Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:51, 9 December 2008

Israel Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

What is this Tacherism -- a misspelling of Thatcherism??? -- Viajero 19:24, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm unsure it's fair to call any Israeli paper high-brow. Most always seemed more like the New York Post, which sort of sits between high-brow and really low-brow. However, if you must, I don't think Ha'aretz is the sole claimant. The Jerusalem Post could be put on the same plane with some fairness. Anyhow, it currently seems a very POV article, but I don't have the knowledge to correct it. --Penta 21:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not compare it to the Jerusalem Post since that paper is in English — that would be like comparing the New York Post to a journal in Spanish. They simply do not operate in the same arena. I agree that in comparison to American supermarket journals they are all scientific publications... if you think a clarifying sentence would help, feel free to add one.

As for POVness, I would like to disspel your feeling if I can... if there's any particular details you would like to have explained, feel free to ask. Gadykozma 00:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is very exact. Thanks... (I'm an Haaretz reader, English Edition. Is one of my pleasures at Friday mornings). User: Horzer

Re: Haaretz translation

What does the word 'Haaretz' mean in fact?

"The Land" --(Mingus ah um 01:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

Usually in reference to Israel.

Shouldn't it be Ha'aretz or ha-Aretz? It's not a long a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.20.130 (talk) 23:54, July 6, 2007

Personally, I spell it Ha'Aretz, but the newspaper itself spells it Haaretz. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call Amira Haas and Gideon Levi as leftist, they are simply pro Palestinian reporting on every single Israeli wrong doing as percieved by the Palestinian side. You could be leftist and write pro Israeli reports.

Sources

The article (in my experience with Haaretz) is accurate, but it really needs more sources. The descriptions of the paper's editorial line especially needs citation.

Political inclination

Haaretz is definitely not a Labor or socialist newspaper. Quite the contrary, it usually supports Liberal Conservative views. However, it does show strong support for territorial concessions in what concerns the Israeli-Arab conflict, and it strongly objects Israel's control over the West Bank. Haaretz often publishes articles of people who support left-wing economy and sometimes of people who supports Post-Zionism, but its editorial line is by no mean neither socialist nor Post-Zionist. drork 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Harretz leftist newspaper

I have already supplied reference to that from B.B.C. that label Haaretz as such.There is no reference to the other label of Haaretz. There is no rule in wikipedia that the source should be article directly on the subject.It should be reliable with the B.B.C. is and to say what it claim to say.if Malik Shabazz as an objection I suggest to call to third side.Oren.tal (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orignial Research in 2nd paragraph

With this diff I added the "fact tag" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haaretz&diff=138154223&oldid=135891974

With this diff another editor provided a reference and removed the "fact tag" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Haaretz&diff=next&oldid=139385389

However, the reference is entirely moot with regard to the article text that it purportedly confirms. There is no mention of Maariv nor Yedioth Ahronoth. There is no mention of comparative sophistication. There is no mention of the print sizes, space devoted to pictures, articles lengths or analytical superiority.

Therefore, I removed the following text from paragraph 2 of the intro:

Compared to other mass circulation papers printed in Israel, especially Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth, Haaretz is geared to more sophisticated readers. The headlines and print are smaller, less space is devoted to pictures, and the articles are longer and more analytical.

-Doright 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is another reference that includes this information.http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2005/5/beckerman.asp --Gilabrand 04:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the second source more descriptive of the newspaper, and its pedigree is more prestigious. I've revised the article accordingly. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"its pedigree is more prestigious". What does it mean? By which standard do you objectively measure pedigree and prestigious?Wikiwikidoc (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the Columbia Journalism Review? Citing its article about Haaretz is a more prestigious source than the Brooklyn College Library (not that I'm knocking Brooklyn College — my father went there, and it's a fine school). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong

" Haaretz strongly supported the Oslo Accords with the PLO, but the op-ed pages of the paper are open to a wide variety of political opinions. "

There is a pretty narrow political spectrum throughout all of it's articles

mostly they represent the center to radical left

and often in the "walla!" news section (run by haaretz) although there editorials are more moderate they like to mock the majority of the comments to thier articles in pseudo news reports mostly about angry comments insulting thier leftist orientation (which are the majority of the comments they get in "walla!")

Here is an example: http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1136121 (Hebrew)

and thier "analytical sophisticated" articles are mostly there for media bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.55.101 (talk) 16:10, July 13, 2007

There is a difference between a newspaper's editorial position, expressed in its editorials and the views you may feel are represented in its news articles. The statement above compares refers to the viewpoint expressed in editorials ("Haaretz strongly supported ...") and those expressed by guest opinion columnists who don't usually write for the paper ("the op-ed pages of the paper").

However, you have highlighted a sentence in the article that hasn't been attributed properly to a reliable source, so I will add a note that somebody should find independent confirmation of the statement or else it should be removed. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nation

A recent article, usable as a source. . Hornplease 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Haaretz is not a moderate newspaper

Seriously, this newspaper is openly leftist, or at best it is left-of-center. The source testifying to the newspaper's moderate stance comes from the newspaper itself, hardly a reliable independent citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs)

Please read the source. It is a summary of a special issue of Yisrael, a Journal for the Study of Zionism and the State of Israel, titled "Haaretz: Portrait of a Newspaper" (published in Hebrew). By the use of phrases such as "according to the articles in this journal", it is clear that the article, though it was published by Haaretz, is not the paper's opinion of itself. Would a newspaper write of itself:

• Furthermore, from its very inception, apparently, "Haaretz has been disturbed by the leftward movement in the economy."
• Haaretz saw itself as having a statesmanlike status, but in actuality it represented the Ashkenazi middle class and in its name, related critically, if not anxiously, to the immigration of Jews from North Africa.
• Haaretz does not address the periphery and even on the page of clever trivia in the magazine, they write only about Tel Aviv and its environs.

