Talk:Haaretz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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 ^Meow? 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.[2]

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.[6][7][8]

So I looked up all the references given ([6][7][8]):

• - the first, The culture and customs of Israel which can be found here: [1] 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: [2]

"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)

I found some more contemporary sources and rewrote the paragraph in question to reflect what the sources say. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:21, 10 December 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 [political] 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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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 - [3]

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^{Chalk Talk} 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/wiki/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}}} is now optional.]], Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#"political" line, and Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#political -> political allegiance. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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 ^Meow? 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 Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. Self descriptions can be included - for what they're worth - but Wikipedia 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 ^Meow? 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Meow? 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Meow? 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

describe itself or not doesn't matter.the Independent is left wing and it is describe Haaretz as left leaning. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ehud-olmert-hostage-to-fortune-406307.html and there are other article like this in the independent and in the Guardian.Oren.tal (talk) 12:35, 10 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^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.I have also talked with some of their Journalists and they admit to be left wing.For example shahar ilan admit that during discussion.

http://cafe.themarker.com/view.php?t=700723#d4417540

"אז גיליתי את אמריקה יש עיתון בשם הארץ עם קרוב לעשרה אחוז מהקוראים שעמדותיו המוצהרות הן שמאליות. " in English it mean "there is one newspaper by the name Haaretz that its declared opinions are left wing."Oren.tal (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• A leaning is a far cry from a political allegiance. A journal loyal to a left-wing agenda wouldn't have regular columnists such as Yisrael Harel (a founder of Yesha Council) and Nadav Shragai, as well as several other staunchly rightists who occasionally write columns. There may be a left leaning, but this cannot be considered "allegiance" to left-wing politics.
• I don't accept that even this "leaning" has been established. Come on, a Reuters report about the West Bank barrier that happens to mention Haaretz and calls it "left-wing"? Is that all you can come up with? A handful of off-hand off-topic remarks calling Haaretz "left-wing" that an ad hoc google search would yield is not a serious reference. If it is indeed so clear that Haaretz is a left-wing journal, why can't anybody provide a serious reference? A review by a scholar or institute of journalism or political science? The Shahar Ilan blog quote is meaningless, he's just one columnist and cannot speak on behalf of the Haaretz editorial board, if these are indeed the "declared opinions", where and when were they declared?--128.139.104.49 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but Haaretz is defiantly left wing and it can be determine by the editorial article.They do have some right center columnists but they are minority and the majority are left wing.In any case the newspaper is labeled by almost anyone as left wing and that list of the sources that describe Haaretz as left wing is including the Independent,the Guardian (both left wing newspapers),new York times,Washington post ,B.B.C. and many more.There is really nothing to discuss here.There are more than enough reliable source to support it as left wing,and almost all newspapers give place to the opposite opinion.Oren.tal (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)As for review, unfortunately there are almost no review generally about Haaretz or any newspaper in English but even the Israeli institution for democracy find it left wing in its attitude.Oren.tal (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)In any case whether Haaretz declare itself as left wing or not it is left wing.It is fact and you can ask every Israeli about this.This facts is also supported by many sources as I have supplied.Oren.tal (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Here is a review about Haaretz allegiance to the left.It is in Hebrew though but still review for anyone that want.Oren.tal (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine you win. Can't discuss anything with someone who says "There is really nothing to discuss here" and is so insistent on winning this campaign to label this paper left wing, . I really can't be bothered. But if yuo don't mind I am removing the refs you put into the info box; it looks ridiculous (and it's a great example of WP:POINT). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the reference are there because they verify the fact that Haaretz is left wing.There is nothing to discuss because it is well documented and you have yet to give any solid argument against.Anyway I put back the references as they are there to verify. Oren.tal (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)when you bring a real argument there will be something to talk about.The claim about self describe is not mention in any wikipedia article about wikipedia policy.Oren.tal (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is "nothing to discuss" why do you keep discussing it? And please read WP:POINT. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:POINT and I keep discussing because you repeat on the same claims after you have proven wrong.You asked for left wing newspapers and I have supplied to you.I have put the Guardian and the independent.Oren.tal (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is "nothing to discuss" why do you keep discussing it? And please re-read WP:POINT. And WP:OWN after you finish WP:POINT. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe you need lesson in English but I have just explained to you why.I have read the OWN and I suggest that you refrain from personal attack.I have supplied many sources to may claim such as B.B.C.,The independent,New York Times,Guardian and Washingtom Post.It seem that you are the one that refuse to admit in this issue.There is law of what can be verfied and people have mentioned to you before that this can be verfied.Oren.tal (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Malik I have view them and you yourself were engaged in personal attack against me.Second thing you have already admitted that the sources are

