Talk:Haaretz/Archive 2

Irit Linor that cancel her subscription is not just someone and the fact that Haaretz say that it caused wave of cancellation prove it. She is prominent best seller author according to Haaretz.Oren.tal (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs second or third party sourcing. Many people write to editors, they arent that important enough to warrant mention unless it is noted elsewhere. --neon white talk 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

it was mention in other Israeli website.Check the second source,it is in Hebrew but it is important news website in Israel.In anyway Haaretz is enough source for it even without any other source.Oren.tal (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No it isnt, wikipedia isa not based on primary sources. --neon white talk 12:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

anyway I have added even more second party sources.It was noted in the Israeli media as people can see.Oren.tal (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies a novelist to offer notable criticism of a newspaper? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

she is not only novelist and she had enough qualifies that it has been mention in Haaretz and other Israeli media.The fact is that she has political program in the radio and that she is a left winger.Oren.tal (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)And the fact that it was reported in the media and the radio all over Israel make it enough important.As you can see the two most viewed Israeli websites (ynet and wall) reported it.Oren.tal (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Also she is political commentator in the radio.Oren.tal (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because this contains claims about a living person the sources need to be good quaility verifiable sources. To qualify as this, the hebrew references need to contain a translation. (see WP:NONENG). These are the only sources that appear to be of any qaulity. I've removed it until this is done. No synthesised claims about 'readers' should be included. It's a weasel word and doesn't seem to be backed up by a sources. --neon white talk 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect the first source is Haaretz article that say that she called it anti Zionist.Haaretz article in that context is excellent source.Read the first source with is also Haaretz article and you will find that it is indeed say that readers accuse Haaretz as being anti Israeli.Your false weak excuse look really bad.It is looked like you don't want any thing bad about Haaretz.I assume good faith though but I wont allow you delet source part of article.It look that every time you search for a new excuse.STOP IT.Oren.tal (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not what you keep adding to the article, it incredible synthesis. Haaretz articles are not second or third party sources, for claims about a living person, it is essentially that we have that. We simply cannot add every single piece of commentary and comments from letters to the editor that has ever appeared in the newspaper to the article. If you can second party source any of it or provide translations it can be readded. I'm giving a warning about not assuming good faith, please imporve your civility and discuss properly, WP:BLP policy is very clear on requiring very good sources. --neon white talk 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz article say that "Readers accused us of being anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist" "A prominent Israeli best-selling author sent us a letter cancelling her subscription and accusing us of being foolishly and wickedly anti-Zionist.".Except from the article from haaretz I have also added third and second source.You can use google translation to translate them.it is very bad translation but at least you will be able to know what they are talking about and that enough.Oren.tal (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A translation needs to be added to the reference or it isn't verifiable and because it concerns a living person it's essential. What readers have said in letters to the paper is not relevant unless a second party source has noted it. --neon white talk 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is translation in the source but it is not needed because everything that was written in the line is verified by the first source with is Haaretz itself.Oren.tal (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The section you keep adding this to is "Editorial Policy." It's an entirely inappropriate section. And what you are taking that snippet from is an editorial by the paper's publisher, in which he gives an extended discussion of the evolution of the paper's editorial policy. You simply fished an incident mentioned in the editorial to highlight (as you seem to be committed to doing) a negative claim about Haaretz. This is inappropriate. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

the event was important enough as it was mention in almost all Israeli media.The letter is about the editorial policy and as such it is belong to there.Her letter was about the editorial policy.If the nation praise of Haaretz belong to there so should be her letter.Also if you check the article about the Guardian you will see it is also talk about the reader view in the editorial section.Oren.tal (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it very clear Irit criticism is notable and it was mention in the Israeli radio channel as well in the two most popular website in Israel.I gave link to those website.moreover if it were not notable then the publisher would not have written letter to response,but he did.It was widely notable in Israel.International it was less notable but since this is Israeli newspaper that is enough.Oren.tal (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway here is one more source left wing web site: http://www.ajpme.org/articles/operationd.htm "Ha'aretz, is currently the target of a consumer boycott for its alleged anti-Zionist tendencies. One-time leftist Irit Linor triggered the campaign by publicly canceling her subscription. "I don't want to be a subscriber to a newspaper that makes me ashamed of my Zionism, my patriotism, and my intelligence, three traits I hold dear," Linor wrote. The letter, published on a leading Israeli news site, provoked an unprecedented number of responses. Some 300 surfers wrote in, the overwhelming majority to support Linor, and even to announce that they too were canceling their subscriptions to Ha'aretz."Oren.tal (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First I would ask if these two sentences are redundant? Both are found in the lead:

• -Its editorial pages are considered more influential among government leaders.[2]

The reference for the above is a highly charged political piece with the author making his own claims and expressing his own opinion. This is not the result of a serious survey or poll:

"There sits Haaretz, Israel’s self-proclaimed paper of record... Despite its lower circulation — about eighty thousand daily compared to six hundred thousand for Yedioth Ahronoth and four hundred thousand for Maariv — Haaretz’s news and editorial pages have serious impact. No one in the power elite can afford to ignore its daily, unsigned editorial. Like The New York Times, Le Monde, and The Guardian, it sees itself as a player, ...."

