From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

My proposal for who's more favorable to whom[edit]

This discussion is continued from above.

Which, as part of my ongoing rewrite, I put in by way of BRD, as the conversation above is largely incomprehensible by now:

A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.

I feel that this accurately reflects the conclusions of the source it's cited to, even more than previous versions because (a) it specifies the exact subject on which Haaretz's reporting is more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians, and (b) it loses the red herring about the NYT. As has been mentioned by many editors, this article is not about the NYT, and that therefore there's no reason to specify that Haaretz is less biased than the NYT any more than to specify that they're less biased than alien voices beamed into the heads of schizophrenics.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I just proposed, "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side' rather than the Palestinian side."
But I'm not opposed to yours. It does accurately portray the same information.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I prefer mine because it is more specific about what kind of stories the source is talking about. The source is specific, so we should be too. Also, I don't think it's necessary to quote so much actual language from the source. Generally we use long quotes when we're quoting unsupported opinions which are nevertheless notable. This material is from a high-quality secondary source, i.e. an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and so we ought to state its conclusions in Wikipedia's voice rather than hiving them off in scare quotes. That's what I think, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Opposed. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's proposal has already been proposed and it does not address the aforementioned concerns. It could derail efforts made to reach a resolution, and it looked like we were very close to that.

What you are doing above is trying to paraphrase by interpreting the source yourself (and/or synthesizing its "conclusions"). Per WP:PSTS, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself...." Indeed, several studies have documented cases of "inconsistencies in data between abstract and body and reporting of data and other information solely in the abstract," (see [1], as well as the frequency of publishing abstracts that inappropriately report or "over-interpret" research results (see [2]). (See also [3][4][5] (describing the frequency of article–abstract disagreement and abstract deficiencies).

For the sake of accuracy and our discussion, it should read:

A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" than the Palestinian side.

--Precision123 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid circular arguments. The argument you give for your preferred version is off-point because the source we're using is not a primary source, it is a secondary source. Therefore nothing you can quote from WP:PSTS is applicable in the least. Rather than arguing by assertion, why not try to say explicitly why your preferred version is better "for the sake of accuracy and our discussion."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Precision123, can you please stop rewriting your talk page comments after others have responded to them? This is a misleading practice which can lead to extreme confusion. After someone's responded to your comment, it's much better to use strikethroughs if you want to change something. See WP:REDACT for details.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not sure why you believe this is not a primary source or why PMTS is not applicable. It is.
I have explained explicitly why our preferred version is better. It avoids controversy per WP:PSTS and WP:QUOTE. It is not based or derived from a sentence in the abstract (which research has shown often does not correspond with information in the body of the article). Our proposal does not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or attempt to paraphrase the source in our own words, which is clearly what was done in your proposal. That is why it is more accurate, neutral, and correct. --Precision123 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In Principal I think everyone can agree that factual information is what we should provide. We have option A and option B. The question most important about either one, are they factual. Is the source accurately represented in A or B? There's a reason for the law. We need only maintain the spirit of the law especially if it is going to cause an argument. Personally I think both examples sound good. I prefer option A. It doesn't sound as monotonous. But I also recognize that option B is a valid choice. Besides the fact that option A does not conform to your stricter interpretation of the rules is there actually anything wrong with it Precision? And Alf besides particular preferce for option A do you see anything wrong with option B?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Option B is better because Option A interprets and attempts to paraphrase the source in Alf's own words.
This is definitely a primary source. Per guidelines on Wikipedia:
  • WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. ... [A] scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment."
  • WP:USINGPRIMARY: "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source."
As for other reliable sources describing primary and secondary sources:
  • "Primary sources allow researchers to get as close as possible to original ideas, events and empirical studies as possible. Such sources may include ... publication of the results of empirical observations or studies. Examples include: Data sets, technical reports, experimental research results." [6] On the other hand, "scholarly articles that don't present new experimental research results" are secondary.
  • "Primary sources ... includes journal articles of original research [exactly what this is], conference papers, dissertations, technical reports, and patents." [7] --Precision123 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RULES "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." "emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:RAP "he rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia" WP:PSTS "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care" "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The spirit of the rules. Both options say the same thing. They a say it in a different way. But they say the same thing. There is nothing wrong with either one. Both can be verified by an educated person with access to the source but with out further specialized knowledge. This does not come down to a matter of rules. This comes down to a matter of preference. This should easily be solved by majority consensus unless there is an actual desire to argue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) There is no reason to ignore Wikipedia rules when a conforming option is valid. The options here do not say the same thing, but if that were the the case, then there would be no reason why not to use Option B, especially given advice on WP:QUOTE.
(2) There is no "strict" interpretation of the rules here, there is application of the rules. Only when we cannot apply the rules do we resort to ignoring Wikipedia rules and guidelines. They are there for a reason. :) Wikipedia policies are clear in distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, and clear in advising us to exercise "special care" when citing primary sources. The spirit of these rules are important as well; in fact, it is one part of those rules that is written in bold.
Option B here applies the rules whereas Option A does not. Alf has said explicitly that "nothing you can quote from WP:PSTS is applicable in the least" and the editor's proposal is based on the misguided notion that this is a secondary source. So clearly, if one applies the rules and is valid, and one does not, the choice should be clear. --Precision123 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to ignore Wikipedia rules. It's blocking a consensus. I'm talking all about application. In this case not applying them. You want to call this a primary source? Ok fine we'll call it that. How is option A misusing the source? How much of anything that you can debate on that apply to option B? It's not misusing the source. Both statements mean the exact same thing. WP:PSTS should be ignored as it follows the spirit of the principle. WP:QUOTE isn't a rule. It's an essay. While you can endorse it shouldn't' have any application on this debate for those that don't. The Reliable source noticeboard and consensus there are not policy. Special care was taken in using this source and special care was taken in writing both option A and B.

