Talk:Haaretz

Criticism section and editorial standards

In my opinion, the whole criticism section as it currently stands does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Out of the 4 criticisms, two are isolated incidents, one of which (the Limmud one) is a single source alleging a verbal statement for which I could not find independent verification - reeks of yellow journalism. Furthermore, every single instance of criticism comes from a political opponent with a vested interest in undermining Haaretz' credibility, and I doubt any of it represents mainstream, leave alone impartial points of view. Most Wikipedia articles on media outlets inform the reader about the subject's (true or alleged) political stance without giving a bullet list of politically motivated smears... OneAhead (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As a minimum, the nature of the sources of the criticism must be clarified for international audiences (and since this is en.wikipedia.org , entities should be referred to by their English names whenever possible). I made some edits driven by my quest to answer my own questions ("who is Ayelet Shaked and why should his or her criticism be notable?" "What is a 'Habayit Hayehudi’?" ...) but Avaya1 reverted one of them (2 times). Since the person has been previously blocked for edit warring, currently appears to be sanctioned, and his or her edit reasons seem unconvincing, I will assume it was done in bad faith and revert back. Avaya1, reverting again will be a clear sign of edit warring and may incur further sanctions. Talk it out here in the comments, that's what they're for!

And BTW, I do believe that many of the items in the criticism section are without merit, but instead of deleting them, I'm being nice and just providing "full disclosure" regarding the sources of the criticism. OneAhead (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OneAhead. I think you're right that these criticisms do not meet Wikipedia's standards. It's not just the sourcing, but also the matters of POV pushing and of giving Undo Weight to insignificant criticisms. I fear that by "being nice and just providing 'full disclosure'" we are letting these clutter an otherwise solid article. Perplexed566 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire Criticism section is disturbing in my opinion, since it doesn't provide at least a balanced POV (I mean both negative and positive POVs about the subject of the article). Not to mention the fact that all the current POVs are way far from neutral and unbiased. I hope the amazing Community of Wikipedia will fix this unpleasant situation. AtseTewodrosII (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Haaretz as Israel's most influential newspaper?

The sources are from a decade ago or are referring to Israel in the 20th century when the paper had great influence in Avoda, and as we all know the influence of the paper is today limited outside of (and even inside) Avoda. The situation was different in the 1950s/1960s/1970s when Israel was effectively governed as single-party state. I would propose specifying the time period ('was for many years'), or else we have a misleading sentence. Nobody on earth could argue that Haaretz is more influential in politics than Yedioth Ahronoth in 2017. In terms of reviewing books or cultural events, it is different. Avaya1 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that you re-read WP:V and WP:NOR. Your thoughts about the influence of Haaretz are interesting, but without reliable sources, they don't belong in the article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They're not my thoughts and have been reported in reliable sources. Even the newspaper's former editor says that the paper has lost its political influence. We have sources supporting that the newspaper was the most influential in Israel in a specific time period, not that it is in 2017 (which is unsupportable).Hence the need to qualify the sentence. Avaya1 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you for providing a source. Unfortunately, Google Translate isn't cooperating with me tonight (and it does a rotten job when it does cooperate) and I am only able to understand portions of the article. Also, I don't have a Hebrew keyboard so I don't trust my Ctrl-F search, but I didn't see עבודה in the article. Haaretz may be declining in influence, but (based on my limited ability to see) it didn't look to me like Hanoch Marmari was attributing that to Labor's lack of power.

The solution, however, is not to write our own interpretation ("was for many years"); unless a source says that, we can't say that. What we can do is (a) add to the existing text the dates/years in which statements about its influence were made or, if the sources refer to specific periods, make that clear, and (b) add more sources about its declining influence in recent years. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 - Fixing a typo

There's a typo in the Journalists section:

Change: Sammy Peretz - economic affarirs columnist (in The Marker) To: Sammy Peretz - economic affairs columnist (in The Marker) JaAlDo (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

The ownership is incorrectly stated as being owned 60% Schocken family, 20% Dumont Family, 20% Leonid Nevzlin. The reality is Nevzlin purchased Dumonts 20% plus 5% of the Schocken share so Haaretz ownership is; 75% Schoken Family and 25% Nevzlin. Per Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/shareholders-bought-haaretz-stock-owned-by-m-dumont-schauberg-1.8343399 JustTheT (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)  Done Changes made to both the infobox and the text. Thanks for the information and link. Zero^talk 03:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