I suggest that one cannot make the claim ("considered more influential among government leaders") based on that one reference. The second (redundant) sentence in the article is a little lower down:

• - Haaretz's readership includes Israel's middle and upper classes, intellectuals, academics, and professionals. It has a wide following amongst the Israeli intelligentsia and government leaders.[6][7][8]

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

• - the first, The culture and customs of Israel which can be found here: does not seem to support the statement at all.

• - the second, Popular Music and National Culture in Israel says "Three daily newspapers have dominated the press in Israel since the 1950's: Maariv, Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz. The first two are wide-circulation newspapers, rivals since the 1950's. Haaretz is the Israeli "thinking people's" newspaper, read by intellectuals, academics, and professionals. pg 38"

The problem here is that the source says nothing about Israeli government leaders. And "Israeli's ...intellectuals" and "Israeli intelligentsia" which follows in the next sentence also redundant. Nor is this comment sourced to anything except the author's opinion. Is the author implying that intellectuals and academics and professionals do not read Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv? What about the "upper classes" mentioned?

• - the third, Media Decentralization: The Case of Israel's Local Newspapers can be found here:

"The three dailies, unlike all the others, share a certain personal and/or intellectual affinity with the middle class. In other words their editors and owners are identified with the center-right parties of the political spectrum, even though all three are institutionally and formally independent(Galnoor 1982, 250)"

Ha'aretz right of center? This is contradicted by the author as well a short bit later. Also, the reference that he is making is over 25 years old

"Ha'aretz, the only morning paper among the three, is also the only independent morning paper. It is considered the quality newspaper in Israel (Merrill 1968) because it insists on maintaining very high standards: its language is superb, its columnists superior, and its information reliable."

Based on a reference 40 years old? I think things in the newspaper business have changed a lot over 40 years.

"From the very outset Ha'aretz was accepted by the Yishuv middle class; to this day, it is considered to be a liberal-leaning newspaper of the petit bourgeoisie."

Obviously conflicts with an earlier sentence. Petit bourgeoisie? lol. Was this written in grandpa's day? So far nothing about "upper class..."

"Consecutive surveys show that Ha'aretz is popular among readers born in Western countries-- i.e. Europe and North America-- and locally born residents whose families originated in those countries. The percentage of the population reading it also increases proportionately with education, income, and age."

This book was written in 1986, and is using references much earlier. I do think it interesting that at least 25 years ago it was read mostly by Western Israelis, but unless one compares the reading public of all the papers in regard to education, income and age, it does not really tell us much.

I suggest we re-write the lead and stick with contemporary facts we can reference, as well as cutting out the redundancies. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I found some more contemporary sources and rewrote the paragraph in question to reflect what the sources say. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Template talk:Infobox Newspaper, political allegiance is intended to refer to allegiance to a political party, not the newspaper's editorial viewpoint.

"the option is still useful for newspapers in the UK and other places where newspapers formally align themselves with political parties"

"Maybe [political] should be renamed to political allegiance, to denote the relationship to a political party? Otherwise it seems to be a parameter that can only result in POV. If a newspaper has a 'conservative' journalist, it can be said so in the article, this does not make the newspaper as a whole 'conservative'."

Please read the other comments on the Template Talk page, where the consensus is that the field is too POV to use unless the newspaper's editorial alliance is stated. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see for example Guardian,Times,Telegraph in all of the Political allegiance is mentioned even though they do NOT allegiance to a political party.In the same way it should be mentioned in Haaretz case.Oren.tal (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Second you and one anonymous user is NOT consensus.Oren.tal (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, it's worth noting that you have been engaged in edit wars over (some of) those newspapers' political allegiances.

Second, the fact that somebody else is doing something wrong is no excuse to follow them down the wrong path.

Finally, I'm not talking about any consensus regarding this article, I'm talking about the proper use of the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is the case in all important English newspapera.As for involving in "edit wars" last time I have edited anything there was a long time ago.In any case I have the link you supplied and there is only discussion about this.Clearly that the way it is implemented is the other way.Oren.tal (talk)

Talk:The Guardian#Infobox "Political allegiance" again: "User Oren.tal has just changed the stance from "centre left" to "left wing" with a cite to "Cybercast News Service which has a story "Left Wing UK Paper Pulls Bush Assassination Column", a pretty much non-story from 2004."

Somebody has a penchant for trawling the internet, looking to label newspapers and organizations "left wing". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please no personal attack.Second if you look your edits then you will see that you like to do the opposit.In any case it is not relevant to the point and the point is that Political allegiance is mentioned with or without any connection to party.Oren.tal (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, that's not a personal attack.

Second, as I wrote, just because somebody else is wrong doesn't mean we should emulate them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

political allegiance is mentioned in four most important British newspapers even though they are not allegiance to any political party.Also your claim about the template is false.There is discussion there but no such law.You are just trying to distract from the subject.Oren.tal (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

relevant edit -

Heyo Malik,
I'm not sure I'm following the 'political party' concern from the top of this thread. Can you please refer me to some form of wide consensus on this issue? Thanks! p.s. Oren, would be best to avoid personal comments; stick to content (e.g. edits and concerns). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. to the subject there is no debate that there are reliable source that Haaretz is left wing.

