capital cannot we find one with this prob ???

Mrpouetpouet (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As an occasional editor here I will just pipe in to say I think the current version is superior to your proposed change. Nothing personal, but the writing you propose is awkward and choppy. Also, I see no reason to change a statement that is factually correct in every respect. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's stop the edit war - don't make edits to a version that is the result of so many discussions, without reaching consensus here, first. I support the current version over yours. okedem (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am an outsider here. I just stopped by to get some information. I realize that this article is under constant attack, and so this makes it difficult to maintain it. However, I notice that there are several grammatical and formatting problems that have arisen in the article.

I also have to disagree with Mrpouetpouet. However, first, Mrpouetpouet, it is difficult to read and understand most of your comments. It might be helpful to have a friend that knows English better help you with your posts to English Wikipedia. Otherwise, your arguments are less compelling because they are hard to follow, mainly because of linguistic difficulties.

Although there are certainly problems with Israel as a society, these pale in comparison with those of most Arab countries. Israel is not a perfect democracy, but it is certainly more democratic than most Arab countries. If you look at this report from Reporters Without Borders, the US and Israel are graded as having much more freedom of the press than any Arab country, at least within their own borders. Also, since the US and Israel are taken to task for their behavior outside their own territories, this organization is not "controlled by thieving filthy Jews" or "right wing fascists" or some other nonsense. On almost any other measure, including Income inequality metrics, Israel is far superior to Arab countries. Of course, one can include areas outside Israeli control like the Gaza Strip to paint a different picture, but this is basically unfair.

Although there are terrible problems associated with Israel, it does not really serve any useful purpose to try to bias the article and present Israel as completely evil and horrendous in all aspects. Although I appreciate the anger that this produces among Arabs and their supporters, it does not help the reader to understand Israel. Should Wikipedia be turned into a political anti-semitic tract? --Filll (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Israel is around the end of the developed country list in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development"

Can you substantiate that statement?

Incidentally the Palestinian Authority scores higher then Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Morocco and the Yemen in tems of HDI (see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index or Arab-Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics)

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement cannot be substantiated because it is false. The Human Development Index, used by the UN (hardly a pro-Israel organization), rates Israel 23rd out of 70 "high" development countries, one spot below Germany. Schrodingers Mongoose 06:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the facts presented are false, it's that they are presented in a POV & polemical fashion. I would say this falls under WP:PEACOCK. Anyway this section of the intro sticks out like a sore thumb & should be changed. Maybe nominating the article for a check of it's neutrality would be the way to go. Fennessy (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Go check some other country articles, and you'll find they're full of such ratings and comparisons. okedem (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not, Fennessy. If this article were nearly any other country, no one would complain. But because it's the Israel article, there's a tendency for some people to see bias in innocuous statements. -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem delaring Isreal the beacon to the Mid East but The phrase is worded wrong to sound like half of an insult "Iran sucks UNLIKE Israel which is..." The contents shouldn't be changed but the wording I cannot deny that what it says is true however the word unlike just sounds POV by nature.--Matterfoot (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, I have never seen a passage on a country article before that is phrased to be deliberately confrontational & provokative as this one is.
And Tariqabjotu, judging by your previous posts here you seem to be far too emotionally involved in this issue to be constructive or balanced regarding it. Going out of your way to include snide remarks about other countries is hardly "innocuous". <Fennessy/talk> 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone is being a bit snippy; let's try to keep it civil. I don't seen anything snide or particularly POV about the statement, which is backed up by facts on all points. I don't see WP:PEACOCK applying here, as the root idea behind this statement is significantly responsible for how many groups/nations justify their support of Israel. Newtman (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Fennessy) Deliberately confrontational and provocative? (to Matterfoot) POV by nature? It's a (in a way, unfortunate) fact of life that certain countries offer more political, economic, and social rights than other countries. Israel, in this case, happens to stand out by offering more of those rights than many of the countries in its region. Whether you like it or not, that's an important piece of information that can't go unmentioned. Your statement, Fennessy, that I'm "far too emotionally involved in this issue to be constructive or balanced" is without basis and an unsuccessful attempt to discredit my position. The snide remarks both you and Matterfoot have been extracting from the sentences in question are simply products of the way you both have been (mis)interpreting the sentences. -- tariqabjotu 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"you better be prepared to back that up – and well(emphasis added)."
"Get over it"
That isn't the way an objective person discusses an issue like this. My observation is completley vaild.
If the section in question is being complained about ad nauseum then the problem is obvious —the tone for that paragraph is wrong & all you accomplish by trying to keep it that way is discrediting the article. You really have to ask yourself why anyone would insist on it being that way when a minor modification would keep all the information presented intact & also not seem like it's intentionally trying to tick people off.
Sadly even some admins keep biases, especially when it comes to nationality/ethnic/religious issues like this one. <Fennessy/talk> 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that 'unlike' is POV its just what it is getting across Israel is a minefield subject and 'unlike' will sound POV in such articles I am not saying 'unlike' cannot be used by editors I am just saying it is a bad choice of words, thats all, BTW If one person out of a number between 1 million-3 billon mis interpretes one sentence Chances are its happened alot--Matterfoot (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Post solstice

The term is POV. "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries" is completely irrelevant to the introduction of an article about Israel; the statement can be discussed further down the article. The word is a peacock and it sticks out blatantly. It immediately tries to draw one in to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but of course, in a context that would favor Israel (democratic standards). As someone above said, it would be inappropriate to say "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Israel has not signed the NPT (despite possessing WMDs), continues to sanction an illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and has made East Jerusalem a part of their capital. The illegal occupation and the annexation of East Jerusalem are not internationally recognized whatsoever." Would such a statement be appropriate for this introduction? Absolutely not. Neither is the current statement. It can be stated that Israel is a liberal democracy without bringing the Arab states into the discussion. Not only is it irrelevant, it's POV. How can such a statement garner so much attention if it weren't POV? It immediately caught my eye, and clearly I'm not the only one! I'm not even Arab!

BTW, simply saying Israel's HDI is "high" is very misleading. It is technically ranked as high, but its position is only slightly higher than states like Brunei, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc... That hardly would be considered high by Western standards; Israel is high by global standards or Middle Eastern standards only, but certainly not Western as many people on this page are trying to suggest. Kuwait just gave women the right to vote a few years ago and in the UAE South Asians are unofficially enslaved. That's not "high" by Western standards, but their HDI's are still relatively close to Israel's. SAUDI ARABIA'S HDI is ranked as "High," and any moron that has even slight education on the Middle East is aware that Saudi Arabia is the most oppressive regime in the entire region. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HDI - by saying it's high (in the template box, "0.932 (high)") we are faithfully reporting what our sources say. We did not invent the high/medium/low categorization, but are simply repeating it. No one said it's "high by Western standards", and Wikipedia isn't written with nothing but Western standards in mind. Your argument is basically a red herring, as no one mentioned a "Western standard", and this is only your own interpretation of the text. Your comparison to UAE or Kuwait is misleading, as just by looking at the HDI list at List of countries by Human Development Index, one can see that Israel is ranked right after Germany (0.935) - an undoubtedly Western nation, and ahead of Greece (0.926), Singapore (0.922), South Korea (0.921), etc. Israel's score, 0.932, is very close to that of most western nations, like those previously mentioned, and the UK (0.946), France (0.952), USA (0.951) or the Netherlands (0.953). The highest score on the list is 0.968, Iceland.

For context, the nations you mentioned have scores of 0.894 (Brunei), 0.891 (Kuwait), 0.875 (Qatar), 0.866 (Bahrain), 0.868 (UAE) and 0.812 (Saudi Arabia).

Mind you, your analysis is misplaced, as the HDI score has little to do with democracy or how oppressive the regime is. From the HDI article - "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. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life." okedem (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to quote what the sentence says, please actually quote what the sentence says. It does not say "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries"; it says "Unlike most countries in the Middle East". This misquote, and your overall statement, is characteristic of those comments opposed to the use of the word "unlike": it's not based on what's actually written. The word "unlike" and the subsequent phrase is, as has been said several times, not a peacock term. Unlike peacock terms, the phrase imparts real, important information: Israel's standing in the Middle East, in a region not normally known for liberal democracies and developed countries, is key information.

You're correct that it would not be okay to say...

"Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Israel has not signed the NPT (despite possessing WMDs), continues to sanction an illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and has made East Jerusalem a part of their capital. The illegal occupation and the annexation of East Jerusalem are not internationally recognized whatsoever."

... but the problem is not with the bolded segment, but with the rest of the sentence. The metrics in the third paragraph of the introduction look at Israel overall the elements in your hypothetical sentence are very specific and ignore the rest of Israel's human rights record. The statement, for example, that "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Israel... has made East Jerusalem a part of their capital..." is not even a comparison between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries at all. How do you expect other countries to make East Jerusalem part of their capital if Israel has already done that? Seriously... these complaints are becoming very exhausting. I'd almost cave in and just change the sentence, but then I re-read the complaints and realize how little sense they make. -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, if you've read what was said about Israel's HDI relative to its neighbors in this talk thread, you would understand where my statement was coming from. Germany's HDI is fairly low compared to Western Europe, Northern Europe and the United States/Canada. Certainly Israel's HDI is classified as "high," but so is Saudi Arabia's. Big deal. In my very last sentence I already mocked the usage of HDI as a method to determine how progressive Israeli politics are. Please read what I write before you reply.

My primary criticism came over the usage of "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries.." within the lead. It's a POV statement that attempts to subtly introduce the Arab-Israeli conflict within a context that would favor Israel (Democratic Standards). Not only is "Unlike other Middle Eastern countries" irrelevant to an introduction on the State of Israel, but it is also a blatant POV statement. Should we include discussion about the internationally unrecognized military occupation of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories in the lead as well? Certainly, "unlike most Arab states," Israel does sponsor what is essentially a colonization project on internationally recognized Palestinian territory. Of course, this would never be appropriate information for a lead! The article isn't even about Israel's geopolitics! It's about Israel as a state and a collectivity! The fact that someone would defend the statement "Unlike.." in a lead paragraph when it is clearly unnecessary is incredible.

