Talk:Haaretz/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request for comments

{{rfctag|pol}}

The editor-in-chief of HaaretzDavid Landau made some controversial comments at a "confidential briefing" by the US Secretary of State. See the preceding section for details.

Do the comments belong in the article under the title "Editorial policy and viewpoints"?If not what title it belongs to and if not how to rewrite it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haaretz&diff=311953178&oldid=311953022

--Rm125 (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is already an open RfC about this, stop opening up new ones. nableezy - 05:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

nablezy the tag is wrong it is politics --Rm125 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

nablezy tag supposed to be here because the content has been changed and it is clearer, --Rm125 (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

plus it is so far up nobody sane would read it--Rm125 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

the reason it is politics is because condi is a politician and they talked about raping israel and pressuring israel --Rm125 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop adding RfC's to this page while we have one already open.

And if the first one is buried in piles of crap, guess who buried it? That would be you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

look if you don't dirapt- i don't disrapt--Rm125 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty to place a politics RfC tag

Nablezy is sabotage my attempts to change the tag from Media to politics. They constantly vandalise it, Since the previous tag is so far away nobody sane would look at it.This how Malik and Nablezy want to avoid a free discussion. I would like to ask them to let me advance the tag and change it from mrdia to politics. I will try to post RfC tag here for a reason that the previous chapter we discussed about has been changed and there is no way to understand what's going on if it is so far up. All I ask is to put the tag here and change it from Media to Politics. Nanlezy and Malik please stop sabotage and vandalize, I don't know were you are posting but I am located here in USA-the free country- not Saudi Arabia.--Rm125 (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You just dont want people to comment ON NEW VERSION. PLUS you vandalixe my attempt to shange a tag from MEDIA to POLITICS. You hope that people will be confused because it is so far away and will give up. The truth will come up, my friend. I live IN A FREE COUNTRY we like our freedom of speech unlike you.You are not going to silence a free speach here pal, this is Ameruca not Saudi Arabia. --Rm125 (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

{{rfctag|pol}}

The editor-in-chief of Haaretz made some controversial comments at a "confidential briefing" by the US Secretary of State.

Is there is any problems to include this in the article and if there are how it should be rewritten?

I will provide the link in a little whilr if this is not going to be vandalized by Malik and Nablezy --Rm125 (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the link I hope they are not going to sabotage it again.It is unbelievablr what i am going through just to be ablr to ask an opinion from a free country. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haaretz&diff=prev&oldid=311953022

--Rm125 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop messing around with the RfC on this page. It's not yours to close, so please don't mark it closed. And don't open a second one until the first one has been closed. Do you understand me? If you continue with this disruptive behavior, I will report you and ask that you be blocked again. Do you really want to be blocked twice in one week? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again my tag was vandalised by Malik Shabbaz He thretened me to report me for a violation and to ban me from Wikipedia. I don't see a reson for it but since I am new here I still would like to ask for opinions. I don't think they can do it since I don't change the article page. On the other hand I am not sure. They use the fact that I am new here and don't know all the rules. They take advantage but not for long. Soon I will be knolegeble to find out myself. Meanwile I would like to ask if there is a way to place a tag here and why I can not do it(at least they say so). I am going to ask couple of people I already know for their opinions. Meanwile if there is somebody who reads it please advice me on this tag issue. I checked it up and I don't see a reason why I can not place a tag provided i erase the previous one. In case they report me at least I hope the editor will see my note and will ecaluate the situation. I am going to reverse now. In case they block me please explain it to the blocking editor, Thanks, --Rm125 (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malik should have explained the issue first rather than just close it and certainly, block warnings over an RfC tag are just silly. I do agree that we shouldn't have more than one RfC to the same topic though. However, the current RfC is poorly constructed and there is room to consider closing and reopening it with a clear summary of the dispute -- if the discussing parties agree. Personally, I'm not sure we reached a situation where extra opinions are neccessary to iron out the small points raised by the editors. Nableezy raised a serious point and while we're in disagreement, I'm still trying to persuade him rather than enforce an RfC for the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The RfC tag is Media I want to change it to Politics. I want to remove the tag from the original location and put it down. At the time I didn't know how to do it and this is the result. The reason another opinion is needed is because it is completely different posting-much shorter. I also don;t name Landau by name. Most of issues discussed are not relevant now. My question : Why Malik is OK to remove the post during the debate and I am nor OF to reinstate ir during the debate?What are other ways to bring people here? I feel that Nabesty is trying to use illigitimate methods. I am sure that others can see it if they have a chance.Please help me with putting POLITICS tag This is POLITICS NOT MEDIA affair.All the bast--Rm125 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

--Rm125 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the hysterical overreactions such as "Nableezy is sabaotge my attempts" and the boderline personal attacks Malik is the "Commisar" of "Wiki KGB" and asking him if he forgot to take his pills. I added politics to the current open RfC tag, if people want to shut that down and start a new one fine. But if we do that will you not disrupt the process as you did with the last one with long winded diatribes that serve no particular purpose? nableezy - 17:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy I am not panicking. You placed the tag 3 miles high from here and NOBODY will bather to look at this. You don't want to put the tag here on the page. Why? Because your tactics is to confuse. How else you can explain what you are doing? Panic? Absoluterly not. You sdabotagesd and vandalized my tag so I can even ask for people to comment. You warned me of banning from Wikipedia and 4 times removed my tag. I only can tell you that I am not intemidated. You even removed my posting DURING THE DISCUSSION but now you do the OPPOSITE. Why? Because you FEEL like it. You take advantage of me being new here( less then 1 month)

You already scared me saying that you are going to ban me from wikipedia for life. During discussion you and Malik IGNORED people who agreed with my point Like Shuki for example. You claimed that Landau is NOT related to HAARETZ but when I changed and it became a non issue you REVERSED YOUR OWN ARGUMENT 180 degrees.

