Talk:Haaretz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Haaretz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

English online edition[edit]

Can we have a date for when this started?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"In 2012 and on, some news outlets ..."[edit]

The material recently added by User:Caseeart is barely English. It also violates WP:POV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:IRS. If an editor wants to use biased or opinionated sources, the views need to be attributed to the author in the article's text. Parroting what biased sources say as if they were facts is not acceptable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on article talk I updated the section heading for clarification on the discussion.
For the third time I ask Why is it POV??? why is it biased??? There are 6 independent sources with these similar statements. In addition, before my edit, the article already cited a 2003 opinion from the "Journal of Press" that stated "Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians." We now updated the article (using 6 independent sources- some more qualified than others) with opinions of a different view.
Also, don't lie and make false accusations - We DID attribute the opinion the the sources. Here is the text "some news outlets including the Algemeiner reported".
In either case due to your unexplained "claims" I will specify more clearly the sources of the opinions.
I ask again please don't disparage my writing skills. Caseeart (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't and won't discuss this with you until you have read the policy and two guidelines linked above: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Until you've read them, we have no common vocabulary—it's as if I'm speaking Spanish and you're speaking Yoruba. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Again you refuse to answer. I read it. I also put the text in the heading. Now please respond.Caseeart (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

First, stop changing the section heading. I started this discussion, and I named it.

Second, opinions need in-text attribution. The Algemeiner didn't "report" anything. Simon Plosker wrote that...

Third, what are these "some news outlets"? Oh, it's Simon Plosker again, published elsewhere. It's so-called HonestReporting, which is not a reliable source. Again, opinions need in-text attribution.

Fourth, who is this unnamed "Israeli Knesset leader"? (Does some other country have a Knesset? Why do you need the word "Israeli"?)

Finally, what you wrote is barely English. I think "in 2012 and on" means "beginning in 2012". Did anybody actually accuse Haaretz of "becoming an Anti-Israel campaign and Political Agenda"? How does a newspaper transform itself into a campaign or an agenda? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Hey guys, sorry to butt in but is there any an actual list of reliable sources? If so who decides what is and isn't a reliable source? If not why Perhaps you can suggest an alternative to honest reporting or at least explain why it is a bad source along with Simon Plosker? It might speed this matter up a bit if anything. Thanks in advance. Iwant2write (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


First I will add the text in a subheading for clarification on this detailed discussion. Caseeart (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The article stated "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.[27]"

Here was I wrote:

"In 2012 and on, some news outlets including the Algemeiner reported Haaretz changing its stance and becoming an Anti-Israel campaign and Political Agenda,[28][29][30][31] and an Israeli Knesset leader referred it as a tool of the Anti-Israel BDS movement.[32][33]"[edit]

Here are a list of the sources (added another few) among the sources quite a few are highly qualified:

  • Algemeiner "Haaretz’s Owner Proves Paper Has an Anti-Israel Political Agenda" [1]
  • Arutz Sheva "The Anti-Israel Campaign in Haaretz" [2]
  • HonestReporting.com - "Haaretz Admits its Politicized Agenda" [3]
  • The Tower Magazine "Downfall of a Great Newspaper"..."Slashed budgets, plummeting standards, and political radicalization have turned Israel’s most respected newspaper into a case study in the collapse of modern journalism." [4]
  • Mida (magazine) "Ha'aretz Publisher is deliberately slanting an already anti-Israel newspaper for his English-speaking audience, in directions even his Hebrew paper will not go – or his Israeli audience tolerate" [5]
  • JNS.org "Does Haaretz’s public stance on ‘occupation’ reveal anything new about the paper?" [6]
  • Matzav.com "Haaretz is a Tool of Anti-Israel BDS movement" [7]
  • The Jewish Link "MK Yair Lapid: “Haaretz Has Become Tool of BDS” [8]
  • Israel Hayom "Yesh Atid chief: Haaretz is a tool of anti-Israel BDS movement" [9]
  • IsraelSeen.com "STEVES' BLOGSYesh Atid chief: Haaretz is a tool of anti-Israel BDS movement" [10]

These are just some of the sources and are aside from the countless blogs citing the same and similar.