But let's stop here. Let's see if we can see what the consensus is on the views on the rules and let's see what the consensus is from those involved in the discussion and we can go from there. @Precision123, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, Malik Shabazz, Zero0000: What does everyone think? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I support alf laylah wa laylah version for the reasons discussed since 5 Feb. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, Serialjoepsycho, I too had already solicited the opinions of other editors in dispute resolution, which Alf chose not to participate in. This is becoming redundant and some direction by an admin or uninvolved party could have been beneficial.
Re: your comments, I do not agree that "both statements mean the exact same thing." This is an opinion and you may continue to assert it. If it were true, then there should be no reason to continue objecting. In reality, there is a subtle difference in the meaning and language of the two options here, and we should avoid interpreting or paraphrasing a primary source ourselves.
I am fully aware that WP:QUOTE is not a rule, I referred to it as advice for avoiding controversy, and it is indeed persuasive as common advice. The reliable source noticeboard is also persuasive as advice.
Special care was not taken in writing Option A, rather the author of Option A seemed to do exactly what PSTS warns agains. This editor explicitly stated that the rules that advise to use special care (i.e., PSTS) do not even apply. Certainly, the editor did not apply policies that the the editor him/herself said are inapplicable. Really, if there is no reasonable objection here we ought to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I strongly recommend Option B. --Precision123 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what is being discussed any more. For example, looking at all occurrences of "option A" on this page is not sufficient to determine what it is. In case it is relevant, the argument against "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" has been stated repeatedly: it is correct but only refers to one of five indicators studied in the article. It would be fine if expanded to mention the others. Also, I am completely unconvinced by Precision's argument that we can't base our summary on the abstract. The rules simply do not tell us that; in particular PSTS does not distinguish between parts of the same source and so can't possibly tell us to use one part of the source and not another. Zerotalk 10:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Zero, we are citing one finding in the study. The article's conclusion make no conclusion about Haaretz. It makes no conclusion of the five indicators as applied to Haaretz (as opposed to the Times). We cannot make a conclusion ourselves. The finding in the article that we are citing appears on p. 117: "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." That is the language used.
As to abstracts, take it from the several studies researching their reliability and accuracy. "Studies comparing the accuracy of information reported in a journal abstract with that reported in the text of the full publication have found claims that are inconsistent with, or missing from, the body of the full article." Abstracts are sometimes not the author's words, but that of journal reviewers and editors or third-party services.[8][9][10][11][12] Indeed, several editors shared these concerns. However I prefer not to get into a discussion over this point as much as we should evaluate the merits of our options that conform with WP policy.
I also kindly call on @Sitush: @Dougweller: @Yobol: @ElKevbo: to give their insight on this case. It it one where the language and details in the abstract of a primary source do not completely correspond with the findings in the publication. --Precision123 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You only pinged people who you think supported you at RSN. This is called canvassing and can get you blocked. Zerotalk 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Abstracts that appear with papers in academic journals are written by the authors. For this journal the proof is here. Editors might fix spelling and grammar, and try to make other changes, but the authors get a chance to approve the changes. In decades of editing academic journals I don't remember any exceptions. Summaries appearing in other places like review journals can be written by anyone, but that is not relevant here. Zerotalk 13:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Never use abstracts - read the entire piece and cite that. This has only recently been discussed at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Since we all have read the entire article and have cited it, I don't get your comment. Zerotalk 12:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN"While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. And Precision I was an uninvolved party when I joined.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush. Cite the article, not the abstract. The editor said "read the entire article and cite that," which is clear. An abstract is not the article, but an original document itself.[13] Really, this should be so simple. Never should it be so controversial to cite an article itself using the author's words. --Precision123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Viser's article[edit]