Take a look in the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haaretz#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22

He said "I agree".His only claim is that since left wing is not allegiance to a party therefore it should not be mentioned.However it is mentioned in the four most important British newspaper Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The Independent.That why it should be mentioned in the case of Haaretz.Oren.tal (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the field was changed from "political" to "political allegiance" 2-1/2 years ago to reflect the intention that it reflect allegiance to a political party. See the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#{{{political}}} is now optional., Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#"political" line, and Template talk:Infobox Newspaper#political -> political allegiance. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

well when it is about political party then you can say "political allegiance".When it is not then you can just say political.In any case this was the policy in all four major British newspaper and I see no reason why it should not be in the case of Haaretz.What Malik show is a discussion and NOT rule.Oren.tal (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or to say it more clear it is one user opinion and NOT law of wikipedia as everyone can see in the cases of Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The IndependentOren.tal (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oren.tal is correct, there is absolutely no indication that this is intended to refer to a political party in fact the discussion listed above suggest otherwise, if you know of any such guidelines please provide them. Without guidelines it's practicle to refer to the common usage. The discussions listed above were all left years ago without a consensus forming. --neon white talk 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Political allegiance means they are loyal or devoted to some cause or agenda. It can either be a stated allegiance or a hidden one. If it is a stated one, there should be no argument, because there shouldn't be any problem to provide a reference to such a statement. If it is a hidden one, or at least an unstated one, this labelling should be based on a widely-accepted view that the paper is indeed so, otherwise it is merely a POV. This is demonstrated nicely in this very article, where Haaretz is described as having an anti-Israeli bias by some and as having a pro-Israeli bias by others. This is clear indication that there is no general agreement even about whether the paper is biased and towards whom, let alone political allegiance. So I think it would require extraordinary evidence to prove that Haaretz is indeed allegiant to some political cause, not just someone's opinion. In other words, this should be determined authoritatively, not by some media watch group which has their own agenda.

Their "allegiance" to a liberal worldview is stated by their website. Personally I think this is something any journal aspires to be, along with objective, fair and professional, not necessarily a particular political agenda, but I can live with it. Their allegiance to a left-wing worldview, however, is POV and is not supported by their own words, nor by an authoritative consensus of any sort. At least none has been presented here thus far.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

their allegiance to a left-wing is supported by many reliable sources and is not less valid then the allegiances that is mention in the article of the British newspaper.sources for example:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/01/31/israels_olmert_looks_to_extend_west_bank_barrier/

http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=28406

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3451497.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL24528048

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGNGSVV

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/3706.html

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081112/FOREIGN/810802752/1041

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/7138506.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/opinion/main3590357.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p06s02-wome.html

This is more than enough.Oren.tal (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Their allegiance to a left-wing is supported by an authoritative consensus.Oren.tal (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not supported by "an authoritative consensus," it's supported by a bunch of other news media quotes you hand-selected using the phrase "left wing." Many other sources describe it as "liberal." In fact, there are very many instances of the phrase "liberal newspaper Haaretz" tio be found. So please tone down the authoritative attitude based on some handpicked sources presented to illustrate your own POV, and try and reach consensus. And a major factor to be weighed is how Harretz descibes itself, which, as we note in the article is as follows :"Haaretz is an independent daily newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs." that self description weighs more heavily than handpicked sources. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the New York Times motto is "All the news that's fit to print" Of COurse we don't believe them. That's why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. Self descriptions can be included - for what they're worth - but Wikipedia does not rely on them!Historicist (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense." Well, there's a thoughtful reply. But anyway, since you propose that the objectivity of these news sources is basically a worthless commodity, why on Earth would we rely on them to calibrate the political positioning of rival enterprises? There are many such "secondary sources" that consider, for example, that Barack Obama is a socialist, or "left wing." Should we put that in his info box? It seems the sensible thing to do is indicate that they are self described as "liberal" (which to some sources, depending where they are located in the political positioning system, may be considered far left wing, while to a Marxist source, it may be considered mealy mouthed bourgeois accommodationist sellout.) But the fact is, Oren.tal's handpicked sources are just that--hand-picked. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The left-of-center nature of Haaretz is not only extremely well-sourced, it's well-documented in the article. The edit-warring and removal of the CAT violates several Wikipedia standards.Historicist (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat Some of the news sources are left wing themselves.And they are too many to dismiss them.Oren.tal (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources you list above could be characterized as "left wing" (and please note Global Exchange is not a reliable secondary source for characterizing the orientation of a newspaper). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspet that Boodles thecat has never read the Boston Globe. Here is a self-description taken formthe paper's Wikipedia page: " The Globe has a long and proud tradition of being a progressive institution, especially on social issues. We are pro-choice; we're against the death penalty; we're for gay rights. But if people read us carefully, they will find that on a whole series of other issues, we are not knee-jerk. We're for charter schools; we're for any number of business-backed tax breaks. We are a lot more nuanced and subtle than that liberal stereotype does justice to." Of course the globe is left of center.Historicist (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Historicist, I'm missing the part where the Boston Globe is describing itself as "left wing." Can you point it out again? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment: My personal reading of past discussions fit the notion of the template creator, Slarre, that if a political leanning is clearly addressed, there is room to include the information. As for Haaretz, I do believe, based on my personal experiances as an Israeli, that it was well noted as a left leanning and a liberal , though elitist in approach. There's quite a good number of citations to this matter with mainstream people even calling it anti-Zionist at times. Sources would certainly support that there is nothing controvercial about adding 'Left leanning' and 'Liberal' to the infobox. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

per the following diff -

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Mr Shabaz my corrections are called vandalism.