This unnecessary shot should be removed. I think it has already been thoroughly criticized, not just by me, but by countless individuals (Arab or otherwise), as this talk page clearly proves.. It's unencyclopedic, unnecessary, and shows a favorable point of view towards Israel. If we're going to include a list of "compare and contrast" between Israel and "most other Middle Eastern nations," then by all means, let's do it. But let's not place it in the lead, where it is clearly unnecessary, and let's not try to reduce all geopolitics within the region to "Well, Israel has a more democratic government, therefore their foreign policy is acceptable." That is what this lead is insinuating, and it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not Israelisperfectpedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to inform; it is not supposed to be a persuasive essay that gives us a favorable view of Israel relative to its neighbors in the opening paragraphs. Can anyone provide a reason WHY this comment deserves to be included? If not, then I think we should start removing it. These threads are becoming redundant. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HDI - Again, you introduce another red herring argument. No one used the HDI "as a method to determine how progressive Israeli politics are", so why are you "mocking" that? Nothing in the article claims the HDI has anything to do with politics, and indeed it doesn't - so what exactly bothers you here? The HDI is quoted in the data box, alongside many other numbers. All country article use the very same format for the data-box, including HDI and the categorization (high/medium/low), so if you have issue with the HDI in general, you should discuss it elsewhere. This article is only following wiki conventions in this issue.

"Unlike" - that wording has nothing to do with the conflict, and is not POV. It is simply stating the fact that Israel's system of government is rare in the region, and it is generally different from its neighbors, being democratic and much more developed. This is important information for the context. Relations with other nations aren't just influenced by territorial or religious disputes - they have a strong economic component. I believe it is important for the reader's understanding - Israel's situation is very different than that of a West European democracy. One of the aspect of this - the intense hatred of Israel common in some Arab/Muslim nations which have never had any conflict with Israel. This hatred if very often fueled by the government itself, usually to distract the public from the poor economic situation, or the fact they live under an extremely oppressive regime. Every dictator knows that when you give the public an enemy (real or imaginary), they unite against it - and not against the dictator (i.e - Iran, which never warred with Israel, and isn't even close to it).

That said, I've never been a fan of that particular wording, and wouldn't object to a better one, still keeping the comparison. okedem (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an idea for a better paragraph? -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to modify the sentence because certain people are unwilling to refute the actual sentence, but rather make up their own sentence and then refute that. You, and perhaps a few other people, may believe the sentences says "Well, Israel has a more democratic government, therefore their foreign policy is acceptable", but it does not say anything of that sort. Yes, this is not "Israelisperfectpedia" – there is criticism in the article, and both okedem and I sought feedback on the "Occupied territories" section in Talk:Israel#peacock_terms (with, mind you, no response). These threads are becoming redundant, which is why people have begun to quit responding to them. The opposition has yet to come up with any argument based on what the sentence actually says, and proceeds to operate on the idea that those who wrote the third paragraph of the lead have a pro-Israel bias and therefore there is something wrong with the sentence, even when there isn't. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, have you even read this thread?

"Israel is around the end of the developed country list in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development"
Can you substantiate that statement?
Incidentally the Palestinian Authority scores higher then Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Morocco and the Yemen in tems of HDI (see List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index or Arab-Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics) - Telaviv1

I mentioned HDI in response to comments above. I don't have an issue with listing Israel's HDI as "high" on the sidebar, since that would be its official classification. I think I've already made attempts to drop it twice, but apparently you haven't realize it.

I suppose the inclusion of East Jerusalem wouldn't be a good example, but certainly there are better ones. Israel is the only state in the region that sanctions an illegal occupation. Israel has been at war more than any other state in the region. Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any state in the region. Should we include all of these contrasts in the lead as well? Do those fit the "metrics" of the situation? I thought the point was rather clear, but apparently we've reduced this argument to a game of "who can play more stupid." So again, can anyone provide a reason why the contrast is necessary in a lead paragraph on Israel? I haven't received any good answers.

The inclusion of a contrast between Israel's democracy and other regional states is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to a lead paragraph, so I don't understand how you are trying to justify this. It's perfectly fine to say Israel is a liberal democracy in the lead, but the "Unlike most other Middle Eastern countries" is entirely irrelevant to a lead. The article isn't about Israel's foreign policy relations! The 3rd paragraph of the lead is introducing geopolitics of the Middle East in a context that would favor Israel, and the "unlike.." sticks out to any casual reader immediately. Why are we introducing the Arabs into an article that isn't even about them? In the lead, no less? Fair enough, how about we add:

Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Israel continues to illegally occupy foreign territory, has violated over 100 UN Resolutions, and has been at war more than any other nation in the region.

Of course, you would never go for that type of contrast in a lead (nor would I). But you would go for this one? The fact is, there shouldn't be any compare/contrast between Israel and the Arabs in a lead paragraph on ISRAEL. This article isn't the Arab-Israeli conflict article. Can you give a reason why we SHOULD keep it? I haven't heard that one yet, and you seem as though you don't have a good one. There are appropriate ways to introduce a state's form of government that are more appropriate. Turkey's lead introduces their government like this:

Turkey, classified as a developing country, is a democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic whose political system was established in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I. Since then, Turkey has become increasingly integrated with the West while continuing to foster relations with the Eastern world.

I really don't understand why you insist that the contrast be included.-68.43.58.42 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HDI - still, no one claimed (on the article or here in the talk page) that HDI has anything to do with "a method to determine how progressive Israeli politics are." (not even Telaviv1). So if you have nothing to say in this matter regarding the article itself (and not what you (mistakenly) think some editors said on this talk page a month ago), why are you wasting our time with it?

Unlike - I've explained why it's important. Again, you take your own interpretation of the sentence, and refer to that instead of the actual text. okedem (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I really am getting tired of discussing the HDI with you. I intended for that to be a mere side note, but you haven't dropped it. This thread isn't even about Israel's HDI. As for your response on the statement, I found it to be a rather weak argument.

...it is important for the reader's understanding - Israel's situation is very different than that of a West European democracy. One of the aspect of this - the intense hatred of Israel common in some Arab/Muslim nations which have never had any conflict with Israel. This hatred if very often fueled by the government itself, usually to distract the public from the poor economic situation, or the fact they live under an extremely oppressive regime. Every dictator knows that when you give the public an enemy (real or imaginary), they unite against it - and not against the dictator (i.e - Iran, which never warred with Israel, and isn't even close to it). That said, I've never been a fan of that particular wording, and wouldn't object to a better one, still keeping the comparison. -okedem

Your defense for the "Unlike.." essentially amounts to original research and doesn't even deserve a response in the first place. The example you provided (Iran) is a very weak example for your case. Most Iranians are pro-American, pro-Western, largely ambivalent towards the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and consider their economy to the most important issue [2]. Further, Iran's government is not dictatorial in its character [3]. Iran certainly does have a clerical clique that holds a disproportionately large amount of power within Iran's political structure, but the system is not a dictatorship. Iranians have universal suffrage and, from 1997 to 2005, Iran was appearing to be on a path towards reconciliation with the United States. Certainly Ahmadinejad has hampered that, but Ahmadinejad's overreaching foreign policy and failure to encourage urban development has caused him to lose virtually all voter support.

Even if we ignore your poor example, your statement is still original research that cannot be applied universally (or to any Wikipedia article in the first place). Not all citizenry "unite with the dictator." You cannot prove this. I already discredited the only example you provided! This is a very weak defense for a statement that has already garnered so much criticism.

Even if your statement were universally true, it is wholly unnecessary to discuss Arab-Israeli relations in a lead paragraph on the State of Israel. It is simply irrelevant to Israel as its own entity. Would you open an article on Turkey or Greece with the Greek/Turkish Cypriot dispute? I think I have made my case rather clear, and you have simply ignored it. I already quoted about how the Turkey article introduces Turkey's economy and political structure without discussing current disputes or Turkey's relations with the Middle East in a political context (which would, of course, be inapplicable to the subject of Turkey as a state and an exclusive entity); this current sentence is introducing the greater geopolitical picture of the Middle East in an article that is exclusively about Israel. There is an appropriate place for these contrasts between Israel and its neighbors (e.g. Arab-Israeli conflict), but an introduction on Israel is certainly an inappropriate place. You are correct that I've revived a thread almost a month old, but if I scroll just a tiny bit down it becomes quite obvious that I'm not the only person that has complained about this sentence. It appears this sentence has attracted attention for months and by countless individuals. Now are you going to give me a straight response? I answered your claim directly and I think I won. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You think you "won"? Is this a competition? Poor choice of words...

I didn't say that Iran's citizens hate Israel, nothing of the sort. But that the oppressive regime is scape-goating Israel, to distract from its own failings. I don't know how successfully, but that's what they're doing, that's one of the reasons for the hate speeches against Israel. Many other countries do the same, like Egypt - even though it has a peace treaty with Israel, they still incite against Israel in their schools. The rhetoric of Arab leaders against Israel has a whole lot to do with the economic and political differences. This is no original research, but a common notion.

I've ignored you example of Turkey, since it's just one example. Obviously we could write "Israel is a liberal democracy", and drop the "Unlike" part, there's nothing new here, and nothing worth discussing. But comparisons and rankings are very common in country articles, and make sense - you can't understand the country without knowing something about it in comparison to others. I don't find your argument compelling, as a simple statement of the difference in government style has nothing to do with the conflict. Israel is not at war with every country in the ME, you know. Jordan isn't a democracy, but it has a peace treaty with Israel. Turkey is in the ME (by some definitions) and is a democracy, same for Cyprus; the gulf states aren't at conflict with Israel, but aren't democratic (mostly).