reliable and your comment are still in thins discussion.The line in the New York Times is "for the left-wing daily, Ha’aretz.".Thre are similar line in all other sources.Oren.tal (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BY the way I have removed the info box classification of their orientation. It does not belong there. It might make sense for, to give an example, L'Unita, which was for years the news publication of the Italian Communist Party. Haaretz has no such affiliation, or direct ownership. Discuss it, if justified at all, in the proper section of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The box belong there and people have explained to you why.One user comment is not wikipedia policy and wikipedia policy have been proven in four article about the most important British newspaper.As for Haaretz being left wing since it can be verified there is nothing really to discuss.Oren.tal (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)The Guardian and the Independent also have no such affiliation and yet there is "Political allegiance" in their infobox.The issue have been explained to Malik as people can view this discussion section.He have been proven wrong and yet he chose to recycle his argument.Oren.tal (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, you really need to calm down. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, and clearly more than one editor disagrees with you, if you read the discussion above (I see at least four who disagree with you). For you to keep saying "there is nothing to discuss" and "He have been proven wrong" and to make personal attacks like "maybe you need lesson in English" is just childish and uncivil. Now calm down. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are the more editor?You and Malik?Beside people can open sock account!The fact is that is well verified.From the New York Times to the independent and even the B.B.C. and the Guardian as well,all describe it as left wing.You have yet to handle with this.When you handle there will be something to talk.In any case Jaakobou,neon white and Historicist support my claim.It is this vs you and malik.So the majority is against you.But in any case it is not an issue of majority or not.It is the fact that is well sourced.It is unbelievable for me that you removed sourced line.I think I will talk with moderator about what should be done in such cases.Oren.tal (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Myself, Malik, Malcolm, and 128.139.104.49 have all disagreed with you. That makes four (4). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Malik (Malcolm Schosha),if you remove the Political allegiance from the infobox of Haaretz due to the argument of "unless it is owned by party then it should not mention Political allegiance" then it will be a violation of WP:IDHT since I and other have shown you that there is no such policy in wikipedia.Oren.tal (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, Who is "Malic"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

if I wrote Malik/Malic then I meant to you.Oren.tal (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's confusing Oren, but I'm Malik and he's Malcolm. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

well I am not sure if it sock account or not.But in any case you can see this comment refer to both of you.Oren.tal (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Oren.tal, you DON'T know if its a "sock account," and the insinuation that it might be violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And when at least four editors disagree with you, obviously WP:IDHT does not apply in support of your argument. So again, calm down. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not sockpuppets, and unlike you, we don't edit as IPs to create the illusion of multiple editors supporting our position. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]])

That's true, Oren.tal, you DON'T know if its a "sock account," and the insinuation that it might be violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And when at least four editors disagree with you, obviously WP:IDHT does not apply in support of your argument. So again, calm down. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I don't know because I don't do not know.As for disagree it is not the point.There is no such wikipedia policy and people have explained that.repeating argument that has been proven as wrong is violation of WP:IDHT because this argument as been proven as wrong.I have shown him four articles that contradict his claim about such policy.If he repeat on the same argument then it is indeed of WP:IDHT.As for not logging in,I don't do this in order to create an illusion and you comment is defiantly personal attack.I some time forget to log in that all.Oren.tal (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)by the way you are only there people (but in any case people can open sock account this is not the issue,I mean your number).Oren.tal (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"I have shown him four articles" "If he repeat on the same argument"---Oren.tal, who is "he"? Who is "him"? Who are you talking to? No one can follow this. You are just yelling at everybody. Please calm down. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren, if you think there are sockpuppets here, please take the matter to WP:SSP. Otherwise drop it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief note that view on a particular newspaper may vary depending on the viewer's viewpoint. One may view X newspaper as left leaning, another may call it commmunist newspaper, right wing analysts may describe it as hard left Stalinist newspaper. The same is applicable where one left leaning analyst may view Y newspaper as rightist. We should be careful before clarifying the stance of a particular newspaper about the source whch is analysing it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

well I think your comment is fair but I have supplied so many sources and varied (including left wing newspapers) so right now there is no claim to remove it.Moreover even Malik Shabazz admitted that the sources are excellent.They can not dismiss such excellent reliable sources such as The New York Times,B.B.C.,The Guardian,The Times,Washington Post,The Independent and many other.Oren.tal (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)All this sources have no reason to be bias.Oren.tal (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat I suggest you will calm down.The message refer to both [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] and talk.Since people explained to them that there is no such policy in wikiepdia and they have yet to supply in wikipedia article to support such claim.It is very clear that it is about the people that using that argument.Oren.tal (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)But Boodlesthecat I believe that some of your edit are close to be violation as well.Oren.tal (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Let us know when you are ready to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of committing "violations" and when you are ready to have an actual discussion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Content discussions

per the following diff - [4]

I'd request a note to please explain this edit. Is it not clear that the paper is liberal? I figured this point, unlike the concerns with the left-wing affiliation, was beyond contention. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"a turn to the more radical left"

Show me where the source says it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

fine it will be a turn to the more left.Oren.tal (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Difference between the two editions?

Is it known (researched) whether there are differences between the Hebrew and English edition? I mean, is everything translated like 1:1 or not? -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the English edition consists of selected articles from the Hebrew paper which is much larger. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then if there is a source for, we could put it in I suggest. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)