As I wrote to you yesterday, if you want the article to say something different about the editorial position of Haaretz,, find a reliable source that says so. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are much too light to be real criticism, instead those are legitimate self-criticisms and facts. Real criticism would go much deeper. --Shuki 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Haaretz is extremely left in foreign policy,in economic it support in the right wing.Oren.tal (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz Internet Edition allows racist readers' comments

I added yesterday that Haaretz Internet Edition allows racist comments against Middle Eastern and Ethiopian Jews. I linked the addition to two Haaretz articles replete with racist comments. One of them refered to Ethiopians as "black garbage." I was surprised today to find that the user malik shabaz deleted my contribution on the grounds that it is not based on vp-rs. This is preposterous: it is based on Haaretz itself. Reviewing further edits by malik shabaz I see that other contributors added similar information and were also deleted by the user malik shabaz. I now read shuki's comment below and the user complains of protective editing by the user malik. Are we opening Misplaced Pages to the public in order to know the truth, as perceived by the public, or in order to do free PR to institutions? The user malik is invited to explain why the pudding needs proof outside of the pudding. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to judge a site's political alignment from it's articles' comments is like trying to judge a nation's health from the number of sick people in its hospitals. Any Israeli will tell you that news websites' comments are rarely moderated and typically contain a great deal of racism. Haaretz is no different in this aspect from any other news website. Rami R 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not judging, just providing information. If "Any Israeli will tell you," then Misplaced Pages should. Why does the English-language edition not contain racist comments and the Hebrew edition is replete with them? This is not judgment but statement of fact.Wikiwikidoc (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote when I undid your edit, your statement is true. It is true of the English website as well as the Hebrew site. However, Misplaced Pages policy requires that a statement of this nature be attributed to a reliable source. A reliable source is a second-hand article about the phenomenon, not examples of the phenomenon itself. The English website changed its Talkback guidelines not long ago. I'll see if I can find an article about it, which may be a reliable source about the problems with the free-for-all Talkback in the past. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, you are stifling knowledge. You've wrongly removed my last entry for the second time instead of adding a comment of your own and allowing the entry to develop. If you say that my "statement is true," you have no right to delete it on account of your misinterpretation of a rule. An entry for a major newspaper such as Haaretz should contain by now real information and more than 500 words. You've pruned every real information other contributors added. I will re-edit my entry now, stating facts only. I hope you restrain yourself this time.Wikiwikidoc (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are editting in error. Wikidoc has stated a fact, that these comments exist, and brought them to the article as proof for posterity. This is not OR, no comment about this needing a RS or external quote to tell us these comments exist. It does not matter if you find an RS about their policy, the fact is that these comments are currently online and have not been censored. Again, no comment has been made about editorial policy, and whether these talkbacks represent the newspaper or not. --Shuki (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. If you want to discuss the reader feedback on the Haaretz websites, you need to find thrid-party sources, not examples of talk pages. The use of examples is original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

gilabrand removed this statement of fact: Reader's comments have included statements such as, "Who needs this black garbage," refering to Ethiopian immigrants (Comment 59 on Haaretz article, "Harlem, Rehovot," published online since October 18, 2007). http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/913923.html gilabrand's reason for this absurd edit is "quoting reader's letter is not a fact." The fact is the reader's comment, nothing else. Can gilabrand explain this seemingly Orwellian edit? Wikiwikidoc (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that quoting a reader's opinion on a talkback is not an encyclopedic entry. Your reasons for including this material is suspect. But I agree that a section about Haaretz's talkback policy is a good idea, and have written one, including a source that sheds light on the issue. --Gilabrand (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is shaky, and I doubt your motives. Your new edit apologizes for a faulty policy, instead of stating the facts and only the facts as should be in an unbiased, independent encylopedia. Recruiting Brandeis is really over the hill: in the name of freedom of speech you are stifling debate and defending a policy that allows racists to use Haaretz's platform for spreading racial hatred. Hate speech is not protected by Israel's laws, neither by the First Amendment. Calling Ethiopians "Black Garbage" in 2008 in Israel's "progressive daily" is something to turn the light on, not leave in the dark. I will therefore edit your comment to leave the facts and remove the apology. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwikidoc, please read the relevant Misplaced Pages policies concerning verifiability and original research and the guideline concerning reliable sources. Until you have a basic understanding of those policies, there's no point in discussing this issue further. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not reading but interpreting. Knowledge should be spread, not restricted. Your interpretation and history of censorship is obvious to all. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What a reader writes in cyberspace does not reflect on Haaretz, and your insisting doesn't make it so. The talkbacks are full of vicious statements about Israel, Haaretz, Jews, Arabs, religious people, Haaretz columnists, gays, Americans, Europeans, and the list goes on. Are you going to quote them all? None of this qualifies as "knowledge" that needs to be spread.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not just cyberspace, but Haaretz's cyberspace. Haaretz publishes an article and invites readers to comment. These comments would have not been there had Haaretz not asked for them. The reason for this is ad revenue, not freedom of speech. It is the same as running prostitute ads illegally, which Haaretz was convicted of. Protecting this greedy policy in the name of liberty -- and your deleting links and entries in the name of shedding disinfecting light -- is preposterous. Would the NY Times do same? The Guardian?? They don't, and they know why. Freedom of speech stops where racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and misogyny become incitement. I do not need to quote them all, just state the facts. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