This boils down to opinion - whether or not you think a comparison adds something to the reader. I think it does. You think it doesn't. That's it. I've given you a "straight response", even if you don't accept it. okedem (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically... Israel is being used a scapegoat to distract attention away from the government. Yet, these governments have failed in several cases (Iran being a notable example). That's great. The fact of the matter is, you have shifted the discussion from Israel to the Arab States and Iran and that's entirely irrelevant to an article on Israel (at least for a lead paragraph). Simply because governments fuel anti-Israeli sentiment does not mean it is effective, nor does it mean it is measurable in anyway. Moreover, it has no bearing to this current article! It's entirely off-topic! Towards the end of your post, you said you will ignore the example of Turkey and Greece because that's only one example of a political clash that goes unmentioned in a lead... Fair enough. There are 191 states in the world. Find 10 examples of nations that have similar leads and I'll concede that maybe your right. My assumption would be that the most you would find are nations that currently have border/land disputes (e.g. Argentina's land claim over the Falkland Islands, Taiwain, Serbia, Kosovo, etc). I highly doubt you will find a sentence like "Unlike other Southeast Asian nations, Thailand has emerged as a beacon of democracy." Such a statement adds nothing to the article and, just like in this case, sounds completely out of context. At this point, you have reduced this into a fight over the Arabs, and the article isn't even about them (Perhaps that can be seen as a testament to why this sentence is so poorly written and out of place - because it has nothing to do with Israel, even though it is placed in the lead!). -68.43.58.42 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Many country articles discuss their standings in relation to other countries in the world. Some, such as Libya, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates, make comparisons with other countries in their region. I don't think okedem was saying Turkey is just one example of a country article that doesn't mention the border dispute in the intro; I believe he was saying it's just one article that simples says "Turkey is..." without a comparison, border dispute or not. Regardless, you seem to be dead-set on arguing that a benign paragraph is "a fight over the Arabs", some attempt to frame Israel as the perfect country, and somehow superior in the Arab-Israeli conflict. You continue to misrepresent the third paragraph, suggesting it begins with "Unlike other countries in the Middle East" instead of "Unlike most countries in the Middle East". Simply put, you seem unwilling to address what's really in the article. I'm tired of dealing with you and your cohorts and I'm not going to entertain your comments anymore (especially because I'm quite convinced you are just a rehash of another editor that has already commented here). I have other, better things to do, both on Wikipedia and off. Your attempts to offset good faith comments made by good faith editors (not all of whom, mind you, are for the current wording) with nonsense positions based on a paragraph that exists only in your imagination have no place on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article states that "unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a developed country." That statement implies that the rest of the Middle East is not developed. That is utter nonsense and usually only uttered by Zionists in their effort to demonize Arabs.

Perhaps you should throw this in: Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel has an official policy, called the Samson Option, whereby they have already decided they will launch all of their nuclear weapons at all of their Middle East neighbors (perhaps even Moscow as well) should they ever be in imminent danger of losing a war. Israel poses an infinitely more probable threat of global nuclear holocaust than it's Middle East neighbors. 75.162.248.252 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I'm not a "rehash" of a different user, but you can pretend that I am if you wish. I think you are realizing that this clause has generated far more dissent than what you were expecting, so now you have to resort to some nonsense that someone has come here with multiple IPs to complain. Perhaps in your brain. What if one were to say "Unlike most Arabs, Ralph Nader isn't a..." The term "most" still creates the implication of a generalization over the entire region; its a stereotypical term regardless of whether or not you wish to admit it. It would be similar if someone were to say "Not all African Americans are thieves, but most are." I haven't mischaracterized the statement; my entire argument wasn't specifically over the wording! My entire argument is opposed to the inclusion of the clause in the first place! I am attacking the fact that it is irrelevant to a lead paragraph on Israel (regardless of whether or not the term "most" is included, its still irrelevant). I think if you holistically read my argument, you would have realized that by now. My Thailand example, regardless of whether or not you inserted "most" or not, would still be an applicable argument (that you, of course, would still fail to address). The geopolitical introduction in the lead paragraph is irrelevant to an article on Israel; that was what all of my posts have boiled down to. Okedem and you can't see that apparently; do I need to be more clear? It isn't wholly about the word "most." I am certainly not attacking good faith editors. For the most part I haven't made any personal attacks (I will admit I have called you and okedem stupid once or twice in this thread, but I haven't created any extended rants like your more recent post here). It has become quite obvious that you refuse to address my arguments and have resorted to nitpicking at things that are entirely irrelevant to my points. My complaint isn't about the word "most" as I have redundantly clarified here, even if you continue to insist that my argument orbits around that word. My complaint would be applicable regardless of the word "most." Certainly you may ignore my post if you wish, but this does not change the fact that this sentence has garnered attention from apparently many more individuals than just I. You have still failed to provide a reason why the clause is necessary as I had asked a couple of days ago!

If you read the UAE article, as an example, it does include a comparison of the UAE's HDI relative to Asia as a continent. That sentence does appear far more benign than the "unlike.." one. If you haven't noticed, I haven't made any complaints about the sentence in this article that immediately follows the one that starts with "Unlike...", even though the following sentence also makes a comparison. I think you are attempting to paint me as some sort of raging anti-Zionist, when I have clearly been trying to be civil and conciliatory.

It is certainly much more different to say "Israel has the highest human development index in the region" versus "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel has high human development." The first sentence is a fact; the second sentence carries a tone of condescension, whether or not it was the author's intention. I'm not saying this article shouldn't include the fact that Israel is a liberal democracy, but I am opposed to the way in which this statement is being presented and I think I have made that very clear.-68.43.58.42 (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly much more different to say "Israel has the highest human development index in the region" versus "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel has high human development. The first sentence is a fact; the second sentence carries a tone of condescension, whether or not it was the author's intention."

Um... okay... I do see a difference between those two sentences, but it's not the difference you see. The second sentence does not rule out the idea that there could be Middle Eastern countries with higher HDIs; the first sentence does. The second sentence may not necessarily be a fact because, although Israel is ranked highest among Middle Eastern countries, there are quite a few Middle Eastern countries (such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait) that are also ranked "high". I don't see the tone of condescension that exists in the second sentence but does not exist in the first.

Either way, if your issue is with the word "unlike" and not the comparison, then, as okedem suggested earlier (see 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)), perhaps you should suggest a sentence that conveys the same information and is equally accurate. (Note that, depending on one's definition of the Middle East, Israel is not necessarily the only liberal democracy and only developed country in the Middle East.) I won't speak for okedem, but my concern is that the comparison remains, not that the exact wording remains. You did not make yourself clear that you were just against the wording. In fact, in previous comments, you seemed to be rather clear that you were opposed to the comparison instead (e.g. "So again, can anyone provide a reason why the contrast is necessary in a lead paragraph on Israel?").

No one has called you a "raging anti-Zionist" and the only people to use any derivative of the word "Zionist" on this talk page (except when directly quoting others) are those against this wording. -- tariqabjotu 07:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Seems like there's more than just a bit of POV in this article... The introduction notwithstanding, one would think that an article on perhaps the most controversial nation on earth would have a bit more talk about the controversies. What IS here is written in an incredibly passive voice, and there seems to be as little mention as possible of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, odd considering the fact that said conflict should be a mainstay of the article if we are to maintain a global perspective on Israel itself. I'm not about to start any edit wars, but if we are to maintain any level of neutrality, there are glaring omissions to be corrected and entire sections to be rewritten. I see that accusations of anti-semitism are being thrown around anyway (blatant violation of the "Assume Good Faith", but I'm no sentinel of the WP rules,) this is to be expected on an article such as this, but it's really quite ridiculous... Kirottu82 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article (plenty of articles, actually) about the conflict. This article is about the country. It's not the same, and despite what many folks in the world think, there's actually a lot more to Israel than terrorism and wars. We need to provide that information, and not the one-dimensional image of Israel people get from the international media. We don't all sit around here polishing our swords, you know.

The conflict is mentioned quite enough as it is. We don't need to turn this into an article about the conflict - it definitely should not be the "mainstay" of this article. If you have specific points you'd like to discuss, go ahead, but I strongly oppose any change in the focus of this article. okedem (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I said A mainstay, not THE mainstay, which would of course be a rather ridiculous request. I was planning on drawing parallels with other pages of countries or regions with similar issues, and I see that those examples are omitted from the main page and relegated to seperate pages as well (should have done my research beforehand...) As far as individual complaints go, most of mine have been addressed by others and ignored in previous posts so I will refrain from beating a dead horse. It does seem odd to me to leave out most mention of a subject so closely intertwined with the recent history of the state, but as it is in line with similar pages with similar issues i suppose that is as it shall be.

I could go into a bit here about the ramifications of what seems to be an exclusively Israeli main body of editors (rather than some form of international coalition,) strictly controlling the content of this article and those related, leading perhaps to many of the POV issues that have been brought up by others, but that is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia in general and not this page in particular. Kirottu82 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one of the main editors here, and the driving force behind the article's FA status is an American, with no connection to Israel or Judaism (I'm speaking, of course, of Tariq).

The article has a section about the occupied territories - but this wasn't always so. After some folks complained about the lack of such a section, I repeatedly called for its writing. I was sure that at least one of the "pro-Palestinian" editors would gladly take me up on that. I was wrong. Eventually, I ended up writing the draft for the section on the talk page, and we tuned it up here. okedem (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

the tone of the economics/education section

it just strikes me as odd how the "economy" and "education" section of this article are entirely ranking statements, that is saying how well Israel compares to other nations, how innovative they are, how wonderfully they are developing etc. it seems very un-professional to turn these fact-based sections into a series of praise statements. comparable sections in other country articles blandly state: "This country 's economy is based on X, they do Y amount of trade mostly with these nations..." Whereas this article, if you'll read it closely, says things like: "Israel, despite its tremendous obstacles, has leaped to forefront of X and is doing the world's most innovative Y, etc. This doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a travel-book or a country advertisement. We need to tone down the language in these sections and remember that they are supposed to provide a neutral summary of the information, not a cheering section.