All I want is to change the tag (You put a wrong title Media instead of politics) and move it close to the discussion. If you can see it is to far away up. What sane wikipedian will be able to understand our discussion?

Why you insist to put the tag so high up? can you explain your reasoning, please? --Rm125 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik and Nableezy. the tag specifIcally says Art, architecture, nedia. This is not what the issue is. The issue is POLITICS. I don't understand your stabborness. You never asked me which tag to put up. You never originally asked but when I tried to change it you vandalized it. now what?

--Rm125 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I really dont know if you are deliberately acting like a four year old or not, but I will assume it is not deliberate. I never said I was going to "ban [you] from wikipedia for life." And the reason it is "so far up" is because you have been engaging in verbal diarrhea which has led this talk page to be filled with nonsensical rantings that have nothing to do with the page or with the arguments against including the material, just the same non-stop babbling that will likely continue until you are one day unceremoniously booted from Wikipedia. Nobody has questioned that Landau is related to Haaretz, that is obviously not the issue here and you continuing to shout that it is the issue is not changing anything. A number of people have said that these comments are not related to Haaretz and you have consistently ignored that and the request for a single reliable secondary source that makes this an issue about Haaretz. I have not reversed my own argument at all (and you have been asked multiple times to not type in all caps which is like shouting). I have consistently asked for a source that connects these comments with Haaretz itself, not just the editor-in-chief of Haaretz. Now for a question to you. If we close out the above RfC and start a new one (we are not going to have 2 tags at the same time) will you contain yourself and not engage in the same behavior that makes the above RfC an unreadable mess? Will you voluntarily restrict yourself to a few comments and then let others respond or will you just shout and cry until you get your way? nableezy - 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all the respect you said that you are not pushing to ban me from wikipedia AND AT THE SAME POST you did it again. Look "will likely continue until you are one day unceremoniously booted from Wikipedia" And you do it constantly Almost every post you threaten me. I haven't slept all night because of this ( check it up I was up all night and I am in LA) after all this you once again treatening me with banning from Wikipedia. So you reemoved my tag four times treatening me and now you say it never happened. OK thank you very much.I don;t know what to say anymore. --Rm125 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Me saying you are on a path to being unceremoniously booted from Wikipedia is not the same as me saying I am going to ban you from Wikipedia. If you continue the disruption you likely will be, but that isnt a choice that is left to me. Is English your native language? If not I would suggest contributing to a Wikipedia project in your native language. Also, you have not answered my questions to you. If we close out the current RfC and start a new one will you agree not to engage in the same disruption that caused the one above to become nearly useless? Will you restrict yourself to a few short comments that lay out why you think it should be in the article and not continually shout and cry until you get your way? nableezy - 18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you allow me I can show you AT LEAST TEN TIMES that you treathened me with expaltion from Wikipedia or you can do the research yorself. 10 times! Not 1 or 2 but 10! That's right. Yes I am an inmmigrant and English is not my native language. Now you are trying to shaw me the door because my English is supposedly is not good? What you are trying to say? Now I supposed to go through English tests? Listen I am an immigrant to America.Nobody else told me I am not good enauph because couple of mistakes- the opposite is true. Everybody are considerate and understanding. This is the first time I am beeing suggested to get away because my language skills. On other pages people are thanking me for my contributuons *( unsolicited) I can prove it to yoy. Only on this page you and Malik treaten me with expultion fron Wikipedia and almoust gave me a heart attack. I am awake all night because of you. This is NO accusation-this is a fact ( you can check it up here.Now tell me straight do I have such a terrible English and this is the reason you are seeking my expultion? --Rm125 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it is like you see one word and stop reading the rest. The reason I suggested contributing to a WP project in your native language is because it clear that you are having difficulties understanding basic English in our discussions. Not once did I "treathened [you] with expaltion from Wikipedia" (sic) nor did I demand you leave. And you again refuse to answer my questions to you. I repeat: if we close out the current RfC and start a new one will you agree not to engage in the same disruption that caused the one above to become nearly useless? Will you restrict yourself to a few short comments that lay out why you think it should be in the article and not continually shout and cry until you get your way? nableezy - 19:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your question-of course-this was my point from the start. Look how much time and frastrations we wasted because this is the most logical thing to do. This dispute can be over in 30 seconds if you-insstead of arguing and trying to scare would just look how trivial and elementary it is. I am happy you realize it now ( hopefully) Do you think Malik Shabbazz will honor our agreement or once again he is going to vandalize? --Rm125 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There isnt any agreement and you have yet to answer my questions to you. I again repeat: if we close out the current RfC and start a new one will you agree not to engage in the same disruption that caused the one above to become nearly useless? Will you restrict yourself to a few short comments that lay out why you think it should be in the article and not continually shout and cry until you get your way? And stop calling other users edits vandalism. Your continued refusal to understand what vandalism is and why you should not be calling Malik's edits (or mine, or any other good faith contribution) vandalism is growing increasingly annoying. nableezy - 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobelsy, why you claim I have "difficulties understanding basic English" This is very insulting to me. I sam an immigrant to US and very proud of the fact that I speak English pretty well. I can agree that I make some mistakes here and there. This is not because I don;t know "basic English" but I am a terrible typer ( Typist) I mostlt type with one finger and you are right- sometimes i make mistakes.Also ther is another factor here. I hate word processors and never let word processor correcy my mistakes. I assume people don't have problems to understand me here.You just want to make it difficult and now there is another excuse- we don't need immigrants here they will "eventually go away" I have a news for you: I may be not allowed to be a president of United states but I have a right to be on Wikipedia if am within a framework of their rules and regulations.