gilabranbd again inserted a quote explaining why spreading racial slurs is good policy, by a "frequent contributor" with very certain point of view. This is apparently a POV entry, and not in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Gilabrand, this is not a PR forum to promote your client. I agreed to your statement of the fact and did not insist on the links that I had provided. I have removed your POV post, and hope that you leave it at that. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing. Fania Oz-Salzberg is a professor at the University of Haifa and daughter of novelist Amos Oz. She is not my client. You will be blocked from Misplaced Pages if you keep up this up. If anyone is using this page as a PR forum, it is you. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand, your threat does not add credibility to your argument. Fania Oz is not an objective source, regardless of who her father is, and should not be quoted.Wikiwikidoc (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rami R. You write: "serious accusations are made on this page against Haaretz, it is only fair (and neutral) to include Haaretz's statement on the matter) I don't see any accusations on the page you are referring to. Why take such defensive action? Wikiwikidoc (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Malik, seriously, posting the URLs of two specific Haaretz articles, is itself a record of fact. This meats the ultimate form of verifiability - the next thing after a copy&paste. We don't need some professor to tell us these URLs exist. We would need a third party to back a claim or interpretation about these URLs, but the latest editing only stated that these URLs existed, nothing more. As for your insisting on third party, tell me, does the entire first paragraph need third-party sources as well? How do we know that Haaretz is really a daily, and berliner, and published in Hebrew? I suggest you actually read what is being printed before yelling OR and RS to try and defend an edit that you deem opposite to your POV. --Shuki (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with you, Shuki. I read other articles on other newspapers and they are rich with information. This one on an old, history-rich major newspaper is thin, and any attempt to add info is immediately frustrated. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am with Shuki and Wikiwikidoc. Linking to a direct example of a phenomenon is not OR. This quote from Bradley Burston; "For some among the community of the Extreme Talkbacker, the voice of reason is often the voice of racism." is also worth noting. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely non-learning and non-knowledge to guard an article so aggressively as if information is a contagious disease and the institution in question is so weak that a sentence and the mention of facts known to everyone may implode it. The manipulated evolution of Burston's powerful quote to the meek paraphrase in the article testifies to the bias of the editor who inserted it as a fig leaf. This is anti-intellectual and it reeks of cronyism and tribalism. Knowledge should not scare anyone, as words do not destroy. The Misplaced Pages article on Haaretz should be allowed to flourish, just as the articles on the New York Times and the Guardian are allowed, to the glory of these venerable institutions. Israeli cultural wars and sensitivities, and the old Diaspora anxieties of persecution, should give way to the joy of knowledge and openness. What I am asking for is what Justice Brandeis preached, a little bit of sunshine. Wikiwikidoc (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz as a leftist newspaper

In order to assert that Haaretz is a leftist newspaper, you need a verifiable reliable source that says so. An article about how the Israeli and Palestinian press responds to a current event, with capsule descriptions of newspapers such as "top circulation Yediot Aharonot" and "leftist Ha'aretz", is not a reliable source concerning the circulation of Yedioth Ahronoth or the editorial stance of Haaretz.

Also, the "fact" that "everyone in Israel consider it as leftist" doesn't matter. Unless a reliable source describes the newspaper as leftist, the Misplaced Pages article can't do so. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

B.B.C. is verifiable reliable source and it labels Ha'aretz as leftist.The fact that the article is not on Haaretz don't change the fact that it label Haaretz leftist.Moreover the opinion in Israel about this is important.See the case of the Guardian.Oren.tal (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still haven't produced any reliable sources. (a) Steven Plaut (the origin of three of the sources) is a polemicist, not a WP:RS, (b) Israel Academia Monitor describes a writer as a "far-leftist", not the newspaper, (c) Brijit describes Shocken's politics as leftist (i.e., the views of the newspaper's owner), not the editorial stance of Haaretz, and (d) see above concerning the BBC. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

B.B.C. is reliable source.As for the issue of newspaper,there is no rule in wikipedia that source should be newspaper.Oren.tal (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked three other editors who have made many edits to the article — User:Gilabrand, User:Shuki, and User:Mazeartist — to comment on this disagreement. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you need to talk to administrator to resolve the problem.But you way is against wikipedia rules.read WP:MEAT and next time you such thing I will complain on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21:25, February 12, 2008 (talk • contribs) Oren.tal

It is not unusual to ask other editors for their views, and it certainly isn't against any rules. Perhaps you should read the policy you linked to. First of all, it doesn't describe my actions. Second, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." Finally, if you read the rest of this page, you'll see that User:Mazeartist agrees with you that Haaretz is leftist, and User:Shuki and I have disagreed about other issues including whether sources are WP:RS. Meatpuppets indeed! If you think I've done something wrong, please report me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz is right, and threatening him only reflects on you. Haaretz is not "a leftist paper" but it allows left-wing views to be published, as opposed to other papers in Israel. It does so despite the fact that it upsets many readers, who call in to cancel their subscriptions (while continuing to read the paper on-line). --Gilabrand (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I only gave him a warning instead of immediately reporting to administrator with is what I will do next time.After I gave him the warning.Oren.tal (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I don't want a warning. If you think I've done something wrong, please report me. Please. You're the one who will look foolish. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gila, who are you kidding? IMO, Haaretz is a certainly leftist newspaper, but fact is that on WP, you need an RS in order to add that description. But since you disagree that Haaretz is a leftist newspaper, then let's leave it that the left-wing views published in the newspaper are usually blatantly published as news articles giving many people the impression that Haaretz is leftist. Simple misunderstanding by many. In any case, it's too bad about that, otherwise it's a fine publication.

I thought the accusation of MEAT was unfair. Malik seemed to merely want to invite more traffic, and certainly not pad a certain side to the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz is definitely left-wing. The BBC refers to it as such numerous times. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This BBC article ("The press in Israel") might be useful as a source (for this and others) as it directly refers to the paper as being to the left of Yediot and Maariv. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Number 57. That last article is a perfect source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz is indeed left and it doesn't need to be said in comparison to the other newspaper.The source is enough to say that Haaretz is left.In reality Haaretz is far left and from the popular newspaper it is the most leftist.Oren.tal (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that describes it as "far left". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already found.In the future I will get even more into this and I will add the source together with updating the article to describe really reality.Right now the article don't describe Haaretz correctly.Oren.tal (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Haaretz is not "a leftist paper" but it allows left-wing views to be published, as opposed to other papers in Israel." Gilabrand, this is an erroneous and laughable statement. You obviously have not read the Yediot English language website, where some of the articles are even to the Left of Haaretz articles. One author, Yehuda Litani is on record as boycotting all produce from the Jewish settlements. A consistent theme on Ynet is strident opposition to any kind of religious coersion. In fact, unlike Haaretz (which, lets face it, is oriented clearly to the Left and naturally errs on the side of criticism of Israel), Ynet represents a true democratic mix of points of view, from the Far Left to the Far Right, and from the stridently pro-Palestinian to the stridently pro-Israel. Jerusalem Post is more to the right of center (in part as a response to Haaretz being on the Left). However, a close look at Jpost indicates that it is more amenable to articles that differ from its "standard line" than is Haaretz. The articles and editorials by Larry Derfner would make any Rightist cringe. Those by Daoud Kuttab differ little, if at all, from the positions of the Palestinian Authority.

--Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Davidson,indeed you have said it right.Haaretz is to the left.Oren.tal (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I have found a reliable source that claim that Haaretz is leftist and the source is NOT bias against the left.Oren.tal (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but a 9/11 conspiracy website is not a reliable source. Boodlesthecat 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but even if it is not reliable as news about 9/11 as a left wing website it is reliable to talk about other as left wing.Just like Islamic website is reliable source about Islam but not about Christianity.And it is not 9/11 conspiracy website though it has part about this.Oren.tal (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what wikipedia say: "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." The 9/11 is irrelevant in this context.Oren.tal (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously. Conspiracy websites are not a reliable source for judging the editorial policy of a mainstream newspaper. There is no way the source you are inserting fits the description for credibility and reliability and trustworthiness you quoted above. If you disagree, please request comment, but until then please do not revert claims sourced to a reference that clearly fails WP:RS. Boodlesthecat 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

it is not conspiracy website.It is leftist website that have section about conspiracy theory.Leftist website is reliable source to talk about other website as leftist.The main issue of this website is clearly NOT 9/11 conspiracy theories.Oren.tal (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

well it is doesn't really matter now I have Mondo Times as I source and this is reliable and not conspiracy website.Oren.tal (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/il/235/4739/12153

I have edited the article only because I have now new source.Oren.tal (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the BBC article. It has nothing to do with Haaretz, except that it mentions it in an off-hand way. A source about Haaretz, like the "Mondo Times" site, is one thing (though that may not be a WP:RS), but a source that has a passing mention of Haaretz is another. — ] (] · ]) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the fact that it mentions it in an off-hand way doesn't mean that it is not reliable source and this is not reason to reject it.It is enough that the article label it as left wing.and Mondo Times is WP:RS.132.72.150.79 Oren.tal (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning whether the BBC is a reliable source. The problem is that the article isn't about Haaretz. It isn't an appropriate source for this article, just as it wouldn't be appropriate for Maariv or public radio or George W. Bush. — ] (] · ]) 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly suggest you refrain from editing this page until you thoroughly read WP:V and gain a proper understanding of how wikipedia is sourced. There is no limitation on where references can be used in article space. This particular source can be potentially be used to cite many things on various related and unrelated wikipedia articles. --neon white talk 02:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I guess you don't have anything substantive to add to the discussion. — ] (] · ]) 04:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz it would be appropriate for Maariv or public radio or George W. Bush.There is no law that the article itself must to be engage in that.it is enough that the article claim this.There is nothing in wikipedia law that that the article itself must to be about the subject.B.B.C. as news source is reliable source in that context.It is ridicules to say that some of its articles are reliable and other are not.Oren.tal (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz left wing

I add source that backed that claim. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/634.cfm I also add source to accurate Haaretz influence.Oren.tal (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The source Haaretz as a "self-styled liberal newspaper", not as a "truly left-wing newspaper", and says that "Ha’aretz is living up to its liberal self-definition". Not "left-wing", liberal. — ] (] · ]) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

yes it does.You need to read better

"But even a cursory look at daily newspapers in Israel reveals another truth. With the possible exception of the self-styled liberal newspaper Ha’aretz, truly left-wing newspapers have disappeared. " Haaretz is the exception of the disappearance of left wing newspapers which mean that Haaretz is left wingOren.tal (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no need to attack my reading ability. Second, the article says that with the possible exception of Haaretz, meaning that it is doubtful that Haaretz is a left-wing newspaper.

Finally, if Britannica says that a newspaper's influence is "second to none", that means it's the most influential newspaper ("second to none" = "first"). — ] (] · ]) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept that you know better English than me I will suggest to leave it as second to none since according to you it mean first.I searched of dictionary definition for that phrase and I have not found.It doesn't make sense that it will be first since it has very small readers.Oren.tal (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Don't ignore from the discussion.until you answer to Jacob Davidson I don't see reason to change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) this is user oren tal.sorry for not log it.

Haaretz influence

Britannica define it as "Haʾaretz’s influence and prestige are second to none in Israel, " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and "second to none" means "nobody is more influential". — ] (] · ]) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

so lets leave it as "second to none" since it mean anyway no body is more influential.We can agree on second to none anyway.It mean the same thing according to you.O.K. you are right.SorryOren.tal (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"the article is irrelvant as it mention Haaretz only by the way"

You can't have it both ways, Oren.tal. That's the article you brought as a source. Either the article is a WP:RS with respect to Haaretz being a left-wing newspaper (which it doesn't say), or it's irrelevant because it barely mentions Haaretz. It can't be both. — ] (] · ]) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC) That article was used as source because of the sentence.Not everything that used as source is worth to be in external link. The article is clearly not about Haaretz but it mention it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article reads "Mr Sharon, previously viewed as a champion of settlers, first revealed his intentions for Gaza in an interview with the left-wing Haaretz newspaper.". This is a citation for left wing in a reliable source. --neon white talk 13:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

neon white you are very right.it is enough to be used as source.