Let me explain here: All I did is to provide the correct and current readership of haaretz statistic( 7.5 %) and also to give a reference from the same newspaper. This is a fact and vcan not be disputed.

Another fact was corrected ( erazed) by me. That Haaretz is "more influential than Israel's other major daily newspapers" is not correct. First if you go to Mr. Shabaz reference (7) and read carefully you will find that nothing of this sort is written there. All it says is Haaretz is more influential compare to nis readership not compare to other newspapers in Israel. Mr Shabaz please don'i erase my corrections anymore without careful examination of facts. Thank you. rm125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You tried to use a blog as a source. A blog is not a reliable source. Thank you for finding a hard news story to support the blog's numbers.

2) The source is clear: "The largest paper is Yedi'ot ... Ma'Ariv is second ... Ha'Aretz has a much smaller circulation [circulation figures omitted] but its influence is greater because it is read by the Israeli intelligentsia (equivalent to the New York Times in the United States)." I don't understand what your problem with the source or the statement is. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To Malik Shabaz please look more carefully

Point1

Quote from your source page 71:”

Haaretz has a smaller circulation of 50 000 on weekdays and 60 000 on weekends, but its influence is greater because it read by the Israel inteligencia.”

Quote from your entry:

“Despite its relatively low circulation, it is more influential than Israel's other major daily newspapers”

The meaning of the writer obviously is the fact that compare to similar publication with the same number of readers Haaretz is more influential. The writer doesn’t mean that Haaretz with its 50 000 readership and 7.5 % exposure in Israel is more influential then major Israel newspapers..

I recommend to alter your entry to” “Despite its relatively low circulation, some claim it is more influential than Israel's other newspapers with the same readership exposure”

Point 2.

Why “ some claim”? Because I only know liberals who make this claim and it is self serving. In fact there is no independent study that says Haaretz has more influence then lets say Jerusalem post ( Please check your reference on pg. 71 what its says about Jerusalem Post)

Therefore I recommend changing the wording to “Despite its relatively low circulation, some claim it is more influential than Israel's other newspapers with the same readership exposure”. Unless an independent study rating influence of Israeli papers can be obtained. Thanks for your consideration. --Rm125 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Another option,perhaps even better is " Despite its relatively low circulation, some claim it is relatively more influential then similar size newspapers in Israel. --Rm125 (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're pulling the sentence out of context. The paragraph is clear. It describes the circulation of the two most popular Israeli newspapers and says Ha'Aretz has a much smaller circulation ... but its influence is greater.

"Some claim"? No thanks. We've got five sources that say the Israeli elite reads Haaretz and that it is more influential than its more popular competitors. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

( continued at " Dispute with Malik Shabbaz- next section)

Dispute with Malik Shabbaz ( concluded by mutual satisfaction)

( continuation from "Haaretz Circulation" to full blown dispute)

Here is the original quote we are discussing: from source (7)

“Haaretz has a smaller circulation of 50 000 on weekdays and 60 000 on weekends, but its influence is greater because it read by the Israel inteligencia.”

Malik Shabbaz interpret it as Haarets ( 7,5 % readership)is more influential then major Israeli newspapers like Yedion Aharonor (34,2 %) , Maariv ( 14,4%) Yisrael haYom ( 26.9%)

He claims that the quote compares Haaretz to those major newspapers. This is NOT what the quote means. When it says “ but its influence is greater” it means RELATIVE TO ITS CIRCULATION NOT COMPARED TO MAJOR ISRAELI NEWSPAPERS.

Mr Malik Shabbaz then vandalized

“Despite its relatively low circulation, it is more influential than Israel's other major daily newspapers”

This is DISINFORMATION. Any Israel will make fun of you if you claim that. As an Israeli who is a native speaker I can say this is ridiculous.

More then that this reinstatement is vandalism in my understanding since clearly Malik deliberately misstates facts. Also instead of resolving this issue through free discussion he engages in EDIT WAR with me.

If after review you still hold your opinion I would like to resolve this issue with help of an independent reviewer . Do you have any problem with this?

Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you're new here, but don't refer to a good-faith difference of opinion as vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM.

As I wrote in the preceding section, I believe your interpretation of the source is mistaken. English seems not to be your native language, and perhaps you don't grasp the full meaning of the paragraph in question. In any event, I'd welcome the input of other editors. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes English is not my native language, but I know what I am talking about facts not interpretations.

You claimed that your political and religeous opinions are not going to be in your way. I hope so.

