Talk:Haaretz/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

stated rather than concluded

In this edit, Precision123 changed the descriptor of what the cited article did from "concluded" to "stated." It seems to me that the abstract is describing a conclusion of the article. By changing the word to "stated" it seems to me to underplay the importance of the statement in our article that the *conclusion* of the other article is supporting. Thus I changed it back. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop assuming and making overly dramatic statements. The abstract is not "describing a conclusion of the article." The consensus on the WP:RS noticeboard was that if we have the full article, we should cite to a part of the article, not the abstract. That is a last resort. That said, there is a difference between what it says in the conclusion. It says that "compared to Haaretz, the Times" is more favorable to Israel. If you want to use "concluded" then that is what is in the conclusion. And honestly, blowing this so far out of proportion (making a mess and reverting over "concluded" vs. "stated") is not responsible editing. Assume good faith and avoid battleground behavior. --Precision123 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Which consensus on RSN was that? Diffs or it didn't happen. Also, read a dictionary. From the OED: Conclude III. To come to a conclusion, infer, prove. 8. To arrive by reasoning at a judgement or opinion; to come to a conclusion, draw an inference, infer, deduce. This is different than State II. trans. To declare, present, set out. The first means that the author proved the point or judged it to be the case, the second means that the author said the thing with no connotation of judgement regarding its truth value. Neither has anything to do with what's in "the conclusion." "Conclude" and "state" are quite different words, and for you to declare that there is no difference displays ignorance of the meanings of the words you're arguing about or else disingenuity. Which is it, do you suppose?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, seven editors (myself and six uninvolved editors) advised either against citing abstracts or citing abstracts, in the words of one editor, only when there is no other "practical choice." Since we have the article, it is not impractical to cite the actual article. Some of these editors did not encourage a fixed rule against citing abstracts per se, but said that citing abstracts should only be done "rarely" and/or that citing the actual article is preferred over citing the abstract. Meanwhile, two editors involved on this talk page and one uninvolved editor supported citing the abstract. One came to no real conclusion, saying "Not normally, but we might" cite the abstract. --Precision123 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As usual you answer one sentence and ignore the rest. And your answer to the one sentence is wrong. It's very difficult to talk to you because of this habit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Conclude-arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning. State-to declare definitely or specifically. In this situation I'd say both are correct. They could have been said to have concluded this or stated this. They did investigate this. They did reach a conclusion. They did publish their conclusion. In publishing their conclusion they did state it. It's just a matter of preference of an editor. Let's not an edit war over it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Serialjoepsycho, no reason to edit-war over this. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's insistence that it should be reverted was not responsible, given WP:Revert only when necessary. There was nothing necessary about it, nor was there a reason for the editor to make an overly dramatic edit summary about it ("EXTREMELY misleading").

As to Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's contention that that I answered one sentence and ignored the rest, that is untrue. However, I do refuse to engage in a war over something as trivial that this editor has picked up on (reverting "stated" over "concluded). Rather, my priority is on accuracy. The other editors on the noticeboard share that concern for accuracy.

According to several sources that discuss abstracts, abstracts do not give a complete picture and are meant only for the purpose of guiding readers to make a judgment if they should continue to read more or not. If language in the abstract and the actual article differ, one should cite the article.[1] (Yes, this source is an academic source by a university, but its definition and description of abstracts is not student-specific and it is applicable here.) That said, it is best that we pick a relevant part of the article itself. In the conclusion, it says, "Compared to Ha'aretz, the Times" is more favorable to Israel. I support including that as the most authoritative and reliable. --Precision123 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're still riding that horse? Look at the top of the page: this is an article about Haaretz, not The New York Times. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Malik Shabazz. Valid point. If the conclusion is about a different subject, it does not belong here. But of course, we cannot change the words of the article, and we must exercise special care when citing primary sources. According to WP:PSTS: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. ... [A]nd be cautious about basing large passages on them." That said, your point is a valid one, too. We can cite the passage from page 117 that says Ha'aretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." This way we cite the actual article. --Precision123 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