I talked about article in external link,article that just mention Haaretz is not worth to be included in external link.The subject of the article should be Haaretz.That why the article good as source but not as external link.Oren.tal (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, it was being removed as a reference rather than as an external link. --neon white talk 17:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. — ] (] · ]) 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

source can be everything reliable that claim what is suppose to claim.External link doesn't have to be even reliable but relevant.this is not my thought but wikipedia lawsOren.tal (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A passing comment in the BBC in an article about an entirely different subject is not a reliable source for assessing Haaretz. Boodlesthecat 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

it is not a comment but part of a report.In this report Haaretz is labeled as left wing and that is enough to be consider as reliable source.It is NOT according to POV that you like or don't like.It is according to B.B.C. being reliable source that label it as such.Oren.tal (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, it's unbelievable that this is even controversial. --neon white talk 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<-------The issue here isnt whether the BBC is a reliable source, its an issue about how Haaretz is characterized in an article about Haaretz. The majority of source characterize it as liberal; however, one editor is intent on characterizing Haaretz as "Left wing" by hook or crook. Look in the article history and see how he constantly scours the net for any source to present that (his) opinion, ignoring the majority if WP:RS's that describe Haaretz as liberal. We dont include every last iota of information available on the net to characterize a subject. Finding one BBC article on an entirely different subject that uses the term "left wing" does not need to be included just because its the BBC. And note that a separate BBC article that is used, which actually is about the press in Israel, does NOT use that characterization. Boodlesthecat 14:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the B.B.C. article about Haaretz say that it is left to Yediot and that make it left wing.Moreover being liberal don't contradict being left wing.You should stop using the argument more sources categorize it as liberal.There is no contradiction and this is not argument.That B.B.C. article label it as left wing and since the B.B.C. is reliable source it is enough.Oren.tal (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BBC overwhelmingly characterizes Haaretz as "liberal"

There are far more instances of the BBC describing Haaretz as liberal for eg here and here and here and here and here and here just to name a few compared to the one isolated instance it cites "left wing". Based on this review, I am removing the one off "left wing" citation. Although it is sourced to a reliable source (the BBC) it clearly does not represent how the BBC generally characterizes Haaretz. Boodlesthecat 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

calling Haaretz liberal don't contradict calling it left wing.The fact is that there is reliable source that call Haaretz left wing and that is enough to enter that claim to the article according to wikipedia policy.You need to get that liberal don't contradict left wing.You can not use in the claim "it is liberal therefore it is not left wing".it is false claim.Liberal can be left wing or right wing. Oren.tal (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism is generally at odds with right wing ideals. Liberalism is part of left wing ideals which you can see in the relevant articles. They arent exclusive and other sources using a different adjective does not contradict the sources. The article represents all views. --neon white talk 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and since we are including the views of the BBC, it's typical characterization of Haaretz is "liberal."Boodlesthecat 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We cannot say that something is 'typical' or the publication is 'sometimes' or 'often' called something based on the sources you have found this is a novel piece of research. It's not up to us to draw conclusions about how often certain terms are used we can only include the terms and sources and let the reader decide. --neon white talk 17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neon white you are right.Moreover the B.B.C. called it left wing more than once.Oren.tal (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neon white, please reread WP:NOR as you seem to be misrepresenting it. The problem would be solved if it was simply stated that "The editorial policy of Haaretz is liberal" based on the vast majority of how reliable sources characterize it. But one POV pushing editor, with your support via your own novel interpretations of Wiki guidelines, is making a muck of this by insisting that his own personal view of the paper as "left wing" be represented in the article by scouring the net for backing sources.Boodlesthecat 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

it is not POV if there are sources that support in that.Moreover you still bring that issue of liberal as if it relevant.Many source also say that "Haaretz was first published in 1918 as a newspaper sponsored by the British military government in Palestine".However that is not a reason to dismiss it as liberal.The same go here.The fact is that liberal don't contradict left wing therefore more sources describe it as liberals is not argument against Haaretz as left wing.Stop repeating false argument,I have already explain that to you.Liberal can still be left wing.and Boodlesthecat it is you who going against wikipedia laws.Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you can reject it when it is supported by source.Oren.tal (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dont use this talk page for insults and rants, and please don't lecture me on wikipedia "laws", particularly since you are a new editor with a clear personal agenda here. Boodlesthecat 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have impertinence to blame me in insulting after you have said that I am trolling the Internet.It is actually very clear that you have an agenda and that is why you try to reject reliable source.now I suggest that you will prevent from personal attack against me.and I will mention wikipedia laws whenever it is needed.Oren.tal (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<-First, can you tell the qualitative difference between the articles cited by Boodlesthecat, which are generally about the Israeli press, and an off-hand mention of Haaretz in a news article about Ariel Sharon?

Second, is the BBC's characterization of Haaretz important enough that it warrants a sentence of its own in the article? Why aren't these sources simply used to bolster the two descriptors already in the article ("liberal" and "left-leaning")? — ] (] · ]) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz stop using in that excuse of off-hand mention.It has nothing to do with wikipedia policy and I have seen many source that6 have used even though the they mention the issue as off-hand.second there are sources that mention it as left wing.If you want it can be mention as liberal and left wing.But not only liberal and left leaning.And before you remove sentence from source speak and explain why.refrain from personal attack or personal accusation.calling me cherry picker is personal accusation.Oren.tal (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal accusation. I've accurately described what you're doing: out of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of references to Haaretz, you cherry-picked the two from the BBC that refer to it as "leftist". Even among the references in the BBC, those two are isolated references.

Anyway, you haven't responded to my question. Why is the BBC important enough that their description of Haaretz gets a sentence of its own? Is the BBC known for its reporting about other media, the way (for example) the Columbia Journalism Review is? If not, why does the BBC merit a sentence of their own? Please read WP:UNDUE before you respond. — ] (] · ]) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because B.B.C. is reliable source.if there are reliable sources then the claim should be mention.I have already told you that in the Israel context Haaretz is radical left wing.You said that you want source.You get source and then you whine.What is it with you.B.B.C. is enough reliable article the fact that there are many other article about Haaretz that talk about many thing is irrelevant.You must stop that game.One sentence that from reliable source that say that Haaretz is left wing is enough because it stand in the criteria.I really can not believe this you continue to ask this question.In regard to WP:UNDUE.We don't give much detail about this issue but just mention it.this is not giving over weight.Oren.tal (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As you have seen the B.B.C. do report about other media.And it has been use as source in other article.B.B.C. is reliable source and can not be more reliable source than this.Oren.tal (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Why is the BBC any more important than the other reliable sources that describe the editorial policy of Haaretz? None of them gets a sentence of their own. Why does the BBC?