(standard disclaimer about being neither Arab nor Jewish, nor invested in the conflict in any way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.252.127 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

bias article

like usual the israeli ***** here havent made this article of NPOV. it is full with hatred towards its arabs neighbours, and betrays them as incompetent, babaric and undecuated. "unlike other countries in the middle east" is a absolute irrelvant fact, would there be any objection if someone wrote "israel is the only country in the middle east that has a record number of war crimes against its name because of its treatment of the palestininans or that israel is the only country that has broken international law when it builds its settlements and doesnt give the palestinians rights they deserve as being under occupation , because that point is as relevant as that. secondly, there should be a small paragraph dedicated to the disputed areas, and its illegal settlement program that has been condenmed internationally. further more there should be mention of how israel is deemed by the international community to be ethinically cleansing israel to rid the muslims from israel (alliyah) to increase jewish population. thirdly under the military section, there should be mention that israel has broken US laws when it uses/used the weaponry given to it by the US on lebabon, and every single time it uses it on palestinian civilians. this is because, correct me if im wrong, the US only gives aid to israel for defence, and the lebabon war was and is not considered self-defence, on the contray it was considered illegal under international law. There should also be a section in which israel is shown to have repeatdly killed innocent bystanders under false intel, which have also been deemed illgeal under international law as ware crimes. okedom, and the other **** here, seem to put in irrelavent information that favours israels image, but fail to tell the entire story in the fear it might damage israels image. either make this a NPOV article or have passages talking about the controversial topics, which israel always seems to be tangled in. this article is not to promote israels image, but to tell the truth, so take the negatives with the positives because there there same side of a coin. and for the sake of repeatition, exclude the non-NPOV or allow controversial issues to be dicussed. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You have resorted to personal attacks, so I am not going to consider your position. Additionally, I am continually perplexed when people come here claiming the article is biased toward Israel and then turn around and suggest we make the article clearly anti-Israel, citing "NPOV". -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i have not attacked any one with "personal attacks" but okedom and newtman, and yourself now have. my stance on israel, and my political believes towards israel has nothing to do with being objectional, just like i would like to hope your personal attachment to israel does not also. name calling me "anti-israel" is unacceptable, and is a "personal attack". now please stop it and talk about the points i have brought up, and do not change the headings as i do not want my ip to appear as a heading 86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

em wrong again, thank your propagandists. turkey is in the middle east, and is also considered a developed country and a democracy. jordon is also a democracy. the use of words "unlike" protray israels neighbours in a negative light, which is of no relevance to this. and if someone does say it is of importance, then kindly add a section talking about israels war crime. the fact that someone has added this point about democracy is like i said before only to sway israels image into a good light. this clearly illustrates this articles bias, and falsehood. EDIT: and also, iraq and afganistan are also a democracy now that the old regimes have gone, and free and fair elections have been held, and deemed democratic by the international community. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to read what the sentence does not say, that's up to you. The sentence says that unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy. So there are two pieces you missed: it talks about Israel being a liberal democracy, which is not just a democracy. Additionally, the says unlike most countries in the Middle East; that does not necessarily mean Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is a liberal democracy and a developed country. And, again, you have resorted to personal attacks ("propagandists"), so I have no desire to pursue your complaints regarding this matter. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

unlike other countries in the middle east, israel is a ""liberal democracy""? this implies and gives the impression to any sane person that israel is the only democracy, it is condesending, patronising and shows that israel ""liberal"" democracy is superior to the democracies of iraq, afganistan, jorn turkey. i have looked at other country wiki's and no ridiculous sentence as the one used here is used there. if you take the sentence in the context that it is given, it very much plants an impression of israeli superiority. the fact about being a liberal democracy compared to a conservative democracy is not relevant. in fact, israels democracy is not even liberal in the traditional sense, as it uses both jewish law along with other democratic governance. and i know it doesnt mean israel is the only democracy and developed countries (along with the only progressive), put in the context, it certainly implies that. getting rid of the word "Unlike" would not change the paragraph, so my suggestion is that we not use it, because the use of the "Unlike" gives that """impression"" 86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

this is also not relevant, as it gives an image to the reader that other countries in the region are not progressive. although it may be true it is the MOST , it has no relevance, or has as much relevance as israels other controverial issues that nobody has discussed here, (or said it belongs in a separate article). the fact that saudia arbia are only a few palces down in the economic competition list given on the site, followed by the UAE flaws the reasoning to include this in the article. after looking at other wiki's of the countries on the list, none mention that they are the "most" progressive the way this article does. in my opinion it is only to show israel as superior then other coutries. coming to freedom of press, again who ever wrote this really does make a mess of it., the writer has gome off on tangents for the sake of protarying israel as "progressive" the fact that countries like joron and egpyt with iraq and afganistan are also making alot of progress compared to there previous regimes is undermined by this sentence.

EDIT:and the fact that in human development, countries like kuwait ( which are only 10 spots back ), also helps support the argument this section is irrelvant, and untrue. on other wiki's about countries on that list, no mention is given to there feat. the relevance of it can be judged by comparing it to more serious and controversial issues such as the "war crime" claims and "breaking of international law". puutting that aside, i find it also makes the articles not of NPOV, as it only gives "thrills"

to israeli (who seem to be the people editing the article)

86.163.1.210 (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you want to read what the sentence does not say, that's up to you. The article does not say its superior to other countries. If you feel having a liberal democracy or having a higher HDI makes a country "superior", that's your opinion. And it's not our fault that many other Middle Eastern countries don't surpass Israel in these metrics. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

again tariq, youve lacked the ability to actually listen to what i have said, i said it gives the false "impression" that israel is the more superior country in the middle east, and that no other country is near them, when according to the soucres given, that is jus simply not the case. Edit: the word "unlike" is not approapriate and should be rightfully discarded for the reason i have given (gives the impression israel is superior and that no other country is economically progressive or democratic)86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

no dicussion to how israel does not allow the palestinians that used to live on, what is now israel, the right of reuten but is given to jews from all around th world. an issue that has been of concern to the international community. i have good sources that show this. another point which is controversial but relevant, is how other countries has expressed there discontent towards to israel for explouuting there jewish communites, and luring them with money incentives. it has been deemed ethically immoral by scholars, who argue that people of jewish background are helped, and not others, which is prejudicial. noam chomsky is one. (ironically he is a jew also, who has been smeared "a self-hating jew" by other jews and israelis86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is the result of many discussions between editors of various POVs. Due to its high standard of writing and NPOV content, it has been deemed worthy to be designated a "Featured Article".

Your comments, in content and tone, show you have not bothered reading the article, and you are basically here to cause a riot. I quote - "there should be a small paragraph dedicated to the disputed areas, and its illegal settlement program" - There's a whole section titled "Occupied territories"!

Comparisons to other countries in the region are abundant in other country articles, so we have them here too.

Since no one claims Israel is the "only developed/democratic country in the middle east", I'll ignore that whole section. I don't know why you found it fit to bother us with such straw man arguments.

Israel has broken no US laws, and is not bound by any of them, obviously. The Lebanon war was instigated by Hezbolla's illegal cross-border attack, and shelling of Israeli towns. This is why Israel enjoyed wide international support for the war.

If you want to calmly discuss specific points, that's fine, but I will not reply to any more rants, and probably no else will either. okedem (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it fun dealing with anonymous ip trolls? ;) Newtman (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"anonymous ip troll", wow arent we faul? is that allowed, or have the rules changed for you all of a sudden. if i registered would that make me less anonymous? now stop it, israel did not enjoy support from the world for its war, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A99D0477-B0EC-449C-82BE-26C15C2D2068.htm there actions were considered illegal and an absolute misjudgement/over reaction, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6981557.stm http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL12851214 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275042,00.html

thats not my opinion, its russias frances, intertional organisations etc etc jus look it up your first comment doesnt prove anything, there are still errors in this article, (i probably predict a zionist passed it), but either way that is no arguement to use counter my point. and sorry your the one ranting, ive stuck to the point, and your tryin to smear what i am sayin. and as for the "most developed" part, if you had read it properly, i said it gave the impression that all other countries in the region are some how inferior, which is incorrect as there are countries right behind it. and as for the only democracy, like i said, turkey, jordon, iraq, and afghanistan are democracies, so you should delete the fact that israel is the only democracy in the middle-east86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when someone appears out of nowhere, on an anonymous ip, makes baseless accusations against the intentions of editors, and behaves in a rude manner, I would say that is fair grounds for calling someone a troll. Your continued obtuseness, rudeness, and POV attitude just go to show that I was correct. Newtman (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

thats no excuse to call me a troll, and i did not know you were a editor, which further strengthens my case that this article was only featured because editors like yourself, due to personal attachment want to pass on inaccurate information. i strongly suggest you retract your comment, because it is unacceptable. aand BTW i have given sources to back my "pov" so there goes your theory86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The second you make blatant POV statements like "i probably predict a zionist passed it", you completely discredit yourself. You have a clear agenda and prejudice, and it's not going to fly here. Take that chip off your shoulder someplace else, it won't be tolerated here. You can imagine all you want the supposed agenda's behind editors here, but it's simply not reflected in the article, as much as you want to think it is. A long history of consensus seeking and refinement of this article shows you to be wrong. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And where exactly does it say "israel is the only democracy in the middle-east" in the article? In the version of it you have in your imagination? Because in the version that exists in reality, that claim doesn't exist.