In order to give you another prospective from the same sourse you can read what she writes about Jerusalem Post on the next page " Circulation is small.25 000 on the weekdays and 50000 on the weekdays. but the paper has a greater influence because it read by diplomats and foreign diplomats and foreign journalists based in Israel"

Here too she claims Jerusalem Post is influential but NOT COMPARED TO OTHER NEWSPAPERS.

Frankly I am giving up on tou since your hostile attitude towards Israel doesn't let you see the facts clearly. I would like to invite others to comment and I also will ask for Wikipedia editorial independent review.--Rm125 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik what you are doing is vandalism according to Wikipedia. Instaed of checking the reference and realizing that it doesn;t say that Haaretz is more influential then other nespapers you continue manipulate facts. This is shameful since I specifically provided detailed argument. You choose to ignore the argument and vandalize me. If the purpose of your hostility is to feed your ego I understand totally but if you want to contribute to the truthful and productive contribution to Wikipedia this is a different story. I hope I am mistaken but your politics stands in the way.

Looks like nothing is going to convince you to provide a valid point to your argument. Vandalizing is much easier..--Rm125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, just POV pushing. I would leave Malik's edit inside, but only if the a disclaimer 'some claim' AND a better source to describe this. Relatively (no matter how absurd), this tiny newspaper still has great influence. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added four more sources that say the same thing. The only POV pushing going on around here is Rm125's. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Update.

I just noticed that there are 5(! )new "references" that try to prove that somehow Haaretz is more influential then other newspapers in Israel. By looking at those references I couldn’t see any thing that is more then opinion. I know that "Haaretz" is left wing Bible- I don't dispute that. But this is an opinion not a fact. Can one claim that “Haaretz” can influence a right wing government? This is nonsense to anybody who knows Israeli reality. Shmuel Rosner was in fact correct in his quote.

No doubt that many left leaning publications think that “Haaretz” is very influential. This is also self serving ( I would like to call it an ego serving) phenomenon, but is it a FACT? Absolutely not.

In order for it to be a fact one has provide numbers. So far nor the number of subscribers nor representation in the Knesset of “Haaretz” views doesn’t support this notion. TO CLAIM THAT HAARETZ IS MORE INFLUENCIAL THAT OTHERS IS FALSE. By providing a zillion ( not correct} references doesn't make it a FACT. Let's say you want to state that Communism is the most influential ideology in Russia today and provide 100 references does it make your claim valid? Absolutely not! Since any kid can see the opposite.

Therefore regardless of how many references you provide ( Finkelstein of course is very objective one) is wrong to claim this as a fact Thanks again, sorry for the space.--Rm125 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. (emphasis in original)

The fact that five different sources agree should tell you something: you're mistaken when you assert that Haaretz isn't the most influential newspaper. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik. I checked all your sourses and NO sourse claim that Haaretz is more influencial then Maariv or Yediot Aharonot or Yisrael haYom. Please provide quotes you refering to .I haven't seen anything. You are stabborn to the fact that you provide links that state totally different facts then you care to see. I recommend to change it to " Despite it's low circulation it is relatively influencial." Any objections? Peace. --Rm125 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you get some reading glasses.

Footnote 8: "The most influential and respected daily, for both quality of news coverage and commentary, is Ha'aretz."

Footnote 9: "Here's how an article in Israel's most influential newspaper, Haaretz, describes this same organization"

Footnote 10: "Aluf Benn, the political correspondent of Ha'aretz, Israel's most influential daily newspaper, recently complained about this."

Footnote 11: "To which Ha'aretz responded ... In a rousing defense of principle over propaganda, the most influential newspaper in Israel asserted"

Sorry, but the sources agree: Haaretz is Israel's most influential newspaper. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in changing the language in the article, how about: "Despite its relatively low circulation, Haaretz is considered Israel's most influential daily newspaper." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Attaboy, that's the way to hit a home run! Agreed, this is fare according to the sources you quoted. Good business. Who knows may be we will became friends in the next lifetime.. --Rm125 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr Shabaz erazed my quote from 'the Nation" claiming this is not a reliable publication. This is not legitimate point. The Nation is one of the biggest and most read liberal publication. In fact in order to eraze my contribution kindly provide some relevant link as to your claim. Without this explanation this is noy credible point. Please explain WHY you think that " The Nation" doesn't have credibility and give some factual information. Thanks, rm125 P.S. BTW what makes your links reliable? can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that The Nation isn't a reliable source. The blog you were trying to use isn't a reliable source. What I did write is that "the information about elite readership is elsewhere in the article", and indeed it is.