@Malik Shabazz: My understanding of your response is that you are not happy with-

  • The clarity of the sentence. ---- You could have fixed that rather than edit waring & deleting twice.
  • Attributing the statement to newspaper is not enough, you want it to also name the author. --- I just added sources. This view is shared by many authors independent of each other (Well over 10 sources). It is ridiculous to go and name every qualified author.
  • You also question (and apparently disagree with) the statements of sources that cite that Haaretz is becoming anti Israel campaign. --- This is what the sources say. Sorry about that.
  • @Malik Shabazz I want to note your apparent double standard in editing articles:

This overly strict scrutiny digging into the words and repeatedly deleting the material - shows a double editing standard that you yourself violate when it fits your point of view. On other BLP articles when you reverted my edits and inserted lengthy opinionated undue poorly sourced negative material on the living persons (almost transforming the article to an attack style article against the Israeli politician) - and here you repeatedly scrutinize every detail of one sentence.

Even in this article itself you are showing a double standard when you allowed the 2003 opinion and did not delete it even though it did not state the author Matt Viser - but you don't allow this side of the story unless we state the author. Caseeart (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It is no crime to be deficient in English, but if you want to edit here you should pay attention when native speakers tell you that your English is deficient. Actually in this case it has multiple serious errors. I would fix it for you, but your collection of "sources" is mostly rubbish, often the same story printed in different newspapers or coming out of the mouths of the usual suspects. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with it. Zerotalk 12:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Zero I attempted to reword. Here is the exact wording of the addition:

Starting in 2012 some news outlets began writing that Haaretz is transforming into an Anti-Israel campaign and Political Agenda,[28][29][30][31][32] and MiDA magazine compared the English and Hebrew sections and concluded that the English was more slanted against Israel in a way that the Hebrew readers won't accept.[33] The leader of Yesh Atid party referred to Haaretz as a tool of the Anti-Israel BDS movement.[34][35][36][37]

The 10 sources were all mentioned earlier. Some are better than others, but there are at least 10. I was summarizing the wording of sources as accurate as possible.
Maybe you have an idea to better word this (without altering the sources)? CaseeArt Talk 06:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Caseeart, it's been a month and you still haven't explained how a newspaper could "transform into a campaign and agenda". Do you understand what those words mean? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe I responded a month ago (along with the other concerns - and I will now clarify further) that this appears to be in line with various sources who write: "The Anti-Israel Campaign in Haaretz", ""Haaretz Admits its Politicized Agenda", "They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign..." etc. etc. - and yes - newspapers could become into a campaign.
In either case we could change the wording. How about something like "Haaretz has an Anti-Israel Campaign and a politicized agenda" or "Haaretz has within it...". Do you have any other idea? CaseeArt Talk 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Caseeart

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Malik Shabazz It has been a week that I have not heard from you. Any comment about last wording? Any ideas? CaseeArt Talk 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Caseeart, it's now been a month and a half and you still haven't explained how a how a newspaper could "transform into a campaign and agenda". Does Google Translate not work where you live?
I've also explained that most of your sources are not "news outlets" (as you call them) but op-eds and other opinion columns whose views must be attributed with in-text attribution to the authors, not the newspapers. See WP:INTEXT. Please re-read what I wrote on May 1—to which you never responded—and what Zero wrote on May 5. There won't be any progress until you start hearing what other editors are saying. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz I've answered twice.
  • A- The Sources (NOT ME) cite things like ""Haaretz has an Anti-Israel Campaign and a politicized agenda" or "Haaretz has within it..."etc. etc. B- I am happy to change the wording - How about the new proposed wording?.
  • There are 10 sources in all (some are news, some opinions, some sources better than others). How many names should we list??? - (Previous opinion in the article with only 'one source - does'nt cite name either). CaseeArt Talk 04:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

POV deletions of criticism[edit]

The JPost criticism related to Haaretz's refusal to cover criminal investigations against Sharon has been in the article for months, unchallenged. Therefor, it has consensus, and WP:ONUS has been met. Editors seeking to remove that material need to gain consensus for their change - by discussing it here. Epson Salts (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the onus and consensus articles. That's not how the policy works to my understanding. If I'm wrong, kindly flag the policy that indicates that the information having been in the article for any length of time constitutes "consensus." Also, kindly flag the policy which indicates that consensus is needed for removing material.
I removed the information because it constituted original research. There was no news article or other appropriate secondary source that I could find that wrote about this incident. PPX (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Haaretz as Israel's most influential newspaper?[edit]

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.[1] 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

  1. ^ עורך 'הארץ' לשעבר: 'הארץ' איבד את מעמדו הציבורי [Editor of Haaretz to last: Haaretz lost his public standing] (in Hebrew). nrg Maariv. 8 January 2013. Retrieved 5 October 2014. 
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)