I'm done here. No use discussing in depth issues with trolls. okedem (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i said either way though, which throws your argument out the window,,,are you going to contiune agruing with me baselessly. and do not throw personal attacks on me, i do not have a chip on my shoulder, and it is inapproperiate to say that here. you have not spoken once about the issues but have continually tried to smear me, firstly by callin me a troll, now saying im big-headed, please do not reply to me if you are goin to be immature thank you86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

unlike other countries israel is a democracy

okedom, you said and i quote "Since no one claims Israel is the "only developed/democratic country in the middle east", I'll ignore that whole section", i agree no one claims that, but was not what i was talking about. if you read the article it said and i quote "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" this is inaccurate as it suggests most countries are not ecomic competitors, (which according to your sources is not correct, and several arab countries are ranked little below israel). and as for the comment about most progressive in terms of human development, that is also an inaccuracy, as the soucre gives a list of countries and there human devleopement status, not how progreesive there human devleopment has been. further more, if you decide the source for that claim is credible, then from the same source you will be able to identify that israels neighbours (UAE KSA) are not that far of the list. over all your agrument is very light wieght,,please discuss thank you 86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've all grown tired of your unintelligible diatribes. No one is attacking to you, we're simply responding to your comments at face value. As for your arguments, I think it might be helpful for you to look up the meaning of "progressive", as you appear to be misunderstanding its use. Unless you actually have something positive to contribute, you might as well run along, as I doubt anyone else is interested in responding to your baseless accusations. Ta-ta. Newtman (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

and okedom, please do not cherry pick the claims that i have made about this article, you said and i quote "This is why Israel enjoyed wide international support for the war." now i have supplied you with links, and can do so with more if you require., please answer all my points, as they are valid,m and if they are not, tell me why. i do not appreciate being spoken to in a patronising tone also, you are creating hostilty. and i see you have called me a troll also, why? do you disagree wiith what i have said, if so, that still does not give you the right to throw perosnal attacks at me86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Good faith" dictates that we give people the benefit of the doubt if they appear to be behaving in a reasonable manner. It does not mean tolerating the behavior of someone who is being deliberately antagonistic, biased, rude, and disruptive. Newtman (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry i started responding to a piece you wrote here before you deleted it, which i dont know why you did but this is what you said "I think we've all grown tired of your unintelligible diatribes. No one is attacking to you, we're simply responding to your comments at face value. As for you argument, I think it might be helpful for you to look up the meaning of "progressive", as you appear to be misunderstanding its use. Unless you actually have something positive to contribute, you might as well run along, as I doubt anyone else is interested in responding to your baseless accusations. Ta-ta."

and my response was

your smearing me again, and being patronising and you did and have thrown personal attacks. discuss the issue. and i do know what progressive means, either way israel is not "unlike most countries in the middle east" in terms of economic progress, (infact on wiki itself saudia arabia is listed as a developed/high income earning country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country ) and it is not the only democracy as i discussed before. why dont you actually deal with the issues, instead of attacking me constantly. you are not allowed to delete comments.86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL once again you prove our point about you making baseless accusations. I didn't delete my comment, I moved it up. Newtman (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

youve proved my point by not talking about the issues ive raised. which are again : the use of the word "unlike" to describe israels economy, democracy, and human development. and mainly return to my point about the right of return, (which is what this section was about before okedom decided to slur his comments everywhere) okedom, have you looked at the links, and seen the points that have a risen. well in your next response, i accept to hear something about them, and not jus personal attacks, thank you. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not one to talk about personal attacks; it seems every one of your comments here has been full of them. The formulation of the sentences in the intro have been the subject of a great deal of discussion here, and there is no way someone coming here attacking editors left and right is going to unilaterally usurp the prior consensus. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

point me to where i have used "personal attacks", using the word propagandists does not come under the heading of "personal attacks" they are my opinions on the article. secondly. if you bothered looking closely, it was okedom, and newtman who had the indescency to call me, and i quote "an ip troll". that is unacceptable, and i think if your are going to "condemn" me i think you should do so with them also. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

war crimes claim with sources

ok okedom, you said and i paraphrase "israel did not break US and international law" when it uses US arms on civilians and kills innocents, conducts illegal wars, breaks geneva conventions it does break them, look at theses http://www.alternet.org/story/39628/ ; http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24922&s2=23 ; http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24992&l=i&size=1&hd=0 ; http://www.alternet.org/story/39628/ ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580139.stm ; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/16/wgaza116.xml ; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201964,00.html ; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2283898,00.html ; http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/24/amnesty_international_says_israel_committed_war_crimes/ ; some of these include general war crimes for killing innocents from countries like itlay, the swiss, and then there are independent organisation, like amnesty international, un etc etc, you can find more by googling

and btw, i cant find the page that i was looking for that further proves israel is breaking US law, when it uses there weapons on innocent civilians and not self-defence (which the lebabon war was considered, and proved by the sources i listed), but you can read former president carters book "israel peace not aparthied" where in the second or third chapter he states why it was illegal when israel used/uses weapons on killing civilians by referring to the US constition in his refences.

all this illustrates that there should be a sentence in the first intro paragraph, which shows israel breaking international and being condemned both internationally and by independent organisations aswell as the UN, whether israel denies is it or not is a matter of opinion and latter interpretation. btw you still havent answered my previous query, about how the lenabon war was not supported internationally thanks 86.163.1.210 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Human rights is covered in the body of the article, where it should be. Although Israel has indeed been condemned for human rights violations, often in regards to its conflict with neighboring countries, human rights abuses are not a central part of life in Israel. Instead, Israel has largely been heralded for the human rights it affords on a daily basis to people within its borders, particularly in comparison to other Middle East countries. If you feel the coverage of these issues is lacking, that's worth discussing. However, I have no desire to consider and discuss them with you with the incivil attitude you have shown on this page. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

you say and i quote "human rights abuses are not a central part of life in Israel", considering israel occupies the palestinians, and has done on a daily basis, and the fact that they have been living under occupation for 40 years, and considering the fact that israel has not stop building settlements, not stopped killing civilians, not stopped stealing land, and stopped there right of free movement, it is apart of israels central life. the palestinians are under israeli occupation, and thus the occupier has the responsibility over them, and that is written in the international laws that every country has to abide to. and i think your the one lacking covarge, as you disputed established facts. considering that most international organistations and countries have deemed there occupation illegal, it should be included in the first intro paragraph, because it is relevant and important to israel86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I said on a daily basis for people in Israel. Specifically, I mean for Israelis, within Israel, not including the territories. Israel has been condemned almost exclusively for its treatment of Palestinians and for its actions in various other conflicts with its Arab neighbors. We can't just focus on that issue, while ignoring how well Israel actually treats its people. Just about the only country article I can find that talks about human rights abuses in its intro is Saudi Arabia. Without diverging into a discussion about whether that mention is appropriate there, I will simply say that, unlike those in regard to Israel's human rights record, condemnations of Saudi Arabia's human rights record come primarily from the way it treats its own citizens within its own borders. You will be hard-pressed to find any other country article that mentions human rights violations in the introduction; that's usually something that is relegated to the body. That is an approach I for the most part agree with, particularly here where the condemnations come in the manner in which Israel treats people outside its sovereign territory. -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"like (sic) usual the israeli (sic) ***** here havent(sic) made this article of (sic) NPOV. it (sic) is full with (sic) hatred towards its arabs (sic) neighbours, and betrays (sic)them as incompetent, babaric (sic) and undecuated (sic). "unlike (sic) other countries in the middle east" is a (sic) absolute irrelvant (sic) fact, would there be any objection if someone wrote "israel (sic) is the only country in the middle east that has a record number of war crimes against its name because of its treatment of the palestininans (sic) or that israel (sic) is the only country that has broken international law when it builds its settlements and doesnt (sic) give the palestinians (sic) rights they deserve as being under occupation , because that point is as relevant as that." -Anonymous 86.163.1.210

If someone actually believes this to be rational, NPOV, or even coherent discourse, then there is simply no reasoning with them. The answer to all of your demands is no. This article (which is a featured article by the way), is not going to be turned into a bizarre condemnation of Israel, viewed through the lens of extremists, simply because of your semi-literate ravings. You are wasting your time. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

im a extremist? because i rush through writing comments on wikipedia? or am i an extremist for providing sources that support my claims? you havent talked about any of the issues i raised, but youve instead spent the time correcting my grammer and spelling? why bother doing that?EDIT: so to sum up ive been called "troll" "anti-israel" and now a "extremist" "semi-literate " are these not personal attacks? i dont care any how, jus talk about the valid poaint i have raised. and the fact that it has been featured does not make this article "perfect" and beyond correctable, if i recall correctly it has been featured only this month, why was it not before? either way, i dont wana talk about that, and nor should you use that excuse to "debunk" my claims about the accuracy of this article. thank you

86.163.1.210 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was featured three months ago. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best just to ignore this guy. Like a child having a tantrum, he'll eventually run out of steam if no one pays attention to his POV trolling. Newtman (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

taraq, there are other issues i raised, look above and answered some of your questions, 1 month-3 months big deal, it doesnt rid my claim that it being a featured article does not mean it is perfect beyond repair and 100% accurate.thank you as foe newtman : the list keeps getting longer so its "troll" "extremist" "anti-israel" "semi-lit" and now a "child". newtman youve not discussed any of my points, but have concentrated more on insults and personal attacks. ill ask you again like i said above, givin the establised fact, that over the decades and in the recrnt history israel has been condemned with beaking international law, and commited war crimes, why is this fact not in t he first intro paragraph, this is as important, or even more important then other things mentioned. a single sentence, stating that israel has a record number of un violations (source Jewish Virtual Library), and that israel has been charged with war crimes by international human rights groups (source amensty international, clearly stated under israeli page). and please newtman, like i said before do not be patronising and abusive towards me, it is not allowed and has no place here thank you86.163.1.210 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

peacock terms

the article contains many "peacock terms", which was what my intial comment in the "bias article" heading was about. one clear example of this, like i have discussed before was the inclusion of positive issues, with the exclusion of controversial. this is damning the importance and accuracy of the article. if sentences like "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years."(which i am not denying to be false) have been used, there should be thought also given to the negetivity that israel is also renowned for up till late (lebanon war, war crimes, un violations, palestinian human rights abuses, some soucres above). and other sentences like 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] which may be true, is protrayed as "showing off the subject", (and the use of the word Unlike" that i have already discussed is also an issue.) the article is factual in many regards, but lacks over information. dicussion on zionism (the national movement) and its history are relevant but not any more important then points which israel has not been seen to well. people must understand that they must be objectional, and refrain themseleves from using "peacock terms". and if you dont know what it is, here is the definition: try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information 86.163.1.210 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