Furthermore, copying and pasting directly from a source is a violation of copyright and, as it says under the edit box, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Since you have copied and pasted sentences from The Nation, I have deleted them in accordance with policy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know I violated a copyright by quoting by thanks anyway I will pay attention nezt time--Rm125 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From article about haaretz in the nation

‘Surveys reveal Ha'aretz subscribers to be predominantly Ashkenazi and in their 40s, with above-average levels of income, education and wealth. "Never trust Ha'aretz as a true reflection of the average Israeli newspaper reader," says Shmuel Rosner, the paper's right-of-center chief US correspondent. "For many Israelis, Ha'aretz is like The Nation. People who read it are better educated and more sophisticated than most, but the rest of the country doesn't know it exists."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070924/glain/2

I recommend adding this quote because’

1) Shmuel Rosner is a high profile Haaretz correspondent 2) The Nation is a reliable sourse of media 3) It is important to show that Haaretz readership is mostly Ashkenazi wealthy Israelis and not Sefardi poor ones.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

Since Mr. Shabbaz mentioned a copyright law I would like to suggest the following:

Recent survey show that Haaretz subscribers are mostly Ashkenazi 40s well to do Israelis. According to Shmuel Rosner US chief correspondent “The rest of the country doesn’t know it exists”

If Mr Shabbaz have any suggestions. please let me know.rm125 --Rm125 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rosner's claim is an exaggeration. Do you honestly believe there are Israelis who don't know Haaretz exists? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I appreciate if you communicate and explain why you erase my stuff. As I mentioned before this is a public domain and you don't care to communicate. I have specific questions and I appriciate specific answers.

(A) WHY YOU ARAZES 3 LINKS I PROVIDED? (B) Why it is important to Mention "Frontline" publication in the body of the article if the link specifically leads to this article (C) Why mentioning " marxist" is not relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(A) Two of the three links mentioned "hard left" only in reader comments, which aren't reliable sources. The third didn't mention "hard left" or "hard line" at all. My edit summary said "removing sources that aren't reliable sources".

(B) and (C) I think the publisher of the quotation is just as important as its author. If somebody wants to know who Aijaz Ahmad is, they can click on the Wikilink. If he needs any description at all, he should be described as a literary theorist and political commentator, just as Irit Linur is identified as an author. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, unfortunately instead of looking at facts you once again choose to engage in edit wars. I am sorry for this unfortunate state of affair. I would frefer if you choose to engage in intelligent discussion. I hope you are capable to listen to another point of view. I recommend and suggest to you some basic ground rules:(A)to look carefully at every issue I rase (B) Look at all details (C) See if all the facts are correct (D) Try to go to discussion board and intelligently argue your points. Sorry you WILL see some misTeKs in English this is my third language so i have a good excuse plus i hate word processors... In any case I promice you here to do the same.Agreed? If you find those ground rules ubecceptable please let me know. i will be happy to renegotiate.

Now to the issue of Caroline Glick; here is the quote and the link.

"Ahead of the withdrawal from Gaza, both Landau and his colleague from Israel's Channel 2 Amnon Abromovich said openly that in order to ensure that the withdrawal from Gaza went through, the media needed to protect then prime minister Ariel Sharon from all criticism. Landau openly admitted that he ordered his reporters not to report on allegations of criminal misdeeds by Sharon and to underplay the significance of the ongoing police investigations against Sharon, his sons and his close associates. " http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1200308085522

You claim that the article of Caroline Glick is not acceptable because it is an "opinion"

If I accept your argument then we eliminate ALL articles because any article constitute an " opinion' ANY ARTICLE, MALIK. I insist for you to return Caroline article to its original position based on my argument. --Rm125 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please visit the J-Post website and carefully read the words above the title of Caroline Glick's column: "JPost.com » Opinion » Columnists » Article". Glick is an opinion columnist, not a news reporter, and the pieces what she writes are considered by Wikipedia to be opinion, not facts.

If you don't agree, please take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where other editors will help decide whether it is a reliable source.

PS - Please leave your comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again Malik you don't follow our 'ground lules"

We are talking about a QUOTE not an article here. What matters IS THE QUOTE CONSTITURES A FACT OR AN OPINION. the answer is clear. it is a fact. Are you claiming that this quote is an opinion? Please answer me. YES os NO? --Rm125 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What matters is whether the column is a news article or an opinion column. It is clearly an opinion piece, and therefore not a reliable source. As you will soon see, there is little room for debate on the subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK now it is clearly not an opinion piece plus I added " According to" plus another link --Rm125 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. It clearly is an opinion column. I found a news article that reports the same information and replaced the Glick column with the news account. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, Olnert wa OK aty the time- no investigations, stick to sourses, please. Also gaza disangagement was NO peace process but UNITERAL disangagement. Chech and rechech again. Please stick to facts. --Rm125 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the sources carefully:

In one session Ha'aretz editor David Landau spoke forcefully and well of his newspaper's etrogizatzya policy. This is the notion that the newspaper "wittingly soft-pedaled" on alleged corruption by politicians such as Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert, because it was convinced they were advancing the peace process with the Palestinians.