Here is a longer summary of Viser's article to guide discussion. The author compares NYT and Haaretz on five indicators. Here they are with my summary of the findings regarding Haaretz (feel free to disagree with me).

Sources: Haaretz used Israeli sources twice as often as Palestinian sources.
End quotes: (These are quotations that give one side the final word in an article.) After 9/11, Haaretz gave Palestinians the last word more often. It doesn't seem to mention Haaretz before 9/11.
Story topics: Ha’aretz was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.
Topic locations: (This refers to where articles appeared in the newspaper.) Articles on the front page were more likely to appear above the fold if the perpetrators of violence were Palestinian.
Fatalities: In 2000-01, Haaretz named the Palestinian fatalities more often than it named Israeli fatalities. Other periods are not quantified.

The article is actually most interested in the NYT, for which it provides more details and more analysis. Haaretz seems to be mostly there for comparisons. Zerotalk 10:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that it does appear clear that the article makes its conclusion about the Times, not of Haaretz. We can cite a finding, but should not make a conclusion ourselves. --Precision123 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you're confused about the difference between the meanings of the verb "to conclude" and the noun "conclusion." The paper in fact concludes exactly what our article says it concludes, whether or not that conclusion is contained in a section of the paper entitled "conclusion." Zero0000's summary shows, as does the article, that the single indicator you'd like to pick out as indicative of the content of the article only reflects one out of five of the article's conclusions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000: My apologies Zero. Option A)A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians. Option B) "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side' rather than the Palestinian side."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC) And really there can an argument to keep it as it is. Really I was just trying to see what level of consensus we have here among those taking part on the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No confusion here, Alf. I never said that one finding was "indicative" of the entire article. Rather, one passage is indicative of a specific finding. The author does not accumulate those five indicators to make any sweeping conclusions about Haaretz (e.g., your proposal that it say Haaretz's reporting in general was more favorable to the Israelis rather than his specific finding on p. 117). Trying to make our own would constitute original research. Again, Option B quotes his specific finding. That is neutral and reliable. --Precision123 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're not confused, maybe you can explain what you mean when you say: it does appear clear that the article makes its conclusion about the Times, not of Haaretz. That's not clear to me at all. Can you explain it differently somehow so I might be able to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an unimportant point and I prefer it not distract us from the matter at hand. Yes, the author briefly discusses his findings collectively and comes to a conclusion at the end, but that conclusion is about the Times and not Haaretz. There are some individual findings about Haaretz, and the relevant one has been quoted in Option B. Let's stick with it and move on. --Precision123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Stick with it? That would imply a consensus. As of now there is no consensus. So we could continue this path or you could note your objections to A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians. Be clear and concise. Don't worry about the rules for a second. What particularly do you not like about it? Is not neutral? This can be changed accordingly based on a logical argument. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You say that every time. Are you going to converse or not converse? You can't assume that you can define the terms of a conversation through your responses and expect others to continue to find it worthwhile to talk with you. Why don't you explain what you meant, since you seemed to think it was important enough to say. In fact, I suspect you don't know what you meant, but I suppose I'd be happy enough to be proven wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Alf, please calm down, please, and avoid overly dramatic language. Focus on content, not the editor. And please do not accuse me of "not knowing" what I mean. Between accusations of "plagiarism" and treating this article as a secondary source, it is becoming absurd.
Serialjoepsycho, that proposal is one that you and I both proposed. We agreed it was valid. I have noted my objection to Option A time and again. There is a subtle difference between the author's finding ("Ha'aretz was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.") and Alf's conclusion in an attempt to interpret the entire article ("Ha'aretz reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is more favorable to the Israelis than the Palestinians."). One interprets the source in an editor's words, in violation of WP:PSTS—that is the problem with it. According PSTS, extra care must be exercised in order not to interpret, over-interpret, or somehow misrepresent an author's finding. That is why Option B is acceptable, because it is careful. --Precision123 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision the consensus has changed. I proposed that one and went on to this one. If you don't like then explain why. I'm not going waste time talking about rules that don't apply.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