Can the Hebrew logo also be added to the infobox (next to the English logo): File:Haaretz_logo.svg? Victor LP (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see in the template only one logo can be used. Though I think we could replace the English with the Hebrew one. Thoughts? nableezy - 21:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that on a scale from 1 to 10, I don't care about this at all, I would assume the English Wikipedia would go with the English logo, which I'm assuming was made for the English speaking audience. Also, I'm going to close the edit request while awaiting editor input, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

After rereading that, it's possible my time wasn't clear. What I was trying to get across is that I support, in the weakest possible terms, using the English logo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove "The Palestine News" as the English name of the newspaper

The name "The Palestine News" appears in the first sentence of the article. This name translates the Hebrew word "Haaretz" (literally land) to "Palestine", which is a baseless translation. Moreover, a reference is given, but the name "The Palestine News" doesn't appear there at all. This name should be removed. Wikiation (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Was added here without a reference by Sokuya. I agree it is not referenced so will remove, Sokuya if you have a source for this feel free to add, but even if it is added it would go in the history section not as a current name. nableezy - 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That was the name of a British paper that became Haaretz after the end of the war. It was never called that otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In Haaretz website they say that Haaretz strated as the Hebrew version of the British newspaper 'The Palestine News' they even put a picture of the first edition from April 1918. Its says "News from the Holy Land" in Hebrew at the top right corner, later shorten to 'News from the Land' and then eventualy it became just "The Land" as we know it today (which is Haaretz in Hebrew). I have no problem for it going under the History section. To provide information to the tens of thousands of soldiers who were in Sinai and southern Palestine, and to the subjects under their rule, the British put out a weekly newspaper called The Palestine News. It was published in no fewer than six languages: English, Arabic and Hebrew [...] The first issue of the Hebrew edition appeared on April 4, 1918 (cost: “one Egyptian piastre”). After one issue, the name was shortened, the word “holy” being deleted – the British discerned that that designation was attributed to the land only in the Hebrew version. After the war ended, the British closed down the newspapers, while putting their licenses up for sale. The Zionist Federation decided to buy the Hebrew-language edition and civilianize it (English ref 2019) (Hebrew ref 2001) Sokuya (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Im cool including that in the history section. nableezy - 19:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way Selfstudier, it was still in use by Haaretz after the war in 1919, see picture in link or just read the text at the top left cornet in the thumb image. The Palestine News is in parentheses and in 1919 it wasn't in British ownership. Sokuya (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Learn something every day, still not entirely clear about it though. http://virtualstampclub.com/lloydblog/?p=8793 (or https://services.israelpost.co.il/mall.nsf/prodsbycode/1376?OpenDocument&L=EN) What do you make of that? (here's another article, idk why they did two https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-haaretz-at-100-always-critical-always-independent-1.7398154). Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

According to my library catalogue, which holds most English issues, the "Palestine News" was published from No. 1 (Mar. 7, 1918) to No. 58 (10 Apr. 1919). Haaretz from 1918 to 1964 can be read here. I notice that there is a gap between April 10, 1919 (when the English Palestine News ceased), to June 18, 1919 (when daily publication began). The last issue with "The Palestine News" in English in the masthead was April 27, 1925. Zero^talk 02:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Haaretz incitement against Haredim (who are not serving in the IDF)

Prior to the massacre in Bnei Brack today Mar 29.22, Nehemia Shtrasler wrote in the hate site "paper" Haaretz (which for some reason is considered a RS here on wiki) against the ultra orthodox Haredim that (overwhelmingly refused and ) don't serve in the army and proposed, asked what would have happened if instead of soldiers, there were Yeshiva students  at the terror scenes. MK Moshe Abutbul: Hopefully now Nehemiah Shtrasler has calmed down[1] Say Nehemiah Sthrasler, an attack with four dead in the ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak is enough or do we need something in Mea Shearim as well?[2] [3] [4][5][6]Truth3v3r (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)