--

in addtion to what i have said above, i have see many other irrelavent, or peacock sentences that have been used. under the economy section this sentence is used It has the second-largest number of startup companies in the world (after the United States) and the largest number of NASDAQ-listed companies outside North America.[152] whilst this is also factual, i find it hard to see why this was discussed and not a single mention of israel condemnations. what i was also surprised to not find , was that the article has not stated, or used the word illegal to describe israels controversial settlements and out posts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7082629.stm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9499 http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4328817.stm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13467 http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf

more emphasis is given on how to sell israels image, then the actual realities. talking about how good israel is, in regards of nobel prises, culture, democracy are all well and good, but this is not a tourism guide. i would like to see less "peacock" terms being used, and more thought be given to the real issues that israel faces intenationally. including a lead out link to israels illegal settlements would be a good idea. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

why has the statement that was above the page like 30 mins ago dissapeared, with nothing bein changed? thank you 86.163.1.210 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms i trying to put that status back on the article for the reasons i have listed above 86.163.1.210 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, and have brought up similar concerns before (long before the FA nomination and during it). I still don't understand how this article was granted FA status. Yes, a lot of work went into it, but as you pointed out, it almost gushes about Israel's positive attributes and elides or ignores the negatives ones. I think it's deplorable that other editors simply revert tags when accompanied by detailed and valid explanations and fail to engage the concerns expressed. Tiamut 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(To Tiamut) I'll echo okedem's point below about you pointing about specific issues. I personally think we could be more specific on condemnations of the settlements and the occupation (in the "Occupied territories" section), with Israeli responses to these condemnations where appropriate. However, I would not go as far as to say the article "gushes" about Israel's positive attributes. WP:NPOV does not compel us to talk about positive and negative things about Israel in equal amounts. We are supposed to give both positive and negative aspects their due weights. In many sections that discuss what to some might appear to be "positive" attributes of Israel, there is no reason to discuss the occupation and settlements (which appear to be the areas of "negative" attributes). The occupation has little to do with "Economy", "Science and education", "Culture", and "Sports", and we're not going to mention it there because we talk about "positive" aspects of Israel. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have not shown any actual "peacock" terms used in this article, and I don't think you understand what it means.

Second, coming from you, Tiamut, claims that the article "ignores the negatives" border on the absurd. I remind you, Tiamut, that you have, on several occasions, ignored my suggestion to write a section about the occupied territories, and eventually I had to write it.

Every country has negatives, and this article discusses them on a level comparable to other featured country articles.

If you have specific issues you think are worth mentioning, I'd be glad to discuss them with you. Just remember - this article is a bird's eye view of the subject, and cannot give all the information. There will always be stylistic disagreements regarding how much space to devote to each subject; specifically, it was chosen to discuss mainly the country itself here, and leave the conflict (with the Arab world, with the Palestinians) to its respective articles. Unlike the international media, we shouldn't display Israel through the limited prism of the conflict. okedem (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok well, to start off, i dont understand why okedon hasnt attempted to answer my previous questions, in which i reputed what he had said with provided sources to back up my claims. Secondly, Newtman i do not appreciate you making bogus vandalism claims and claims of me be unconstructive, when you have done nothing but dodge the points by making personal attacks, next time if you do have a geniune concern could you tell me what specifically i have said that is unconstructive and constitues vandalism, and may i remind you it was you that changed the structure of the talk page, the structure that i had layed out was very well until okedom felt it was nessasry to talk about every issue raised under one section, that is unconstructive.

Now to the issues you have raised:

You have now accused me of not knowing what peacock means, i do not accept this and illustrates that you have not listened to the nearly issues i raised to support my claims.

My claim that this article is not accurate dispite having factual information is backed up by the tune of this article, and its recultance to show Israel in a bad light. This is catagorised, in my opinion as peacock violation, as the section under the peacock wiki of Don't hide the important facts illustrates. Some of the information/facts that are being hid are important and more revelant then some other topics discussed, these being the well establised facts that Israels occupation is deemed Illegal by international law, the EU, the UN and other respected humanitarian organisations.

Source :

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/MDE15/021/2005

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm

http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1998/19981203.ga9525.html

Secondly Tiamut is right in claiming that no negatives are discussed, dispite the inclusion of the section on occupied terrotories. There is not a single line, that describes the Palestinian issue as illeagl and inhumane. Further more this article has been made to look like a peacock, as the commentaters do nothing but show how 'advanced' Israel is in comparison to other countries in the Middle-East. There are many citations where Israels success is purposely compared to South Asian and Middle-Easten countries, though it may by more or less accurate it is an example of peacockin.

As for your comment about "every country has negatives", I know it does, but this article does not show that. I think you have misunderstood me and Tiamut when we express our thoughts based on the fact that there are hardly any negative issues discussed. It has been made to look like a tourism page, showing how wonderful Israel is which is censoring and not allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

As for your last comment If you have specific issues you think are worth mentioning i have provided another list of the issues that i am concerned about(note some might be repeats of pervious suggestions that you failed to discuss)

-Israel is the world's only Jewish state

Alothough true, The use of the words world's and only Italic textare peacock violations.

I would rephrase this as Israel is a Jewish state (Global is the same as World)

-The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years

The old Israel of 3000 has nothing to do with the 1948 Israel, Irrelvant information

-Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and even the State's very right to exist have been subject to dispute, although Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians.

This is taken out of context, and only shows the obtuse view from Israels perpective. As i do not have to say here, Israels right to exist were claims that were arisen mainly due to its status of Jewish country in the Middle of a Muslim world. An un-balanced account is given here which does not give that information. It should be changed with something along the lines "Israels right to exist was contested by its Arabs neighbours due to guinue dissapporval of the creation of an Israeli state and the division it would create in the region. However since then some countries have accepted Israel (Jordon, Egpyt, Turkey etc), whilst others are in reservation"

-Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country

This line is of deep concern to me and is by defination a peacock violation. The use of the word "Unlike" is incorrect in many respects, and illustrates to the reader, wrongfully, and boasts about Israels success, which is also carried by other countries in the region (Iraq, Afganistan Jordon, Egpgt Turkey all democracies, UAE, KSA all very competative)

-In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria massed troops close to Israeli borders, expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea.

This does not discuss what led them to have forces close to the israeli border, so is not in context for the reader to know why they were there at that time and not before.

-In the early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics

Again this line is correct factually, but is half the tale. A reason for why Palestinian outrage is not given, and an image of negativiety is displayed on the Palestinians as a whole as a result. Again this comes back to the recultance of people here to discuss the negative issues, which have as a result given rise to terrorist attacks. This is not justification, but the official reasons that were given by a spokesmen after the attacks where done.

-Due to the abundance of sunlight in Israel, the country has become a global leader in the field of solar energy.

The sentence is another clear example of commentry and boasting, and the word 'Global' is written as an example peacock wiki, on how not to talk about an issue and a keyword to look out for.

-Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East in economic and industrial development

This is just blatant a peacock violation, and poorly written and not accurate. In fact i feel that whole section is a violation because of how its written. It should be clearly stated by what source is it whatever. Example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms#Brazilian_economy

well i think thats enough for you to talk about, okedom and others, but could you also look at the other comments i wrote which you ignored to comment on. And can i sum up by saying the main problem is of what is not here, that what is, of course with all the other problems i have discussed. Thank you86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you blatantly vandalized List of states with nuclear weapons, and I called you on it. It'd be a waste of my time to respond to any other of your grandiose claims, as you refuse to listen to any other arguments made in response to your diatribes or in past conversations on this talk page. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats got nothing to do with this article?86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, and vandals will be treated accordingly. Newtman (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't you even bother to spell my nickname correctly? And I have nothing to do with the structure of this page. Just shows how much factual accuracy your comments have. okedem (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

your annoyed becoz ive made a mistake in writing your name?86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments above, and answered those I feel deserve answering.
Your current claims regarding "peacock terms" show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand the term.
Regardless, I find all of your claims to be a non-issue, or simply false. Like the "Unlike" point - it's 100% true, given that most countries in the middle east are not even close to democratic - no, Egypt is not a democracy, nor is Jordan. The "Jewish state" issue is ridicules, and I will not debate it. The Israeli occupation is not, despite your claims, "illegal by international law". An occupation is not by definition "illegal", and I remind you that no other countries have any claims to those territories. What some consider illegal, and this is an matter of debate, are the settlements.