Please revert yourself, because you are treading very close to breaking the WP:3RR rule. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, thanks for your consern. I appriciate it. I am trying to learn every day. According to my ubderstanding I am very communicative and sincerely trying to keep things civilized and positive. If you see to what segree of communicating and a good will from my side I am sure you see my sincerety. In fact I prefer to discuss things first om this board . I even ready to make a deal with you not to revert unless we can come to understanding on this board. Unfortunately I sence that you prefer a confrontational style of communication. I prepared to admit my mistake and change my first impression if we can cooperate in a friendly way. Malik, I am ready. Are you? If positive let's start a "new page" in our work as Wikipedians. Regards. rm125

P.S. BTW can we close this section to mutual satisfaction? --Rm125 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to start a "new page" with you. I still think the source, which was written soon after Landau's speech, is clear that Landau was referring to both Sharon and Olmert, and to the peace process, not just the Gaza withdrawal (which many people saw as part of that process). But I'm not going to argue the point further. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like we are both happy. Lets call it a day.Sleep tight. --Rm125 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(A) This is questionable The sditorials are clear left wing (B) This is clearly an advertising and a self serving statement (C) No independeny evidence (D) Clearly contradicts previous statements claiming it is a left/hard line/ etc. --Rm125 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're confused about the difference between a newspaper's editorials and its op-ed page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Acrually self advertizing is not a good term. I mean the claim " being open to a wide variety of political opinions" is clearly self serving. For example if you go to commercial website you can see " our company is prase,prase, etc. Clearly Haaretz don't put a right wing opinion on its editorials, but this is beside the point. There are no independent publications witch claim Haaretz is "being open to a wide variety of political opinions" If you are so sure of it please provide evidence. Thanks and all the best and... I really mean it, Malik. --Rm125 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Here is a book that says of Haaretz: "It opens its op-ed pages to a range of opinions." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, thanks for your persistance. You make a point that is impotyant and valid

I will express my humble opinion on this:

Quote (A): "being open to a wide variety of political opinions"

Quote(B): "It opens its op-ed pages to a range of opinions."

The second quote is generic. As long as you have 2 opinions you can claim that "it opens to range of opinions" and you are right. Therefore you can say it about EVERY publication in the world without proven wrong. This is like saying " Our dealership has a range of cars and trucks" -meaningless.

Another matter is "being open to a wide variety of political opinions". Here it means that your co-eds sometimes have right leaning editorials and sometimes your co-eds are leaning to the left.. Not only that -it supposed to be "wide" In other words sometimes it is "widely" right wing and sometimes "widely" left wing. By all accounts this is not the case. --Rm125 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a direct quote from WP:RS and WP:V because I can not see a conflict here? --Rm125 (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, Malik this is minor so lets make a deal here. Since the book says: "It opens its co-ed pages to a range of opinions" we can have this phrase: "being open to a wide variety of opinions" This is very close to the original quote and fair by all means. Let's shake hands and go night, night, OK, Malik? --Rm125 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent addition concerning Landau and his comments to Condoleezza Rice isn't germane to a discussion of the newspaper. It belongs in David Landau (journalist), the article about Landau. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It also belongs to David Landou the journalist-no disagreement- however since Landau is an EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of Haaretz this goes beyond personal. This belongs to the NEWSPAPER ITSELF because Landou acted AS AN EDiTOR-IN- CHIEF not as a regular reporter. Editor -in-chirf is like CEO of a company. He represents a company not himself. Once he becomes a regular reporter ( like today) then it makes sence. For example if he says something similar today ( he is NOT editor-in-chief anymore) then he only represent his opinions, I agree. Thanks, Malik, great point to clear up for everybody's benefit. --Rm125 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. If you can update Landou personal page it will be appriciated --Rm125 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says he was speaking on behalf of Haaretz I would agree with you, but by all accounts he was speaking as an individual. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be rediculus. Malik your politics interfere with your logic.Use your common sense.

When a person invited to a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and he is an

editor-in-chief of Haarets " the most influential newspaper in Israel" you claim that what

he said about "raping Israel" is not relevant to [Haaretz]] page?Does is make sense

to you as a person ( forget the rules for a moment) I just want to see what YOU think.

So when he speaks to Condi Rice he needs to announce: "From now on I am speaking as an

editor-in-chief of Haaretz! " This is how you see it. Malik? --Rm125 (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, just because I like you I will give you another link to make sure you FINALLY satisfied.

The comments were made during a confidential briefing by Rice on September 10, during one of many visits to the Jewish state. The meeting was attended by about 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders, including Landau, at the residence of US Ambassador Richard Jones. Some reported that Landau's remarks were greeted with "blatant discomfort" by some of those present.

Following the briefing, those present at the dinner offered their views and comments on the state of affairs in the Middle East.

Landau, who was seated next to Rice, referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, and said that a US-imposed settlement is the only thing that can save it. He asked Rice to intervene, going so far as to say that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would bring him much satisfaction to see this happen.

The comments were first revealed by Channel 2’s Arab-affairs expert Ehud Ya’ari, who refrained from naming who spoke them, but confirmed them with colleagues who were present and termed them “embarrassing” in his report. Former World Jewish Congress leader Isi Leibler then went public, saying it was Landau; he was joined by New York Jewish Week Editor Gary Rosenblatt, who criticized Landau in his weekly column.

“What is contested is not the raw language Landau used, but the context of his impassioned comments,” Rosenblatt wrote.