Now if you want to honor your last suggestion lets create this tag.--Rm125 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy do you want to create this tag yourself or should i create it?I prefer to do it myself. This way we will not do the same mistake as before you and Malik created --Rm125 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think your friend will honor our agreement, should we notify him first?--Rm125 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I say you have difficulty understanding basic English not because of your mistakes in writing but because of your mistakes in understanding what others have written. I never said I have a problem with immigrants, a curious thing to accuse a son of immigrants of. And again, as I said clearly above, there is no agreement between us, and you saying there is makes me question your understanding of what I have written more than before. Could you please answer the questions: if we close out the current RfC and start a new one will you agree not to engage in the same disruption that caused the one above to become nearly useless? Will you restrict yourself to a few short comments that lay out why you think it should be in the article and not continually shout and cry until you get your way? nableezy - 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy I assume you agree that I create the tag myself this time ( last time I let YOU create it) so I think it is logical that I can do it this time.--Rm125 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No I dont agree. I said that no less than 3 times. Please answer my questions. If we close out the current RfC and start a new one will you agree not to engage in the same disruption that caused the one above to become nearly useless? Will you restrict yourself to a few short comments that lay out why you think it should be in the article and not continually shout and cry until you get your way? nableezy - 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What agreement? The only agreement I want to see is one from Rm125 that he won't respond to any of the RfC comments. Last time he turned the RfC into a circus, insulting every editor who didn't agree with him. If the original RfC tag is so hard to find on this page, Rm125, it's because you've buried it.

I propose that we start a new section on this page for an RfC, and agree that none of the "regulars" on this page will write below that section heading—unless absolutely necessary, and then only neutrally. If anybody can't restrain her/himself (Rm125), the comments can be deleted by any other editor. Do we have an agreement? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - To ensure that the RfC is phrased in neutral language, I suggest that we try to hammer it out before making the request. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy, Haw can you accuse me of disraptions when your friend started out of the blue?

Here read this

Every one of the outside opinions has said that the comments don't belong in the article, so I removed them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Now he sayd that outside opinions were with him 100 % while in essence only 4 people agreed with you. 2 people agreed with me; Shuli and Jakobou. Now he claimed that they all agreed with him and REVERTED in the middle of discussion. From then all everything went down the drain. Now you clain I am disraptive wjhen in reality I evem gave up on ebven go on the main page and even here on discussion page I am very careful since both you and Malik Shabbaz treathened me with expultion from wikipedia.

nablezy I can not apologise the way you want, because it was your friend who started the whole Pandora box. I recommend to just let me create this tag. Look I don't want any apologies from you guys either. I think it is fair and there is resiprocity and logic. Agreed? --Rm125 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the way you think. Last time YOU both created the tag and look what happened. I never told you HOW to create this tag for the simple reason I was totally new and green. You never even asked me- just created it the way YOU wanted with wrong tag (Media instead of Politics and NEVER asked my opinion. You created it the way YOU BOTH wanted. I am a new guy here. Nobody introduced me to this tan. Nobody asked me for my opinion. Nobody cared -only hostility-you can go back and check for yourself. Now you want to create the same thing-all for yourself. I think it is only reasonable for me to create it this time. You can be sure I will coordinate with you all my editing so it is no surprise to you as it was to me a newbee --Rm125 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking you to apologize, I am asking you to commit to not disrupting a new RfC if we were to shut the current one down. Will you agree to not engage in the same behavior that caused the current one to become almost useless? By that I mean not posting the same thing over and over, not insulting those who disagree with you, not copying and pasting others comments over and over, and not posting long diatribes in response to other comments? Would you agree to making a short simple explanation of why you think this should be in the article and not persistently argue with those who disagree with you? Will you agree to accept the result of the RfC? Or will you just continue to shout and cry until you get your way. I dont think you possess the necessary language skills to craft a neutrally worded RfC statement, but we can come up with one together if there is agreement to closing the current one down. Note that I have not agreed to closing the current one down, I would like to see your answers to my questions before I do. (And I had nothing to do with the original RfC statement, so stop saying "You created it the way YOU BOTH wanted") nableezy - 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look what other editor told about your tag:

""However, the current RfC is poorly constructed and there is room to consider closing and reopening it with a clear summary of the dispute -- if the discussing parties agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as you copied the operating clause I am going to assume you read it. If the discussing parties agree. And before I agree I would like you to answer the questions I have asked of you no fewer than 5 times. (And again, it is not "[my] tag", I didnt write it so stop saying I did) nableezy - 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

if you dont disrapt i dont disrapr--Rm125 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More than an hour ago, I made the following proposal:

What agreement? The only agreement I want to see is one from Rm125 that he won't respond to any of the RfC comments. Last time he turned the RfC into a circus, insulting every editor who didn't agree with him. If the original RfC tag is so hard to find on this page, Rm125, it's because you've buried it.

I propose that we start a new section on this page for an RfC, and agree that none of the "regulars" on this page will write below that section heading—unless absolutely necessary, and then only neutrally. If anybody can't restrain her/himself (Rm125), the comments can be deleted by any other editor. Do we have an agreement?

PS - To ensure that the RfC is phrased in neutral language, I suggest that we try to hammer it out before making the request.

Rm125, you still haven't said whether you agree or not. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont agree to not writing anything in the section, I think we can each write 1 comment explaining how why we feel it either should or should not be in the article. No responses to others, no badgering of perceived opponents. nableezy - 21:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that, for people to state their case. Once. So long as Rm125 doesn't turn it into a free-for-all, insulting outside editors and copying-and-pasting messages all over the place. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Rm125, do you agree to this? nableezy - 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes in the near future I will create a tag and this time you and Malik will not manipulate me into getting into media discussion instead of politics. Also since you are trying to revert me on Al Aharam article I need to think you over. You try to hide the fact that Al Aharam is not a free newspaper. The problem is you threatening me with bannoing me from wikipedia all the time here . [[1]] sayingi “it will be very easy to get you topic-banned in the not so distant future” I started to record your threats in order to make sure you are held accountable

--Rm125 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've already got an RfC open in Politics as well as Media. If you would like to close the open RfC and open another one, please review my recommendations:

I would like you to agree not to respond to any of the RfC comments. Last time you turned the RfC into a circus, insulting every editor who didn't agree with you. If the original RfC tag is so hard to find on this page, Rm125, it's because you've buried it.