Enough of this. If you want to rant on and on to get this article to present Israel in the most negative light you can, using half-truths and whole-lies, be my guest. I'm done discussing anything with you, given the fact you can't seem to stick to facts, and will use whatever you can to smear Israel and other editors, including myself. The invitation for discussion I wrote above was actually for Tiamut, not you, so I shouldn't even reply this much. Good day. okedem (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So you do not want to believe the sources that i have given that prove Israel is breaking international law, and you denounce that the EU , UN amensty international have reffered to it by that? Its your opinion that the occupation is illeagl, where as i have supplied soucres to show and support my case. And do not patronise me, there it not an ounce of info that talks about israel is a bad light, the article has purposly left out information, to sway opinion of israel positiviely86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

are turkey iraq afganistan not democracies then? 86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, irrelevant, no where in the article does it state that Israel is the only democracy. Newtman (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

for the Nth time , i know it doesnt say israel is the only democracy, but the use of the word Unlike, is not accurate, and a violation of peacock terms! read them again86.163.1.210 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says Israel has been considered a liberal democracy. Iraq and Afghanistan are not in any way liberal democracies (and Afghanistan is also usually not considered part of the Middle East anyway). Further still, the article says (or I suppose at this point said) Unlike most countries in the Middle East; it does not exclude the possibility that there are others. Unlike is not a peacock term. Unlike peacock terms, the word unlike and the following sentence impart real, key information. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

clearly you havent bothered readin what i have said, and jjus called all of it a non issue, take a look at one of the concreate examples

Due to the abundance of sunlight in Israel, the country has become a global leader in the field of solar energy. global and leader are two words specifically mentioned on the peacock wiki, this proves that fact86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:PEACOCK is a series of guidelines, not a hardset rule. Those words are not banned, simply ones to use carefully. Newtman (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

didnt say those words were banned, but it is a prime example of what the description says not to include!peacock terms violation!86.163.1.210 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Due to the number of problems people seem to have with the lead, it makes sense to consider a compromise version. The best way to address this is to use material directly from the sources and to attribute value judgements directly to the sources being quoted.

The reasoning for this can be found here and is also summarised in this quote

"John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

The idea is that we let the facts (and sources) speak for themselves. --Nosfartu (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I like that, and i think it is exactly what this article needs. its ridiculous if someones written "israel are the global leaders,,," and peacock violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.1.210 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between is and has been considered is a fair point, but I do not understand why "Unlike most countries in the Middle East" has been removed. The key point is that Israel is distinct from most Middle Eastern countries in that it is (fine: has been considered) a liberal democracy and a developed country. Because we are not absolute on this matter (not unlike all other countries in the Middle East, etc.), this seems perfectly fine. WP:PEACOCK says to "avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information". However, this does impart real information – and rather important information at that. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It just needs a citation and attribution is all. It's implied from the sources, it just looks like Wikipedia is making the value judgement right now, it's inexact, not directly verifiable, etc. It would be much better to illustrate Israel 'recieved the highest mark from Freedom House in the Middle East' or 'Israel is included in a list of X democracies/developed countries from the Middle East'. Something which illustrates the fact directly and is easily verifiable from the source can even help to make the point better.

To avoid an apparent edit war, I'm not going to make any changes for awhile. I think another way to say it could be arrived at here though and then inserted in to the article. I'd start with comments on one of my examples above or examples being proposed by others. --Nosfartu (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review some other country articles. I could find none that say "X is considered...", they all just say "X is...". We shouldn't apply different standards here. We have citations at the end of the sentence, so obviously we are just saying what our sources say. If we have to add "considered", or "Y says that..." to every sentence, it'll look ridicules. Such attribution only makes sense for very subjective points, like "Sports Illustrated says that Jimmy is the best baseball player playing in the league today". If we just say "Jimmy has the highest batting average of all players" - that would be a fact, and only needs a source, not attribution in the text. Similarly, a "liberal democracy" has a definition, and Israel, according to several sources, fits that definition. okedem (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Batting average is quantitative; none of the metrics in the disputed third paragraph are. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True, yet it is not completely subjective, and is not a value judgment.

Anyway, since other articles don't use this formulation, we shouldn't either. okedem (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The only part of the third paragraph I personally see needing improvement right now is the 'Unlike most countries in the Middle East' because none of the sources explicitly say this. It's trivial to come up with sentences from the sources (Israel 'recieved the highest mark from Freedom House in the Middle East', etc.) so I would encourage you to comment on one of mine or come up with your own. --Nosfartu (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't have to explicitly use such formulation. The source rated all of the countries in the Middle East; by whatever definition you choose for the Middle East, most of the countries there are not liberal democracies, according to the source. That's enough for us to justify the sentence "Unlike most". We're don't have to repeat word-for-word what our sources say. okedem (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that different organazations may have different definitions for what constitutes the Middle East, and that we need to use a consistent definition which can become quickly apparent to the reader that wants to know. I'm not sure, but I don't think that the CIA, Freedom House, and Rummel are all using the exact same definition for the Middle East (the article currently implies that they do). The easiest way to correct this is to stay as close to the sources as possible. The best way to fix the problem is to suggest something which is supported by sources and agreeable to everyone. --Nosfartu (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Using whatever definition you want, still the majority of countries in the ME aren't liberal democracies, by our sources' definition. okedem (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the sources' definition(s) then? Which definition are we using? --Nosfartu (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Go read the Freedom House report, the definition is right there. A while ago, the sentence was "Israel is the only liberal democracy...". Then some folks said Turkey is a liberal democracy, and by some definitions it's in the ME. There were similar claims regarding Cyprus. We couldn't agree on a single definition (since it's an ambiguous topic, and there are several definitions in use), so it was decided not to claim it's the "only", but rather that "Unlike most". By any reasonable definition you choose for the ME, most of the countries there aren't liberal democracies, using Freedom House's data (or other sources). Thus, the claim is valid. okedem (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

okedem, your failing to recognise that no one is disputing israels democratic values, but the use of the word unlike protrays/symobolises israels democracy, economy, etc as a unique and brillant and superior to most other countires, this is a peacock violation as it is adverstising israel and mis-directing. the use of the word unlike in the situation is also invalid, as these countries from the middle-east countries, lebanon, egpyt, afganistan, iraq are democratic, whilst countries like KSA, UAE, Kuwait are economically stable and very progressive. and the fact that israel is a liberal democracy...compared to any other kind of democracy is a ridiculous point to bring up.86.163.1.210 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources, most countries in the region are not liberal democracies (and that's a real, useful term). Thus, the word "Unlike" is perfectly accurate. (if you seriously claim Egypt is a democracy, I suggest you refresh your knowledge on the subject; Claiming KSA is progessive is also absurd). okedem (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, then it should be something along the lines According to ..... But also the unlike was not only used to show israel liberal democracy (which btw is ridiculous as having a liberal democracy compared to anyother is a random boast), but it was used to describe its economy etc . And the article claimed Israel economic progressiveness was not like most other countries, where KSA was not so behind according to the source provided and the others i listed. I suggest you look at what was actually written my friend before trying to make as if i made claims that were untrue. Other countries in the ME are economically progressive, and other countries are democratic, thus Israal is not that different to the most other countries in the ME. I still stand by the claim that this is a peacock violation and should be rectified. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be "According to..." - see other country articles - they all just proclaim "X is a...", with a source at the end of the sentence to back the claim up.

I don't know what your problem with "liberal democracy" is. It's a perfectly valid, oft used, designation, and is the one used by our sources.

Now, let's examine the paragraph, because you seem to not be reading it correctly:

"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development."

Notice the period after "developed country"? It means the designation "Unlike most" only refers to the first two listed properties, that of "liberal democracy", and "developed country".
1. We have already discussed the point of "liberal democracy", namely that by any definition for the middle east, there are very few liberal democracies (or parliamentary democracies) there - most of the countries in the ME are not "liberal democracies", and so Israel belongs to a minority group of liberal democracies in the region. Thus, the words "Unlike most" are fitting.
2. "developed country" - You can examine the source provided for this claim (that "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is...a developed country"); You will find that among the countries listed as "developed countries" (scroll down, it's about of fifth of the way down), there are only two ME countries (even by the broadest definition possible) - Israel and Turkey. Also, you can see the developed country article here, for some other lists of "developed countries" or "advanced economies". There you will see that in the IMF definition, Turkey is dropped from the list, but Cyprus is added. Israel remains. Thus, using broad definitions for the ME, and different lists of developed countries, we only find 3 ME nations - Israel, Cyprus, and Turkey. The vast majority of countries in the ME are not developed, and so, the phrase "Unlike most" is true for this claim as well.
"It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of..." - This set of traits is no longer related to the "Unlike" claim. Here we only say that Israel leads the ME in several issues. Nothing is said of the relative position of the other countries, and nothing is claimed to that end. Even if all other countries in the ME were at 99% of Israel's "score", Israel would still be "the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of" - when someone wins a race, you give him the gold medal even if the other guy was only 0.1 sec behind.

Well, then. Does this put you at ease regarding these issues? okedem (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development."

it is also the most progressive. that is a peacock violation. Simple as. And as for the word Unlike that is also inaccruate, and the use of the word liberal in describing its democracy compared to other democracies in the ME, is just a mere advertisment/peacock violation, as its intend is to show off how good israel is.86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As the lead states, "Israel...has also been ranked as the most progressive". This is a statement of fact, conveying relevant information. So are the other statements. Just saying "It's a peacock violation" doesn't make it so. I've written a painfully detailed reply, which you seem to completely ignore, not to mention utterly fail to acknowledge your own mistakes in previous comments.

You either have a serious reading problem, or are deliberately ignoring the facts here, for your own goals. Anyway, I'm done discussing it with you. No point spending time to formulate a clear comment, when I'm answered with barely understandable text, with no actual arguments. Good night. okedem (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this, Okedem, the article has changed, and you didnt even make an effort to say it, when you knew that i had been discussing the previous edit. The fact that the article has now been changed, means that my previous comments also need rectifying. But i must say it was really cunning of you to start talking about a changed quote to support your case, whilst you knew i was discussing the old

old edit: 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]Italic text

new version:"Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy and a developed country. It has also been ranked as the most progressive Middle Eastern country in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development." 86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is proof positive you never even bothered reading my comment, or even bothered reading your own comments. I quoted the version I was referring to. Also, the only change was adding "has been ranked as", which changes nothing with regards to your "Unlike" claim, and is only a semantic change in itself.