Contacted by the Jewish Week, Laundau confirmed the statements, but said his views had been delivered “with much more sophistication.” He admitted: “I did say that in general, Israel wants to be raped — I did use that word — by the U.S., and I myself have long felt Israel needed more vigorous U.S. intervention in the affairs of the Middle East.” Here is the link:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124729

--Rm125 (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making this discussion about me. It's about Landau and how his personal statements are not related to the editorial policy of the newspaper. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree in prinsipal to stick to the issue. In fact I spend a considerate amount of time on this board and try to give a DETAILED, TO-THE-POINT arguments. Frankly my feeling is that I am not getting resrprocity from you. This is NOT personal of course, but instead of giving a valid answers you choose to IGNORE my points and send a generic link for me to look up. This is a lazy type of discussion. When you havr nothing to say-just sending to wikipedia rules. So let's make it NOT personal and STICK TO THE POINT OF DISCUSSION. I am all for it. I agree that we shouldn't mix any other considerations other then fair and meaningful discuttions towards improving and elevating the level of discussions on Wikipedia boards in general and on this board specifically. I am happy to cooperate. --Rm125 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Landou and your claim regardin editorial policy, once again the topic of this chapter says " Editorial

policy AND viewpoints" I think it says it all. --Rm125 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You've made it personal by attacking me and my ability to use logic. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And please, STOP SHOUTING.

You haven't made a convincing argument what Landau's personal comments have to do with the editorial policy of the newspaper. The fact that the section is titled "Editorial policy and viewpoints" doesn't mean that it's about the personal viewpoints of its editors and reporters. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the editor in chief's opinion is worth mentioning since it reflects the direction the newspaper is in. I think it would definitely be good if we good add something similar to the Yediot and Maariv articles in order to give them more depth besides their seemingly identical tabloid journalistic policies. --Shuki (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS to support that theory, or is it merely your opinion? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik. This is what YOU said previously and I quote "If you can find a reliable source that says he was speaking on behalf of Haaretz I would agree with you, but by all accounts he was speaking as an individual" This is what you said . Please look up.

Now I will give you a quote thay he is speaking as a editor of "Haaretz".

Here is the quote and the link:

Beginning of quote:"The comments were made during a confidential briefing by Rice on September 10, during one of many visits to the Jewish state. The meeting was attended by about 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders, including Landau, at the residence of US Ambassador Richard Jones. Some reported that Landau's remarks were greeted with "blatant discomfort" by some of those present.Following the briefing, those present at the dinner offered their views and comments on the state of affairs in the Middle East. Landau, who was seated next to Rice, referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, and said that a US-imposed settlement is the only thing that can save it. He asked Rice to intervene, going so far as to say that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would bring him much satisfaction to see this happen.The comments were first revealed by Channel 2’s Arab-affairs expert Ehud Ya’ari, who refrained from naming who spoke them, but confirmed them with colleagues who were present and termed them “embarrassing” in his report. Former World Jewish Congress leader Isi Leibler then went public, saying it was Landau; he was joined by New York Jewish Week Editor Gary Rosenblatt, who criticized Landau in his weekly column.“What is contested is not the raw language Landau used, but the context of his impassioned comments,” Rosenblatt wrote.Contacted by the Jewish Week, Laundau confirmed the statements, but said his views had been delivered “with much more sophistication.” He admitted: “I did say that in general, Israel wants to be raped — I did use that word — by the U.S., and I myself have long felt Israel needed more vigorous U.S. intervention in the affairs of the Middle East.”-End of quote

Here is the link: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124729

Malik. I still feel that I don't understand your motives and stabborness even when you yourself refuse to see the evidense. I don;t think we need to go to an attorney to prove that he speaks " on behalf of his newspaper..

So lets see..

(A) There is a dinner at American Enbaccy in Tel Aviv.

(B) Candolezza Rice the Secretary of State is the host

(C) "The comments were made during a confidential briefing by Rice on September 10"-direct quote

(D) "The meeting was attended by about 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders, including Landau"-dirext quote

(E) "Landau, who was seated next to Rice, referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically"

(F) Now you clsim that he was invited as "an individual"? Are you serious?

Malik, I reverse. All the best.

AND AGAIN

You said that once you are convinced that Landau was invited not "as an individual" you will agree. Now that you have all the nessesary information PLUS a feedback from experienced Wikipedian like --ShukiI what's the deal? --Rm125 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are relying on sources that are not reliable. frontpagemag, american thinker, arutz sheva, camera, these are not reliable sources. You cant use thse to state facts in an article. nableezy - 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, your reference to Shuki's experience means nothing. We've both been here for a long time. He has about 7,683 edits; I have about 27,904. We're both experienced editors, and we have a difference of opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, I've asked you repeatedly to STOP SHOUTING, and to stop referring to good-faith differences of opinion as vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL. Also, please read other editors' edit summaries. Nableezy wrote why he deleted your paragraph, both in his edit summary and above on this Talk page. So there was no reason to accuse him of not discussing his edit, there was no reason to accuse him of vandalism, and there was no reason to shout at him. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, sorry for you inconvinience.I understand. I will keep my mouth shut. Thank you for reminding me. --Rm125 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Nablezy, You claim that my sources are "garbage". I still going through the garbage as you suggested but coudn't find anything worthy. Can you help? For example why those sourses are "garbage"? --Rm125 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The garbage article wont help you, but WP:RS might. Also, look here, here, here, and let me know when you want some more. nableezy - 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)