I propose that we start a new section on this page for an RfC, and agree that the "regulars" on this page will write below that section heading only once—briefly—to make our arguments. If anybody can't restrain her/himself, and makes further comments, those comments can be deleted by any other editor.

To ensure that the RfC is phrased in neutral language, I suggest that we try to hammer it out before making the request.

What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

collapsing long distracting discussion on the use of profanity not related to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please watch your language. You might think that you can do what you want on your talk page but keep the rest of WP clean of your profanity. --Shuki (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PROFANE does not mention talk pages anywhere, and you still have not crossed out something you wrote above that is completely untrue. Once you start acting responsibly Ill start taking you seriously. nableezy - 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Shuki, please watch your telling people what language they can and can't use and imposing your personal view of linguistic cleanliness on others. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) That's an odd response. I suppose a knee-jerk defensive reaction to a perceived attack on like minded editor? A responsible editor would try to calm tempers and a mere strikeout or self-revert proper WP:EQ. Sean, so you condone profanity on WP? I'm being too sensitive? For the third time, please read WP:F***. --Shuki (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Have you even read what it is you are linking to? That is a MOS guideline for how to deal with profanity in articles. Pay closer attention and dont just assume some policy backs up your stance. You want to report me for incivility WP:ANI is thataway. There was no personal attack and this wasnt even all that incivil. The use of the word "fuck" is not prohibited, and any person who understands English realizes that there are times when the word "fuck" is the best word to use in a given circumstance. But Im tired of trying to explain this to you. And a responsible editor would strike out false statements accusing others of "misleading people". Are you a responsible editor? nableezy - 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, you are right, you are always right nableezy. Just because the guildeline specifies articles, you and Peter Cohen construe that it is perfectly fine to use low language everywhere else. Uh, huh. FWIW, you keep trying to call my bluff, but ANI is just too early for you and would be too merciful right now. A loose cannon is simply setting his own trap so it will later be undeniable. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Where has Peter Cohen said one word? And why are you bluffing, this is not a game. And are you a responsible editor? Will you strike out the malicious lie you directed at me above claiming I was "misleading people"? (But yes, I was right and thank you for acknowledging that. The policy you would want to point to is WP:CIVIL but I have already said I do not feel the language was uncivil. And the MOS guideline you pointed to specifically allows for including words like "fuck", not disallows. Read up Shuki) nableezy - 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) <- Shuki, no, this is not about like minded editors, or knee jerk reactions. It's about people trying to impose their arbitrary personal value systems on others. I cannot abide that and it has no place in a project like this. It would be better if you kept your linguistic sensitivities to yourself. People find different things offensive. For example as an atheist with views that make Richard Dawkins look moderate I find many aspects of religion offensive but I don't go around trying to convert Nableezy to atheism or jump on him everytime he quotes from a holy text. Live and let live is better in my experience. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I try to imagine that I'm talking to people in a room when I'm editing a talkpage. When most normal people interact with others they are careful not to say certain things that tend to bother others unless they know that the recipients are not bothered by that content of language. People that say what they want whenever they want because value systems are "arbitrary" will be looked at like a nutjob in RL. But hey, this is not real life after all. Maybe for a good reason.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I struck out the offending word, can we all stop crying now? And if there is no objection can we collapse this thread that has nothing to do with the article? nableezy - 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Brewcrewer, interesting point but as someone who has worked all over the place in all sorts of cultures for my entire life when I say arbitrary I mean it. And to prove my point I shall now use a word which is extremely offensive in the culture I happen to be based in this year which is the word 'feet'. Yes, let's collapse away. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Shuki, if the collapse was too "partial" then collapse more. But none of this has anything to do with the article, so I am going to collapse again. Will include everything that followed my original comment. nableezy - 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-mediation attempt

Heyo, I really can't review the main issues with all the bickering and it's hard to go over the points raised by each side of the debate. It would be best to sort the points again so that issue could be resolved properly and not die through agony and lack of agreement.

I would think it's possible that editors raise compromise suggestions and see where we stand there.

Point of dispute

If I understand correctly, the desired change to the article is that it will include some mention of Haaretz's editor in chief that was made to a US official and the argument is over the value of that comment in relevance to the article about the newspaper.

Does everyone agree that this is the point of dispute? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Add your name here along with agree/disagree please: if you comment here, make it up to two lines please - longer comments can be made at the General comments section below - stick to content rather than perceived behavior issues please.

• agree/disagree - sign.
• agree/disagree - sign.
• agree/disagree - sign.
• agree/disagree - sign.

General comments

I am not sure this is the correct place to comment, but I will return here in a short time- I need some cool off time from this madness--Rm125 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC).See you in couple of days. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz fiddled with Obama poll

oh! Oh! "Fiddled' with the poll? It believe that this strike against the reputation of the paper is news and important information that WP should carry. I think it belongs in this article, but not sure where or how. Any suggestions? Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE? Maybe you should give it a try. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an outrageous claim. I mean the advert on the JPost site that says you can learn Hebrew in 10 days. Hopefully it will be removed from Jpost’s online print edition archive and they'll rewrite the edition of the story that remains online so that it makes no reference to the claim. Other than that I didn't see anything noteworthy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Founding

The intro says 1918, the summary 1919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.9.97 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it says 1918 in both places. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Importance of newspaper?