And since you don't seem to understand WP:UNDUE, let me spell it out for you:

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Now please explain why the BBC and its description of Haaretz is so much more important than any of the other reliable sources cited in the article? — ] (] · ]) 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: There are many sources that are more reliable than the BBC, and some of them are cited in the article vis-à-vis the editorial position of Haaretz. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". Maybe you should read Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before you make bold and incorrect statements. Just a suggestion. — ] (] · ]) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

you are entitle to suggest what ever you want.The B.B.C. is not more important than other sources but also not less than other source.If there is reliable sources that say that Haaretz is left wing then Misplaced Pages should mention Haaretz as left wing.The fact that the other source say that Haaretz is liberal is irrelevant because liberal doesn'r contradict lefty wing.I have no problem with the source that say that Haaretz is liberal but you need that it doesn't contradict Haaretz being left wing thus irrelevant.I know that I am repeating myself but just want to make it clear.As for the sentence in the reference.it is not cherry picking but citing the relevant sentence.If you will object to cite them again then I will ask administrator about the policy and if you are right then so be it.But I know that you are wrong about this issue.Oren.tal (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way I have found source that label Haaretz as extreme left-wing. http://www.newsmakingnews.com/chamishgillon.htm I need to check if this can be included.Oren.tal (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reuters label Haaretz as left wing. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL24528048 due to this I remove the B.B.C. mention it to mention as.Oren.tal (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the new reliable sources that I have add this all thread is irrelevant.Oren.tal (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think some of those are very good sources. — ] (] · ]) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you.Oren.tal (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion (I came here after seeing User:Neon white's entry at reliable sources noticeboard). POV editing is a necessary evil, but the conduct here goes much further - it's a clear attempt to breach UNDUE (and hence NPOV) with FRINGE. Unless and until sources (good ones, the WorldPress article doesn't say this, and I'm not sure Reuters do) that label Haaretz as predominantly liberal rather than left-wing, then only "Liberal" should show in the info-box. A discussion on it being "left-wing" might belong in a separate section, a form of controversy, but I doubt if it's justified based on what I've seen so far. PR 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In Israel Ha'aratz is known for its support of the Labor and Socialist end of the political spectrum. (From its founding to well into the 1970's the ruling coalition government in Israel was labor/Socialist.) It seems, however, that Norman G. Finklstein thinks that it has recently changed, and moved to the right. I have not followed this discussion, so I don't know if the Finklstein article has been discussed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Irit linor

Irit Linor that cancel her subscription is not just someone and the fact that Haaretz say that it caused wave of cancellation prove it. She is prominent best seller author according to Haaretz.Oren.tal (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs second or third party sourcing. Many people write to editors, they arent that important enough to warrant mention unless it is noted elsewhere. --neon white talk 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

it was mention in other Israeli website.Check the second source,it is in Hebrew but it is important news website in Israel.In anyway Haaretz is enough source for it even without any other source.Oren.tal (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No it isnt, wikipedia isa not based on primary sources. --neon white talk 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

anyway I have added even more second party sources.It was noted in the Israeli media as people can see.Oren.tal (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies a novelist to offer notable criticism of a newspaper? — ] (] · ]) 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

she is not only novelist and she had enough qualifies that it has been mention in Haaretz and other Israeli media.The fact is that she has political program in the radio and that she is a left winger.Oren.tal (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)And the fact that it was reported in the media and the radio all over Israel make it enough important.As you can see the two most viewed Israeli websites (ynet and wall) reported it.Oren.tal (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Also she is political commentator in the radio.Oren.tal (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because this contains claims about a living person the sources need to be good quaility verifiable sources. To qualify as this, the hebrew references need to contain a translation. (see WP:NONENG). These are the only sources that appear to be of any qaulity. I've removed it until this is done. No synthesised claims about 'readers' should be included. It's a weasel word and doesn't seem to be backed up by a sources. --neon white talk 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect the first source is Haaretz article that say that she called it anti Zionist.Haaretz article in that context is excellent source.Read the first source with is also Haaretz article and you will find that it is indeed say that readers accuse Haaretz as being anti Israeli.Your false weak excuse look really bad.It is looked like you don't want any thing bad about Haaretz.I assume good faith though but I wont allow you delet source part of article.It look that every time you search for a new excuse.STOP IT.Oren.tal (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not what you keep adding to the article, it incredible synthesis. Haaretz articles are not second or third party sources, for claims about a living person, it is essentially that we have that. We simply cannot add every single piece of commentary and comments from letters to the editor that has ever appeared in the newspaper to the article. If you can second party source any of it or provide translations it can be readded. I'm giving a warning about not assuming good faith, please imporve your civility and discuss properly, WP:BLP policy is very clear on requiring very good sources. --neon white talk 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz article say that "Readers accused us of being anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist" "A prominent Israeli best-selling author sent us a letter cancelling her subscription and accusing us of being foolishly and wickedly anti-Zionist.".Except from the article from haaretz I have also added third and second source.You can use google translation to translate them.it is very bad translation but at least you will be able to know what they are talking about and that enough.Oren.tal (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A translation needs to be added to the reference or it isn't verifiable and because it concerns a living person it's essential. What readers have said in letters to the paper is not relevant unless a second party source has noted it. --neon white talk 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is translation in the source but it is not needed because everything that was written in the line is verified by the first source with is Haaretz itself.Oren.tal (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The section you keep adding this to is "Editorial Policy." It's an entirely inappropriate section. And what you are taking that snippet from is an editorial by the paper's publisher, in which he gives an extended discussion of the evolution of the paper's editorial policy. You simply fished an incident mentioned in the editorial to highlight (as you seem to be committed to doing) a negative claim about Haaretz. This is inappropriate. Boodlesthecat 15:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

the event was important enough as it was mention in almost all Israeli media.The letter is about the editorial policy and as such it is belong to there.Her letter was about the editorial policy.If the nation praise of Haaretz belong to there so should be her letter.Also if you check the article about the Guardian you will see it is also talk about the reader view in the editorial section.Oren.tal (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it very clear Irit criticism is notable and it was mention in the Israeli radio channel as well in the two most popular website in Israel.I gave link to those website.moreover if it were not notable then the publisher would not have written letter to response,but he did.It was widely notable in Israel.International it was less notable but since this is Israeli newspaper that is enough.Oren.tal (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway here is one more source left wing web site: http://www.ajpme.org/articles/operationd.htm "Ha'aretz, is currently the target of a consumer boycott for its alleged anti-Zionist tendencies. One-time leftist Irit Linor triggered the campaign by publicly canceling her subscription. "I don't want to be a subscriber to a newspaper that makes me ashamed of my Zionism, my patriotism, and my intelligence, three traits I hold dear," Linor wrote. The letter, published on a leading Israeli news site, provoked an unprecedented number of responses. Some 300 surfers wrote in, the overwhelming majority to support Linor, and even to announce that they too were canceling their subscriptions to Ha'aretz."Oren.tal (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Description in the lead

First I would ask if these two sentences are redundant? Both are found in the lead:

• -Its editorial pages are considered more influential among government leaders.