... Please show me at one point I did not explain why. On the contrary, can you explain why Option B is invalid? No one has which is why it should be used. --Precision123 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

To what avail? The consensus was not to change it at all. There's some ground to change it now. Cooperation was offered to change it. If you don't wish to cooperate there's no point in any of this conversation. we can go back to aimless argument. The balls in your court not mine.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section and editorial standards[edit]

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 , 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)

How is the article a primary source?[edit]

A lot of the above conversation is based on Precision123's idea that the paper we're talking about, the one that all of us have read all of by now, is a primary source. This is wrong, and maybe we can separate the conversation about that out to here, given that yet another thread has become too difficult to follow. To quote from WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. The articles in the NYT and in Haaretz were Matt Viser's primary sources. Viser provided his own thinking about them, at least one step removed from the event. This is a secondary source. What do we do with secondary sources on Wikipedia, according to the policy WP:NOR? Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. Any arguments for any material to be included or excluded regarding this article that are based on either the idea that Viser's work is a primary source or the idea that the essay WP:QUOTE somehow supersedes the policy WP:NOR are fundamentally flawed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 is becoming a pain-in-the-ass POV-pusher about this issue; he's now taken it again to RSN. Let's put it to bed. I think it's preposterous to try to argue that the Viser article can't be used on the basis that it's somehow a primary source. But to put a wooden spike through that argument, it would be possible to use other sources who cite Viser; a list is available here. I personally think this isn't necessary, but it does at least show that Viser's article has received attention from other scholars. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As an example of how this could go: an article "Bias in the News? The Representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the Coverage of the First and Second Intifada" by Annelore Deprez and Karin Raeymaeckers, International Communication Gazette, 2010; 72; 91, asserts "Various studies have repeatedly claimed that the Palestinians are more likely to be portrayed as the perpetrators and the Israelis as the victims in the newspaper head- lines, and that Israeli victims, moreover, are more individualized (e.g. Korn, 2004; Rinnawi, 2007; Viser, 2003)." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And another: "For example, according to Matt Viser, when the New York Times and Ha’aretz, an Israeli publication, were assessed for their portrayals of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it was found that both newspapers were more favorable towards the Israelis, while the Palestinians received less coverage (2003, 118)", at [14]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming quite banal but do try to stay civil. He did take the source there once but he claims it was for other grounds. As a Newish user he may that help to know if a source is reliable or not. I think he may be treading lightly in this action honestly. He has recent WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions against him.

I think the source stands pretty well on it's own though we can add those later if need unless you want to pop them in their now.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed the source "can't be used on the basis that it's somehow a primary source." I stated clearly that the source is a primary source and should be treated as such. Also, Nomoskedasticity, a student thesis paper is not a reliable source. As to the other source you mention, it cites a specific finding in the Viser article, which is very good. --Precision123 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Influence has arguably waned[edit]

I removed this:

However, the former prestige and influence the newspaper once held in Israel has arguably waned in recent years, along with its standing in the country's political life.<ref>[ עורך 'הארץ' לשעבר: 'הארץ' איבד את מעמדו הציבורי][[Maariv (newspaper)#Online version|NRG Maariv]], 01/08/2013</ref><ref name=downfall/><ref>[ מרמרי: 'הארץ' הפך משחקן במגרש למשקיף מהמרפסת] 08/01/13 Hanan Amiur</ref>

Because (a) I think the use of multiple sources which express the opinion that Haaretz's influence has waned makes it original research to use the word "arguably" here. It's the opinion of a Wikipedia editor that the fact that three people think it's waned means that "arguably" it's waned. (b) I think that the stature of these three sources is not on a par with the stature of the multitude of sources which state unequivocally that Haaretz is Israel's most influential paper. To give them equal weight in this context is to give them undue weight. If it's indeed true that Haaretz's influence has waned, I think we need a high-quality source saying that it's waned, rather than individual citations of people whose opinion is that it's waned.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hanoch Marmari is the former editor of the paper. His view is as a notable or 'high quality' as the other sources cited, and deserves inclusion, especially since it is more recent than those other sources and it is an Israeli view (rather than an article in the New Yorker). Avaya1 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Marmari's view is important. That doesn't give you license to post blog posts or CAMERA nonsense as sources, though. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on the "Notable journalists" subsection[edit]