I'm sick of this. You obviously have no wish or capability to hold an actual discussion, as you don't bother reading the article, or other people's comments. You can't seem to form coherent sentences or arguments, and aren't even trying to get anywhere. This is classic trolling behavior, and will no longer be replied to. okedem (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take your anger out here, if you do not want to improve this article with discussion, feel free to go away, and do not assualt me. Eventhough you changed the article, i still stand by my intial comment, that the use of the 'Unlike' is not acceptble, and a peacock violation, as it trying to promote/advertise Israel, and is factually inaccutate. As for the changed sentence, i agree with the term 'ranked', but seeing as the articl does not state by who it is ranked, eventhough ref is given, i still disagree with the statement and stand firm on my claim that the sentence is not acceptable86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

golan heights and disputed areas

this article makes reference to internationally disputed areas as israeli land ' Israel is home to a variety of geographic features...golan ' . As these pieces of land have been identified as disupted land, advertising this land as a part of israel is inaccurate and invalid. Past pieces of disupted of land have not be allocted to countries before the dispute has be resolved and seeing this has not, hence it having a status of disputed . and considering the syrians claim this land as theres, whilst the future palestinian state which could include east jersualam and other pieces of land it is inappropriate to advertise these lands as part of israel soverienty. it leaves the reader mis-led, and poorly informed. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The very section you are referring to ("Geography and climate") talks about the captured territories, before the sentence you quoted. The Golan and East Jerusalem are clearly listed separately, so I see no chance of a reader missing that point. The section clearly states: "The sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War...". Before that section the capture of those territories (Golan, Jerusalem, etc.) is detailed in the History section, under "Conflicts and peace treaties".

About "and the Golan in the north." - even though the area is disputed, and its future remains unclear, right now (and for the past 40 years), it is part of Israel's territory, de facto. Any Israeli or person visiting Israel can go there. Anyone wishing to go visit the Golan has to go to Israel, not Syria. When speaking of the geography of a country, it makes no sense to skip an area which is for all intents and purposes a part of it, just because there's a dispute over who should control it. okedem (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your mistaken. The golan heights Jer. and West bank/gaza are all under Israeli adminstation/occupation. And not its sovereign territory. That is why Israelis can go there. It is like the Kashmir issue, some parts are under chinise control, some under pakistani and the rest indian, all people of the respected nations go go to there adminstrated areas, not one another, but all them are disputed so are not apart of there sovereign territory until disputes are resolved. All it takes is to read up a bit and youll find your wrong. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. "The sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War..." - The Golan, E.Jerusalem, etc were all captured in 1967. The sovereign territory of Israel doesn't include them. The sentence is very clear. okedem (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

it is part of Israel's territory That is what you said. And i refuted it by saying it is not, under its territory but under its occupation. And if you look at the article, it says and the start of the para and i quote

Despite its small size, Israel is home to a variety of geographic features, from the Negev desert in the south to the mountain ranges of the Galilee, Carmel, and the Golan in the northItalic text

This article has not made any effort to distinguish golan (an occupied piece of land, regardless of your opinion) and land that is really under israel soveriengty. Okedem, can you also stop with the personal attacks, it is getting out of hand and not acceptable86.163.1.210 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying you might have a reading problem is not a personal attack. It's an observation, and does not mean I think you're stupid or anything.

Please don't misquote me, or take only parts of the sentence that support your case. What I actually said: "even though the area is disputed, and its future remains unclear, right now (and for the past 40 years), it is part of Israel's territory, de facto." "De facto" means, in case you're not aware, "existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not" - Regardless of the legal status, right now, the Golan is a part of Israel's territory - nothing distinguishes it from other parts of the country. Even though it might "legally" belong to Syria, it is currently under Israel's control, and so is part of its territory - DE FACTO.

"This article has not made any effort to distinguish golan" - This is an outright lie, and you really shouldn't be making such claims. This first paragraph of "Geography and climate" is all about the difference between the various areas under Israel's control, from its sovereign territory (behind the Green Line), to the areas under Israel law (sovereign territory + Golan + EJ), to total area under control (sovereign territory + Golan + EJ + West Bank). There's an entire section dedicated to "Occupied territories", with the first sentence in it being - "The Israeli-occupied territories – the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights – are the areas Israel captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War.". okedem (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your lying out of teeth now, that is my obersavation. You did not say i might have a reading problem... but said I think your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking please do not lie when all it takes is a scroll to see what you actually said. "Sorely lacking", is a rude obersvation and is a personal attack. Its hyprcrisy to see how you are able to get away with it, whilst when i state my obersvation to the fact that all the people refuting my comments are hebrew speaking users with a link to israel, i get warned. Now looky here, could you stop repeating yourself, and actually read what i say. The article does not make it clear that golan heights and other areas are disputed pieces of land. i dont want to here about your opinions about 1967, i need factual information, and the fact is that you should not be stating occupied land, under israeli soverignty, because if you are, why are the people living in those area, (The palestinians) not given an Israeli passport, and not Israeli citizens.86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Israel is the sovereign power in the Golan Heights. the wikipedia definition is " A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other". The fact that the area is disputed is irrelevant (in fact all of Israel is disputed). So long as Israel is the final arbiter of what happens there, Israel is sovereign. All citizens of the Golan are entitled to Israeli citizenship. There are no Palestinians there as it was conquered from Syria in 1967. The Arab population were evacuated by the Syrians in 1967. The population that remained are Druze. Some of whom, possibly many, (I have no figures) have taken Israeli ctizenship. Perhaps if you stopped reading the British press you would be better informed. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

i am informed, perhaps youve misunderstood me. The Golan heights was just one point i bought up. interestingly you didnt comment on the palestinians being given israeli passports. if you want to answer a question, answer it fully, otherwise it gets messy. The Syrians have a claim to Golan heights, it is thus disputed, and not internationally reconginsed as a part of Israel. The article does not make clear of this fact. Israel not offered all, and some have denied, saying they will not accept there Israeli citizenship, as they see themselves as apart of Syria in the future. But due to the overwhelming expansion of settlements, which are considered illegal, Israel now is claiming that land aswell. On the other hand, in the other occupied lands, Israel has not given the people of the occupied land, Israeli citizenship, this makes them unable to move around freely in Israel, though Israelis are allowed to settle (illegally) and visit there86.163.1.210 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainly Druze live there by now as far as I know. Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the other anon above me, I find it a bit of a worrying thing that this article got FA status, partly because Its so constantly disputed and POV that there must be someone who pulled the strings with their own agenda. The fact remains that this article avoids the question of what Israel has rights to and what it dosent, and where eidtors on this talk page discuss this they nearly always refer to the ancient age of Israel. Israel as it stands today bears not much relationship (or at least shouldnt) to that of Judah several thousands years pior, and Im not intrested in hearing quasi-religious arugments from the many eager Israeli eidtors here. The point I am making is that Israel terrotories ARE disputed both internationally and internally. Dont try and catch me with the 'All of Israel is disputed' tagline, Israel may be disputed by some, but Israel has a governement which holds power over land and people, however even the Israeli govenerment has not stated what its final claims to its borders are, therefore the Golan heights are disputed, by Syria, by international law, and by those within Israel and the terrotories it has jurisdication over. In response to the other anon's question about why Palestinians are not given passports I can only give two awnsers, both of which might be disputed, but I cannot think of any other, That 1. Israel does not support inegration with Palestinian arabs and wishes to maintian a kind of ethocracy (a more disputed option), 2. (My own personal opinion) That is if the Israelis gave Palestinians to be Israeli citizens they would be outnumbered by voters who would liekly vote for a governemnt that either sympathised with the arabs or completely opposed the Israelis. This would be democracy, but this kind of fair democracy would be contrary to why Israel was founded, which was to allow Jewish people to rule their own country. Therefore it is better for the Israeli's if they do not have a fair or inclusive democracy.

Also, Ive noticed how rude some of editors on this talkpage will be, Ive visted this page before from time... to time, not commenting often, but it hasnt supprised me (note not a personal attack just pointing something out), that Okedem you have been insulting rather a lot of people, I can collect some examples from the archives if you want, but the patronising insult you wrote to one of the editors above me illustrates my point adequatly, I doubt you'll consider monitoring yourself for rude personal attacks, but I doubt equallly a complaint will come to anything, neither is it for me to complain if another editor has been attacked. As I dont currently have an account, and the editor above me is also using an IP, I dont think there are many options anyway.

Lastly, regarding what the editor said about this page being mainly edited seemingly by Israelis or just pro-Israelis, it seems a little unfair how many so called 'consensus' have came around by having pro-Israeli editors dissuade others from maing legitimate suggestions for the improvement of this article. I do not aoubt there may be plenty of anti-semites and wreckers having a go at this article, but personally I seem to feel all legitimate suggestions are opposed along with the illigitimate ones, and that because there seem to be so many Israeli editors, the consensus here are forced in a way (by people gangin up together). At any one time it seems ufortunate that there is usually only one or two editors who are in opposition to the current situation in Israel, against many Israeli editors who are in favour of it, with the Israeli-POV eidtors ranging from the helpful and legitimate, to the naive and/or extreme.172.213.64.230 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okedem if your really that bothered about the anon's comments, you could consider 1. Ignoring them 2. asking someone else to deal with them 3. Not insulting the anon in a way which is libel to start a fight.172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just created a new account as I couldnt find the password to my old one. I am the IP of the last comment.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain to him why he's wrong. It's not a matter of opinion or POV. He just makes claims that the actual text doesn't support. He claims the article says one thing, when it actually says another. He claims the article doesn't say something, when it does.

About your claim - again, it seems you never bothered reading the article. The issue of the occupied territories is clearly spelled out in it's own section. The point is also discussed under geography, despite what the anon editor claims. okedem (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)