The reference for the above is a highly charged political piece with the author making his own claims and expressing his own opinion. This is not the result of a serious survey or poll:

"There sits Haaretz, Israel’s self-proclaimed paper of record... Despite its lower circulation — about eighty thousand daily compared to six hundred thousand for Yedioth Ahronoth and four hundred thousand for Maariv — Haaretz’s news and editorial pages have serious impact. No one in the power elite can afford to ignore its daily, unsigned editorial. Like The New York Times, Le Monde, and The Guardian, it sees itself as a player, ...."

I suggest that one cannot make the claim ("considered more influential among government leaders") based on that one reference. The second (redundant) sentence in the article is a little lower down:

• - Haaretz's readership includes Israel's middle and upper classes, intellectuals, academics, and professionals. It has a wide following amongst the Israeli intelligentsia and government leaders.

So I looked up all the references given ():

• - the first, The culture and customs of Israel which can be found here: does not seem to support the statement at all.

• - the second, Popular Music and National Culture in Israel says "Three daily newspapers have dominated the press in Israel since the 1950's: Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz. The first two are wide-circulation newspapers, rivals since the 1950's. Haaretz is the Israeli "thinking people's" newspaper, read by intellectuals, academics, and professionals. pg 38"

The problem here is that the source says nothing about Israeli government leaders. And "Israeli's ...intellectuals" and "Israeli intelligentsia" which follows in the next sentence also redundant. Nor is this comment sourced to anything except the author's opinion. Is the author implying that intellectuals and academics and professionals do not read Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv? What about the "upper classes" mentioned?

• - the third, Media Decentralization: The Case of Israel's Local Newspapers can be found here:

"The three dailies, unlike all the others, share a certain personal and/or intellectual affinity with the middle class. In other words their editors and owners are identified with the center-right parties of the political spectrum, even though all three are institutionally and formally independent(Galnoor 1982, 250)"

Ha'aretz right of center? This is contradicted by the author as well a short bit later. Also, the reference that he is making is over 25 years old

"Ha'aretz, the only morning paper among the three, is also the only independent morning paper. It is considered the quality newspaper in Israel (Merrill 1968) because it insists on maintaining very high standards: its language is superb, its columnists superior, and its information reliable."

Based on a reference 40 years old? I think things in the newspaper business have changed a lot over 40 years.

"From the very outset Ha'aretz was accepted by the Yishuv middle class; to this day, it is considered to be a liberal-leaning newspaper of the petit bourgeoisie."

Obviously conflicts with an earlier sentence. Petit bourgeoisie? lol. Was this written in grandpa's day? So far nothing about "upper class..."

"Consecutive surveys show that Ha'aretz is popular among readers born in Western countries-- i.e. Europe and North America-- and locally born residents whose families originated in those countries. The percentage of the population reading it also increases proportionately with education, income, and age."

This book was written in 1986, and is using references much earlier. I do think it interesting that at least 25 years ago it was read mostly by Western Israelis, but unless one compares the reading public of all the papers in regard to education, income and age, it does not really tell us much.

I suggest we re-write the lead and stick with contemporary facts we can reference, as well as cutting out the redundancies. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Political allegiance

Per Template talk:Infobox Newspaper, political allegiance is intended to refer to allegiance to a political party, not the newspaper's editorial viewpoint.

"the option is still useful for newspapers in the UK and other places where newspapers formally align themselves with political parties"

"Maybe should be renamed to political allegiance, to denote the relationship to a political party? Otherwise it seems to be a parameter that can only result in POV. If a newspaper has a 'conservative' journalist, it can be said so in the article, this does not make the newspaper as a whole 'conservative'."

Please read the other comments on the Template Talk page, where the consensus is that the field is too POV to use unless the newspaper's editorial alliance is stated. — ] (] · ]) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see for example Guardian,Times,Telegraph in all of the Political allegiance is mentioned even though they do NOT allegiance to a political party.In the same way it should be mentioned in Haaretz case.Oren.tal (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Second you and one anonymous user is NOT consensus.Oren.tal (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, it's worth noting that you have been engaged in edit wars over (some of) those newspapers' political allegiances.

Second, the fact that somebody else is doing something wrong is no excuse to follow them down the wrong path.

Finally, I'm not talking about any consensus regarding this article, I'm talking about the proper use of the template. — ] (] · ]) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is the case in all important English newspapera.As for involving in "edit wars" last time I have edited anything there was a long time ago.In any case I have the link you supplied and there is only discussion about this.Clearly that the way it is implemented is the other way.Oren.tal (talk)

Talk:The Guardian#Infobox "Political allegiance" again: "User Oren.tal has just changed the stance from "centre left" to "left wing" with a cite to "Cybercast News Service which has a story "Left Wing UK Paper Pulls Bush Assassination Column", a pretty much non-story from 2004."

Somebody has a penchant for trawling the internet, looking to label newspapers and organizations "left wing". — ] (] · ]) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please no personal attack.Second if you look your edits then you will see that you like to do the opposit.In any case it is not relevant to the point and the point is that Political allegiance is mentioned with or without any connection to party.Oren.tal (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, that's not a personal attack.