Is it reasonable to have all these redlinks in here? It's not unusual in such sections to use being bluelinked as a selection criterion. Would anyone care to develop selection criteria for these lists? I can think of three possibilities:

(a) Only blue-linked journalists on the lists
(b) Only blue-linked journalists or red-linked journalists accompanied by a source stating enough about them to provide probably cause to believe they'll someday be blue-linked
(c) Leave it as it is

So I'm soliciting opinions on this admittedly less weighty manner than most of those that we discuss on this page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RLR You could go see what these guys think.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to keep the discussion on this page for now, but of course you should do as you like.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you bring in the Red link team they can start working on the red links. If any of these journalists actually aren't currently notable enough for their own article they shouldn't be red linked. We shouldn't decide if they will be just if they actually are. If you want to find out if each one is notable enough for an article on your own then by all means.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My question is more about what standards the editors working on this page want to use for inclusion in the subsection rather than about whether the journalists are notable enough for their own articles. We are free to choose our own criteria here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just giving you option D. If those red links have no actual possibility of becoming blue then they no longer need to be red linked. If you want to add sources by all means. I would consider that you may need to add some sources for at least some of the blue links as well. Their articles may not link them to this paper.

So to be clear: Keep the list of people the same. Source everyone necessary. Anyone red linked who doesn't meet the Notability criteria should remain on the list but no longer be red linked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

But I'm looking for inclusion criteria. You're suggesting a process for editing the current list. Your proposal doesn't address what to do in the future. If we were to adopt it we would have agreed to add any name at all because the only guidance your suggestion gives is as to whether a name should be redlinked or not, not as to whether it should be included. Do you see the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You really don't offer inclusion criteria. Blue links may make them notable by Wikipedia standards for their own article. That doesn't mean that they are notable journalists for Haaretz. What would make notable journalist? A Pulitzer prize winning journalist after winning the Pulitzer could have submitted a small article to Haaretz and nothing more. You can certainly say this journalist is notable because of the Pulitzer but should they be included here? Alternatively a journalist could have submitted 100 of articles to Haaretz to Haaretz there were published but never have really done anything that meets the notability criteria for their own article in Wikipedia. Blue linked, Red linked, or hot linked it is possible that some of them should be removed. Each candidate should be individual vested to make sure they are notable journalists for Haaretz. Red links and blue links only make the implication that they are notable for for inclusion in their own wikipedia article. The Future is a guess. There is no telling who among them will be notable journalists for the present section in the future. You can only find out if they are that currently and were that in the past. Ruth Almong could get a job at McDonalds in Cambodia next month and leave Journalism behind.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense at all. Does anyone who understands my original question have an opinion? If not, I'm going to take out all the ones that don't have articles or sources that make their connection with Ha'aretz clear.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable Journalists of Haaretz can be notable whether they are Red Linked or Blue linked. I understand your question just fine. I just don't find it relevant. You are using Wikipedia notability standard to decide if they are notable journalists for Haaretz.

Take Doram Gaunt for example. He's senior editor for the English version and he's got a cooking column. This could be great argument to show that he is a notable journalist for Haaretz. That doesn't mean that he's notable enough for his own wiki article. Should he be red linked anyway? Your criteria is to simple.

Merav Michaeli was an op-ed writer for Haaretz. She was one of the most journalists in Israel. Other than her op-ed was she prominently featured in Haaretz? Does that make her a notable journalist for Haaretz? Side note: Since joining the Knesset has she been an active journalist? She may need to be moved to the past section.

Side note: Alan Dershowitz is a frequent contributor. He also a rather notable figure. Does his contributions make him a notable journalist?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, if you understand my question just fine, do you care to answer it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In the choice of only those 3 options I would be forced to choose C. But since there are other options I choose none of them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest one if you don't like those, but it would be useful if it could potentially allow us to decide if a name stays in without worrying about whether they're going to quit and go on an expedition to Mars next week.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol ya Mars. You have a past and present section. If they go to mars and are no longer a member of the Haaretz team they would join that past section. I'd ask what notable is. We can say that blue is notable I think. What else is notable? What would you say hands down would make someone a Notable Journalist for a Specific news paper? An Editor of a news paper, would that be Notable? Being that they have a substantial effect on the finished published paper I would say yes. Some of these people may be notable Journalists just because of a position. What do you think of that? What other positions would you say would make someone notable? I'd say verify that everyone is notable independently.

So what do you think about keeping the blue and verifying the Red? And we can source any of the red that are actually notable. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)