Readership declined but the newspaper is important? The circulation / readership figures are old. Mgromabc642 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving this article

How come this article is not allowed to be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millsstory (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you from improving the article. But if you vandalize it again, as you did here and here, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because the editors here are Arabs, Communists, Muslims, neo-Nazis, and other anti-Semites. nableezy - 03:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that adding facts was vandalism. Millsstory (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are adding tags without explaining why. You are required to justify tags here. You need to be able to demonstrate that the tags are valid by citing evidence from the article and reliable sources. Wikipedia has an article that explains what a fact is and a policy WP:V that explains when a piece of information is regarded as verifiable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

CAMERA

Could someone explain to why CAMERA's opinion on this topic is suitable for inclusion. Has it been published by a reliable third party RS in relation to the topic for instance? Dlv999 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Although I don't know much about CAMERA, Andrea Levin is a notable source for information relating to media bias, and she's the author of the piece that's been cited in the article since May of 2010 without anyone objecting to it. I've supplemented what was there with a more definitive RS where Levin articulates some of her views vis-a-vis Haaretz, since they're important in our context. CAMERA is a reliable source for Levin's opinion – she was or is the organization's executive director.—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the opinion of Levin is reported as relevant to the topic by an RS I have no complaints. Dlv999 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Poll

There are lengthy, ongoing discussions regarding the poll at the Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Dialog_poll section and subsequent sections. I suggest that planned additions to this article regarding the poll are coordinated with the discussions over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz fiddles polls. As a matter of fact, even Haaretz published that statement. But this statement was repeatedly censored from Wikipedia. Such a disgusting anti-Israeli bias!--AsiBakshish (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All material related to this poll is under discussion. All material has been kept out of articles while it is being discussed. Both sides in the discussion have accused each other of censorship. So, I suggest you self revert, join the discussion rather than trying to impose your will by force via edit warring which is rude, arrogant, and inconsistent with policy and guidelines. Also keep your personal opinions off the page. They don't matter and will make things worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested on a discussion, which is in its root based on already proven mistake. Both sides (even the original publisher - Haaretz - see the sources) have acknowledged this was indeed a mistake. The article did not represent the poll, which is precisely what was heavily criticized and finally acknowledged by Haaretz. Do you or anyone else challenge these facts? The discussion you are suggesting (about the poll itself and not about its misinterpretation in Haaretz) is not substantially connected to this acknowledged criticism or to this already acknowledged mistake.--AsiBakshish (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AsiBakshish, I have no interest at all in the results of this poll, how they were reported and the aftermath. I care about abuse of process here in Wikipedia which drags Wikipedia into the cesspool of the politics of the Israel-Palestine dispute. What I am telling you is that must abide by the rules. They apply to you and everyone else. You are required to discuss additions and get consensus for those additions. You have absolutely no choice in matter. You cannot edit war in material. The discussion taking place at Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Dialog_poll covers both the reporting of the poll and criticism of the poll. The discussion and outcome will certainly be relevant and of use in this article. I have left a note over there that the dispute is spreading over here. You can discuss it here or there but you must either discuss it or walk away. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You simply removed sourced material for political reasons. This is precisely way of Discrimination. No one dares to speak here about Apartheid policies of The Palestinian Authority. The material is simply removed. Period. I do not see the connection to the page, which you suggested. There was heavy criticism of Haaretz. The criticism was acknowledged to great extent, but for political reasons may not appear on Haaretz Wikipedia page. It has nothing to do with UN and other things on that page, which you suggested.--AsiBakshish (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove it for political reasons and you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that I did. Unless you have some kind of medical condition that compels you to behave badly, kindly desist. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so if you claim this was not for political reasons, what were the reasons then? Why cannot be Haaretz acknowledged mistake taken into the account on Haaretz Wikipedia page? What else are you doing, then suggesting, Israeli Jews are racists by moving the discussion to an unrelated article and removing sourced material from the page? Haaretz was criticized and it did acknowledge great part of that criticism. These are facts. Here are the sources.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I am not prepared to discuss whether majority of Israelis (or Israeli Jews) support apartheid, as I am not prepared to discus this about any other democratic nation/country. I don't even think, it is a discussion. I think it is just way to slander. And I do think, Wikipedia should bare legal consequences for this slanderous campaign.

--AsiBakshish (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you. There are ongoing discussions. Content will be added to articles when there is consensus to do so. You are disrupting that process. Try harder to keep your comically asymmetrical and irrelevant moral outrage off this page. I'd also appreciate it if you could desist from repulsively exploiting the murder of innocent people to make infantile and offensive quips about editors here not being able to gas you. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite happy they cannot. It is true victory of our time. The page you are promoting is quite offensive. No one is discussing here apartheid in the worst autocracies on the world. What is discussed here? Whether there is apartheid in Israel! Not in Sudan or South Korea or Hamas dominated Gaza Strip. It is really shameful absurd to discuss Haaretz acknowledged misconduct under so offensive and obscure article, which was completely made up and has no connection with reality.--AsiBakshish (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not wishing to fork the discussion at the other talk page, there are specific problems with the text AsiBakshish wants to add. (1) It makes judgements in the voice of Wikipedia, such as "based on a misinterpretation of a poll" and "although it was incorrect". This is unacceptable under any circumstances. (2) It is dishonest: "Haaretz published a clarification stating, that the article did not accurately reflect the findings of the poll". As AsiBakshish knows perfectly well, the clarification refers only to the original headline of the article, not to its content. And, AsiBakshish, statements like "I am not interested on a discussion", apart from being bad English, are a fast-track to getting banned. Zero^talk 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

1) - Can be easily resolved.

2) - Valid point. The addition should not be based on this clarification alone but on what other sources have to say. A single opinion piece is insufficient for such an addition and better sourcing should be provided. Ankh.Morpork 11:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You did not even add a disclaimer to the article! Such a behavior was not used here against any other country or any other nation! Haaretz did acknowledge its mistake now even in English. But when will you acknowledge it as well? If this is not racism, then really, what is? Maybe you should discus apartheid policies on Wikipedia? As a matter of fact the clarification did have to go into the details of article itself. You can read it there. [10] I am not prepared to discuss, whether most Israelis support apartheid as I am not prepared to discuss this about any other democratic country. I can see, the whole tone of the discussion here is extremely slanderous and anti-Israeli. And really feel free to ban me. At least you cannot gas me.--AsiBakshish (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Asi, nothing will be accomplished on this thread. The main thread for this is what Sean posted above. If you want to give your opinion, comment there, and the result will likely affect this article as well. For now, we need to leave any such text out of the article while a discussion is ongoing. --Jethro B 15:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I stated up, I have real ethical and legal problem to discus on that page. I even think, this discussion was exhausted. This problem should probably be solved outside Wikipedia, since Wikipeadia itself is not able to solve it. --AsiBakshish (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[11] Haaretz publicly admitted that not just the title but in fact the whole reading of the polls by Gideon Levy was poor. The article is titled Errors that traveled round the world--Tritomex (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is for the link provided above by Sean, and we should discuss it there, not here. That way there's just 1 centralized discussion. --Jethro B 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole frame of discussion there is tainted with deep conviction of the article, that Israel is an apartheid state. The article is poorly sourced, based on anti-Israeli blogs and most importantly it has nothing to do specifically with this Haaretz mistake. Tomorrow I am writing to Wikimedia foundation, Wikipedia should not became the haven for slanderous anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish campaigning. --46.116.189.27 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you believe there are issues with the article, WP:Be bold and make changes according to Wikipedia policies on that article. I doubt the Wikimedia foundation will do anything, as Wikipedia is not censored. But if you have any issues, go ahead and edit/discuss. Just becaues a discussion is "tained with deep conviction of the article" doesn't mean you don't have a voice. --Jethro B 21:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Haaretz poll is a fake. Read why. On the other hand, several polls conducted in the Palestinian territories show a majority of Palestinians having genocidal intentions and favoring discrimination against Jews.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sonntagsbraten, the poll was misleading and it was misreported, but I don't think it was anyones intention. It seems to me Gideon Levy truly believes to his articles at the time he is writing them. Fake is usually intentional. But moreover, even if I shared you view, how can you possibly prove and verify that for this article? AsiBakshish (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Palestinian casualties in the Israeli press: the case of Haaretz and the Intifada

"This article examines how the Israeli quality daily newspaper Haaretz reported Palestinian casualties during the first year of the Palestinian uprising."

• Korn, A. (2004). "Reporting Palestinian casualties in the Israeli press: The case of Haaretzand the Intifada". Journalism Studies. 5 (2): 247. doi:10.1080/1461670042000211212.

The findings are also described in Al Jazeera and the Global Media Landscape: The South is Talking Back by Tine Ustad Figenschou, p. 182 Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sean. It would be nice to flesh out the content with some more academic standard sources. Unfortunately I can't get hold of the paper at the moment. Dlv999 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

An Analysis of the New York Timesand Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

I'm not entirely sure what the basis is for the recent deletion. Perhaps the editor could explain. Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, citable references are made to the article's text, and not the abstract. Because we have the complete article, citations are made to the body of the work. I merely edited the sentence for the sake of accuracy--to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract.

Second, the sentence had an obvious problem with WP:Editorializing: note that "editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The sentence was merely improved for the sake of accuracy. --Precision123 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to any Wikipedia policy or standard practice that says that abstracts cannot be quoted as part of a citation? Dlv999 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

First, it is common knowledge that an abstract is not as weighty or relevant as the body of the article. I did not find a Wikipedia-specific editing standard, but the entry on abstract (summary) states: "It is commonly surmised that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the entire merits of a paper." Because we have the entire article at hand, citations are made to the body of the article itself.

Second, you did not address the concern about WP:editorializing, which I sought to improve. Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, nor are they guidelines for writing Wikipedia articles. You have not justified your deletion for the quote as you have offered no evidence that relevant sections of abstracts cannot be quoted as part of a citation. The deletion of the "however" is justifiable, per your explanation. The remainder of your edit remains unjustified by policy or evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact there is no policy or practice that disallows quoting from abstracts. Abstract (summary) is a Wikipedia article not a policy page or guideline, and MOS:OPED seems to be irrelevant. WP:SAY was mentioned by Precision at the same time as introducing a word "asserted" that WP:SAY explicitly advises against. I selected "concluded", which implies neither assent nor dissent from us. While reading a source in its entirety is always a good idea, it is perfectly fine to use the abstract as a guide to how a source should be summarized. Since the abstract is written by the authors of the source for the purpose of summarising it, it is more likely to accurately reflect the opinion of the authors than is a summary written by outsiders like us. In any case, on reading the whole source one can easily see that the abstract is a fair reflection of it. No valid reason has been given for avoiding wording from the abstract. Zero^talk 12:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not simply a matter of the word "however" but rather the placement of the sentence, i.e., whether it makes an unintended connection. Second, why cite to an abstract or summary when the full article and its conclusions are readily available? A citation to the material in the article is more verifiable and more reflective of the merits of the paper. Third, I may have misread the box in WP:SAY, which includes "assert" as a synonym for said. So I apologize for that small slip-up. --Precision123 (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, after posting in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#How reliable are the abstracts of journals compared to the actual text of the article?, an editor replied: "Don't cite the abstract. Treat as being only slightly better than a GBooks snippet view, ie: it lacks full context. There may be important provisos or development of argument in the body of the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)"

--Precision123 (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed "however" and started a new paragraph, so it no longer looks like a rebuttal to the previous sentence. Also, I didn't cite the abstract, I cited the paper. I read the whole paper and decided that the way the author summarises it is reasonable. On the other hand, you selected a sentence that reflects only the section of the paper called "Story Topics" which is only one of five aspects that the author considers. Zero^talk 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The quotation that I had selected was the one that most closely resembled the statement that formerly appeared in the article here. Second, you still cite the abstract, which is problematic. For example, the cited section does not use the word "favorable," which you use here. That is why I used wording from the article, which is more reliable. --Precision123 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Also the consensus from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#How reliable are the abstracts of journals compared to the actual text of the article? seems to be that abstracts should generally not be cited, especially when the article is available. --Precision123 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero has already explained, He is not citing the abstract. He is citing the entire paper and using a relevant quote from the abstract as part of the citation (which he has confirmed is a good summary of the whole paper). We are not supposed to plagiarize sources using the exact same words that they do. Dlv999 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a plagiarism issue here, which can be fixed, if necessary, with quotes. Also, you write: "He is not citing the abstract. He is citing the entire paper and using a relevant quote from the abstract as part of the citation...." That sounds quite inconsistent. Bottom line: we cite articles, not abstracts. You are free to read the consensus on the RS noticeboard. --Precision123 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your question there is not relevant to the situation here. You asked: "How reliable are the abstracts of journals compared to the actual text of the article?". But Zero has read the whole article and is citing the whole article, and is also using a quote from the abstract as part of that citation. If you want support for your attempts to censor the quote you need to ask a question like: Is it prohibited to quote from the abstract as part of a citation of an entire paper. Dlv999 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dlv999, as much as your nuances try to complicate the situation the consensus of the RS noticeboard is clear: cite the article itself, not the abstract. That conclusion holds true in this case. --Precision123 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero did cite the article as previously discussed. Dlv999 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not the issue. Citing the article is fine. The issue is drawing from the abstract, when it is clear that material should be drawn from the article only. --Precision123 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not what you asked at WP:RSN. Dlv999 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, since your preferred version leaves the sentence as it is, and leaves it cited to the same source, how can you possibly find it objectionable to include text from the abstract. More information can't possibly make the citation less supportive of the sentence once it's agreed that the citation supports the sentence. The only case in which no quote would detract from the citation is if the citation didn't support its sentence and the quote revealed that. It seems inconsistent of you to support the citation but not the quote.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is simple: the language chosen can differ. The way that Zero has written it, he writes that "Haaretz reporting was more favorable to the Israelis." Yet that is not found in its conclusion section at all. What the source says on page 117 is that it "was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." Even if this choice of language seems slight, the body of the article is what represents the merits of the study. That portion is dominant. --Precision123 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What is it that you think the word "favorable" means in this context that makes the phrase "more favorable to the Israelis" different from "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, very clearly, even if the language choice seems slight, we should not change it. The body of the article is what reliably represents the merits of the study. That portion is dominant and citable. --Precision123 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We change language all the time. We read sources and then evaluate and summarize what they say in our own words. That's what we're actually supposed to do. If you don't think "more favorable to the Israelis" is supported by the language in the source, which states "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side," you must have some idea that they mean something different. What is it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precision123, you don't seem to have any support for your proposal to eliminate the quote from the abstract. So how about a compromise: include the quote from the abstract and your preferred quote in the footnote. Dlv999 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"More likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" does not necessarily mean it is "favorable to the Israelis." Stick with the actual words of the actual article. A compromise should say "Haaretz reporting "was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." That way it is a factual representation of the source. --Precision123 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, how might it not mean that? The difference must be in your perception of the meaning of the word "favorable," and I'm just wondering what it is. If you "stick with the actual words of the actual article," you will be committing plagiarism. You can find warnings against doing that in the very same student guides you linked to on RSN. What is it you think the word "favorable" means here that makes the sentences mean something different from one another?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, quoting a mere 10 words from an article and crediting the source for the language is not "committing plagiarism." ... In fact, "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." (WP:QUOTE). --Precision123 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

But what about the rest of the article? It's not composed of a bunch of 10 word quotes. It's composed of a bunch of editors writing in their own words. Anyway, if you don't want to say how the two phrases have different meanings I suppose it's your prerogative. Perhaps you can consider Dlv999's proposal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you have against the actual wording of the article? See WP:QUOTE. "But what about the rest of the article?" ... What about it? What about the rest of every other source that is cited in the Haaretz article or any other article on Wikipedia? Have read other sentences and quotes in the article Haaretz? The article Haaretz is not summarizing every sentence that is in the Viser article here. We take the brief, relevant quote and uphold accuracy and verifiability. I strongly encourage using quotes (which is not plagiarism, a rather absurd allegation). --Precision123 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As you have no support for your proposal of deleting the abstract quote, would you consider a compromise of including both the abstract quote and your preferred quote (both included as a footnote to the citation). Dlv999 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem getting an outside opinion on this. I say again, per WP:QUOTE, that we should simply quote the relevant 10 words from the article. Period. --Precision123 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but as it stands you are in a minority of one about the best quote to use for the footnote. I am offering a consensus approach so both quotes can be included. Dlv999 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem if I currently "stand in a minority": "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)," according to Wikipedia Policy. I myself have offered a suitable compromise approach and used WP:QUOTE to support it. This should be the most accurate and uncontroversial approach. --Precision123 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but is your "compromise" simply to apply your preferred text to the article. What is the difference between your preffered text and the "compromise" you are suggesting?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain what part of WP:QUOTE makes you think that a quote is better than the proposed paraphrase and why? After all, the guideline merely allows for the use of quotes. It doesn't encourage them per se. You haven't actually made an argument for why a quote might be preferred here, so "quality" doesn't enter into the question.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE: "Quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. ... In some instances, quotations are preferred to text, for example, when dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas." --Precision123 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, as this research note is a primary source: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." --Precision123 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I can read WP:QUOTE as well as you can. What makes you think any of that applies in this case? Can you try to engage with the actual material we're talking about and make an argument that has to do with the specifics? Also, in what alternate world might the article at hand be considered a primary source? I really don't think you understand what that means.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. it might be time to think about taking that "new user" template off your talk page. Just sayin'...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, first "plagiarism" and now this? For "primary source" definitions, see Penn Online Research Tutorial, which includes "publication of the results of empirical observations or studies, as well as data sets, technical reports, and experimental research results" as primary sources. In contrast, "scholarly articles that don't present new experimental research results" are secondary. See also [12] if necessary. --Precision123 (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding now, right? This is performance art.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision seems to not understand that the abstract of a journal article is part of the article. It is designed to make sense by itself, but it is not a separate document. Any allowance for quoting or paraphrasing from the paper applies just as much to the abstract as to other sections. Zero^talk 09:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Driveby Editor just throwing my 2c in. Quoting from either the abstract or the opening paragraphs of the conclusions is standard practice when looking to summarise a cited article where the entire article, rather than one specific claim made in it, is the fact to cite. The Abstract's summary appears to be a coherent source for a quote for this article. Also since the quote isn't in the article, but is in the references, it's really a whole lot of fight over nothing.SPACKlick (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spacklick, we are referring to the sentence, not to footnote. Namely, the quotation from the article says "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side," and I believe we should leave it like that in the sentence. On the other hand, some other editors believe it should say more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side and more favorable to the Israelis. In terms of standard practice, "[abstracts] may sometimes be inaccurate in the details, so you should not cite the abstract. If the abstract and the discussion differ, you should go with the information given in the introduction." [13][14] We should not state more than cited quote in the actual article. --Precision123 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition, some of the editors insist that adding that extra bit ("and more favorable to the Israelis") would somehow be inclusive of all of the author's major findings. That is nonsense. For one, how does that summarize his finding that Haaretz personalized Palestinian deaths more than Israeli deaths, or that they gave Palestinians the final word ("end quote") more often than Israelis? It simply does not make sense. Second, that inference is found nowhere in the article's conclusion; indeed, the concluding section makes little to no conclusions about Haaretz. Including more than the relevant sentence could be POV pushing. --Precision123 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The only conclusion about Haaretz in the concluding section of the research note is that "Compared with Ha’aretz, the Times’ coverage" is more favorable to the Israelis. I have updated the sentence it to include that conclusion. --Precision123 (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dishonest edit summaries

In this edit, Precision123 made the two above-mentioned changes along with a proper correction of the name of the journal involved using the edit summary journal name. I'd just like to note that this is extremely misleading, since three alterations were made to the article, only one of which was to the name of the journal. The other two were controversial, and I find it problematic that the editor chose the only uncontrovertible change as the full substance of the edit summary. It would be easier to discuss improvements to this article if we could feel more sure that edit summaries accurately reflected the changes being made. Just sayin'...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Extremely misleading"? ... Yes, I changed the word "concluded" to "stated." OK. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

the former prestige has arguably waned

We have this sentence:

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.

in the "Overview section" at the end of the second paragraph. The first sentence in the paragraph says:

Despite its historically relatively low circulation in Israel, Haaretz has been for many years considered Israel's most influential daily newspaper.

Note that I changed the verb from "was" to "has been," as "was" seems to me to connote a state of affairs where it is definitively no longer considered such.

Now, it is possible to find essentially infinitely many sources, of very high quality, which call Haaretz "the most influential daily newspaper." It is not so easy to find high quality sources which contradict this. The three sources that support the opinion at the end of the paragraph are each quoting the opinions of individuals, whereas the sources supporting the first sentence are high-quality reliable secondary sources. Thus it seems to me that the concluding sentence, hedging only by saying "arguably," gives undue weight to the opinions of these individuals. I would prefer to see their statements attributed to them at a very minimum, and perhaps to see some of this material removed. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For one, if an editor makes a reasonable change to this (or any other issues) citing the reliable source, please do not simply revert it. Being revert-happy is not responsible editing, especially for small changes or improvements on an article. WP:Revert only when necessary. I am making this known here because while I appreciate you bringing up issues to the attention of other editors, editors should not have to edit in fear that you will suddenly revert their edits or compromises, or that you will threaten an edit war over small, uncontroversial edits that you may happen to dislike. Keep a cool head.

That said, I will look into some of these issues. Most reliable sources indicate that it is still Israel's most influential newspaper. Whether its influenced has waned in recent years according to some observers is certainly a possibility, but it does not look like its influence has waned so far below what it was that it is no longer the most influential still. --Precision123 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this study a note?

In this edit, Precision123 changed the descriptor of the cited article from "study" to "note." I don't have a copy of the article, but looking at the publisher's abstract here I can see that it's not explicitly labeled a "note." Since "note" is a technical term in academic publishing, and a note is a lesser form of publication than an article (another technical term) or a study (a not so technical, more generic term), I am sure that it is misleading to describe an academic publication as a note unless it is explicitly labeled a note in the journal. Thus I changed the word back. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You can access the article here where you can see that the author refers to it as a study 6 times and a note once. The study is listed in the Journal Article section rather than the Notes section of the table of contents. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that certainly settles that. The journal has a "notes" section and this article is not in it, so it's misleading to call it a note.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing "book note" (which this is not) with a "research note" (within which this study was published). A study can be published within an article, a research note, a technical note, a comment, etc. Unlike Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, I never thought this was a huge deal. Certainly not something to start a war over. --Precision123 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What is a "book note"? What is a "research note"? What do you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We can let it go. Please. --Precision123 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)