Second, as I wrote, just because somebody else is wrong doesn't mean we should emulate them. — ] (] · ]) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

political allegiance is mentioned in four most important British newspapers even though they are not allegiance to any political party.Also your claim about the template is false.There is discussion there but no such law.You are just trying to distract from the subject.Oren.tal (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

relevant edit -

Heyo Malik,
I'm not sure I'm following the 'political party' concern from the top of this thread. Can you please refer me to some form of wide consensus on this issue? Thanks! p.s. Oren, would be best to avoid personal comments; stick to content (e.g. edits and concerns). Jaakobou 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. to the subject there is no debate that there are reliable source that Haaretz is left wing.

Take a look in the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haaretz#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22

He said "I agree".His only claim is that since left wing is not allegiance to a party therefore it should not be mentioned.However it is mentioned in the four most important British newspaper Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The Independent.That why it should be mentioned in the case of Haaretz.Oren.tal (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the field was changed from "political" to "political allegiance" 2-1/2 years ago to reflect the intention that it reflect allegiance to a political party. See the discussion at ], Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#"political" line, and Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#political -> political allegiance. — ] (] · ]) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

well when it is about political party then you can say "political allegiance".When it is not then you can just say political.In any case this was the policy in all four major British newspaper and I see no reason why it should not be in the case of Haaretz.What Malik show is a discussion and NOT rule.Oren.tal (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or to say it more clear it is one user opinion and NOT law of wikipedia as everyone can see in the cases of Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The IndependentOren.tal (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oren.tal is correct, there is absolutely no indication that this is intended to refer to a political party in fact the discussion listed above suggest otherwise, if you know of any such guidelines please provide them. Without guidelines it's practicle to refer to the common usage. The discussions listed above were all left years ago without a consensus forming. --neon white talk 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Political allegiance means they are loyal or devoted to some cause or agenda. It can either be a stated allegiance or a hidden one. If it is a stated one, there should be no argument, because there shouldn't be any problem to provide a reference to such a statement. If it is a hidden one, or at least an unstated one, this labelling should be based on a widely-accepted view that the paper is indeed so, otherwise it is merely a POV. This is demonstrated nicely in this very article, where Haaretz is described as having an anti-Israeli bias by some and as having a pro-Israeli bias by others. This is clear indication that there is no general agreement even about whether the paper is biased and towards whom, let alone political allegiance. So I think it would require extraordinary evidence to prove that Haaretz is indeed allegiant to some political cause, not just someone's opinion. In other words, this should be determined authoritatively, not by some media watch group which has their own agenda.

Their "allegiance" to a liberal worldview is stated by their website. Personally I think this is something any journal aspires to be, along with objective, fair and professional, not necessarily a particular political agenda, but I can live with it. Their allegiance to a left-wing worldview, however, is POV and is not supported by their own words, nor by an authoritative consensus of any sort. At least none has been presented here thus far.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

their allegiance to a left-wing is supported by many reliable sources and is not less valid then the allegiances that is mention in the article of the British newspaper.sources for example:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/01/31/israels_olmert_looks_to_extend_west_bank_barrier/

http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=28406

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3451497.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL24528048

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGNGSVV

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/3706.html

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081112/FOREIGN/810802752/1041

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/7138506.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/opinion/main3590357.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p06s02-wome.html

This is more than enough.Oren.tal (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Their allegiance to a left-wing is supported by an authoritative consensus.Oren.tal (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not supported by "an authoritative consensus," it's supported by a bunch of other news media quotes you hand-selected using the phrase "left wing." Many other sources describe it as "liberal." In fact, there are very many instances of the phrase "liberal newspaper Haaretz" tio be found. So please tone down the authoritative attitude based on some handpicked sources presented to illustrate your own POV, and try and reach consensus. And a major factor to be weighed is how Harretz descibes itself, which, as we note in the article is as follows :"Haaretz is an independent daily newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs." that self description weighs more heavily than handpicked sources. Boodlesthecat 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the New York Times motto is "All the news that's fit to print" Of COurse we don't believe them. That's why Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources. Self descriptions can be included - for what they're worth - but Misplaced Pages does not rely on them!Historicist (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense." Well, there's a thoughtful reply. But anyway, since you propose that the objectivity of these news sources is basically a worthless commodity, why on Earth would we rely on them to calibrate the political positioning of rival enterprises? There are many such "secondary sources" that consider, for example, that Barack Obama is a socialist, or "left wing." Should we put that in his info box? It seems the sensible thing to do is indicate that they are self described as "liberal" (which to some sources, depending where they are located in the political positioning system, may be considered far left wing, while to a Marxist source, it may be considered mealy mouthed bourgeois accommodationist sellout.) But the fact is, Oren.tal's handpicked sources are just that--hand-picked. Boodlesthecat 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The left-of-center nature of Haaretz is not only extremely well-sourced, it's well-documented in the article. The edit-warring and removal of the CAT violates several Misplaced Pages standards.Historicist (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat Some of the news sources are left wing themselves.And they are too many to dismiss them.Oren.tal (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources you list above could be characterized as "left wing" (and please note Global Exchange is not a reliable secondary source for characterizing the orientation of a newspaper). Boodlesthecat 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspet that Boodles thecat has never read the Boston Globe. Here is a self-description taken formthe paper's Misplaced Pages page: " The Globe has a long and proud tradition of being a progressive institution, especially on social issues. We are pro-choice; we're against the death penalty; we're for gay rights. But if people read us carefully, they will find that on a whole series of other issues, we are not knee-jerk. We're for charter schools; we're for any number of business-backed tax breaks. We are a lot more nuanced and subtle than that liberal stereotype does justice to." Of course the globe is left of center.Historicist (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Historicist, I'm missing the part where the Boston Globe is describing itself as "left wing." Can you point it out again? Boodlesthecat 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My personal reading of past discussions fit the notion of the template creator, Slarre, that if a political leanning is clearly addressed, there is room to include the information. As for Haaretz, I do believe, based on my personal experiances as an Israeli, that it was well noted as a left leanning and a liberal , though elitist in approach. There's quite a good number of citations to this matter with mainstream people even calling it anti-Zionist at times. Sources would certainly support that there is nothing controvercial about adding 'Left leanning' and 'Liberal' to the infobox. Cheers, Jaakobou 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "Haaretz Daily Newspaper". Brooklyn College Library. Retrieved 2007-06-20.

• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles