Talk:Haaretz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Haaretz&diff=138154223&oldid=135891974

With this diff another editor provided a reference and removed the "fact tag" http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?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. [1]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[s] it as leftist" doesn't matter. Unless a reliable source describes the newspaper as leftist, the Wikipedia 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 ^Meow? 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: "Wikipedia 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 ^Meow? 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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"). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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 ^Meow? 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 ^Meow? 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 ^Meow? 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 ^Meow? 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 ^Meow? 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 ^Meow? 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")? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you make bold and incorrect statements. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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 Wikipedia 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 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^talk 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 [2] has been discussed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)