" A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians." It's not necessary to say more than that. If you want to change the page number of the source to represent that then by all means. Basically what it currently says is "Haaretz is bias but never mind that because the NYT is more bias." It's not important to this article that there is source that says there is a more bias newspaper. There's probably an even more bias blog? should we include that? How about Iranian English news Channel. It's even more biased but in the opposite direction. These aren't important details.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, I am not sure what all of your comment means (e.g., the discussion about "bias blogs"), but it seems that some of it does not address the point at issue, so it's OK, we need not distract ourselves. This is not about "changing the page number," but rather, for the sake of WP:RS and WP:PSTS, using the author's language. In the suggestion above, I cited a page of the actual article where he states a finding most similar to what the editors here are looking for. By citing the actual article, we can keep it most authoritative and avoid the concerns that other editors expressed. Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is using the authors language. The author did conclude that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians. If you get so easily distracted perhaps you should take a break and rest up so that you are more readily available to take part in this discussion. Whether the author concluded that NYT or some random bias blog was more bias than Haaretz isn't really Relevant. This article is about Haaretz. The article on NYT also uses this source but they don't bother mention that Haaretz is less bias than them. There is no point.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, we are discussing possible compromises. Instead of trying to continue to defend one edit, you can respond to the suitability of the suggested alternative. Many editors have concerns over citing abstracts, which are not meant to be cited to. What you seem to be sidestepping the fact is that on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the consensus was that we should not cite the abstract—or only do so when there is no other practical alternative. This is not the case here, since we have the article. Even if you do not take that position as consensus, it was a significant number (the majority) of commenting editors who agreed that citing the actual article is preferred over citing the abstract. Due to these concerns, we have found an acceptable finding that is in the actual article. This should avoid controversy. --Precision123 (talk) 00:54, 14 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) [2] Which is it? That one or this one: Even if you do not take that position as consensus, it was a significant number (the majority) of commenting editors who agreed that citing the actual article is preferred over citing the abstract. After all, it is over a week later. Perhaps you've changed your views on consensus.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) I stated my position clearly, found a point of agreement among most of the editors who commented (based also on quality), and said even if you do not support that position, it was still clearly the majority (of, mind you, a larger number of editors). So if you misunderstood the portion that said "even if you do not take that position" for argument's sake, then I am sorry, but it should have been very clear anyway.

(2) Focusing on bashing editors who making honest attempts to improve the and resolve the dispute is disruptive and distracting. You should not attempt to derail an honest discussion or distract editors from discussing the actual topics of at issue; you should address the merits of suggested alternatives. It seems that this alternative should be acceptable to all, including those who voiced concerns in the noticeboard over citing some part of the abstract. There should be no problem with citing a sentence in the actual article. This avoids controversy. --Precision123 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely interesting Precision. I assumed "Matt Viser (September 2003). "Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict". The International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (4): 114–120." That was the source they were using. They also link to the abstract and quote from it but they directly source the article. The full article is located here: http://hij.sagepub.com/content/8/4/114.full.pdf+html Change source to remove the abstract if you wish. Leave the source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not so simple, Serialjoepsycho. Everyone who's commented on this page except for Precision123 wants to keep the quote of the abstract in the citation, as far as I can see. Once the actual situation was made clear at RSN the regular commenters there didn't see a problem with this usage either, despite Precision123's characterization of the discussion. Inviting Precision123 to remove the quote from the abstract may be (unintentionally) stirring the pot here. There seems to be "consensus," whatever that means, to keep the quote from the abstract in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what Serialjoepsycho just said ("Leave the source") because we are not discussing doing away with the source and we have already seen the article. We are discussing citing a finding in the actual article, not the abstract, in order to resolve this dispute.

And Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, most editors who commented on the RS Noticeboard advised citing the article itself as the most authoritative way. What do you have against using the author's words there? That is the material meant to be cited, not the abstract. That said, this is a primary source, so we must exercise caution and cannot interpret or evaluate the material ourselves. Page 117 says Ha'aretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side," so we can just keep that language, per WP:PSTS and WP:QUOTE. --Precision123 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the source: "Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict". The International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (4): 114–120." That is the specified source and along with taht they link to the abstract as well. The abstract is not the source. While the abstract is included you can't ignore the actual source that is included as well. I see no issue with including the abstract or not including it however the abstract is not the source. Here is the article if you wish to read it: http://hij.sagepub.com/content/8/4/114.full.pdf+html Again the source is from The International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (4) published in 2003. Pages 114–120. The article is titled "Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict"Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid circular arguments. We are all well aware what the source is, and I have already read it, thank you. (1) The phrase that some editors currently want to use was derived from the abstract, and not from a specific part of the source. The actual article uses different language, specifically being the kind that I have put forth as an acceptable suggestion. (2) Because the actual article uses different language, we ought to use its language. WP:PSTS advises us not to interpret or evaluate language from primary sources. That is why we should simply quote that finding from the article itself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Using the abstract as a guide for summarising the article is the exact opposite of interpreting or evaluating the material ourselves, since the abstract is the author's summary of the paper. It is you who is proposing to ignore the author's summary and devise a different summary. And please stop claiming you got support at RSN. You didn't. Almost all the comments there in apparent support of you were by editors who thought you were referring to the situation of having access to the abstract only. Actually I downloaded and read the whole paper before I typed a single word about it. Zero^talk 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero, how does that purported summary summarize the author's findings that "Ha’aretz actually personalized Palestinian deaths more than Israeli deaths" or that "Ha’aretz gave Palestinians the last word more often." It does not. Abstracts are only summaries in the sense that they try to give just enough information for a reader to see if it is relevant. They are not conclusion sections, which this article already has. As to your description of the RS Noticeboard, I completely disagree. I made it very clear that we had the entire article from the beginning on. I said, "assuming that (in addition to the abstract) the complete article is available...." So please do not speak for other editors and assume what you think they thought.

Indeed, several edtors, among them, Sitush ("Don't cite the abstract."), Dougweller ("Agreed. We should not be citing abstracts."), Yobol ("Agreed. Context is key..."), ElKevbo ("I agree," but mentions a "rare circumstance" not applicable here), Formerip ("an article is a better thing to cite than an abstract"), all indicate preference toward citing the actual article over citing the abstract when we have the article. Abstracts can sometime be inaccurate in their details. The article itself is what is most authoritative.[3]

Given these concerns, it would be best to cite the article (which would be least problematic) and that way the source is in. --Precision123 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The abstract gives the author's overall summary of the findings in the paper, in the opinion of the author. The abstract does not say "on every indicator we found ..." nor do we claim it does. In the author's opinion, the full set of indicators as a whole, some positive and some negative, can be summarised in a particular way. You are trying to argue that the author's summary of his work is wrong on the basis of your own interpretation of his findings; I can't think of a more clear breach of WP:NOR. Incidentally, the text under discussion is not mine and I don't at all mind if this one sentence is expanded to several sentences that mention each of the indicators in addition to the overall summary by the author of the study. Zero^talk 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not "trying to argue" what you suggest so please stop assuming. You can read about descriptions and reliability of abstracts anywhere. I and other editors just made the same point, that citing a finding in the article is best over citing a piece of the abstract. (And that one chosen piece is not an overall conclusion as you make it seem.)

While it certainly not the case 100% of the time, there are cases where journal reviewers and editors have inaccurately reported or over-interpreted an article's conclusions in its abstract.[4][5][6][7][8] Details/language used in abstract and an article can sometime differ, but the actual article is most authoritative. [9][10] Hence I suggest using language on p. 117. --Precision123 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Type out your suggested change here. Don't say page 117 or continue to talk in circles. What precisely would you have it say.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I am sorry if you missed it above. Suggested: "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.'" --Precision123 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest using the word concluded over found. You risk endorsing their conclusions as fact by using found. A neutral account would preclude your endorsement. You need to quantify the other side to that Israeli side. With your change there will be no mention of Palestine or Palestinian in the "Editorial policy and viewpoints". You lead the reader to assume the other side of the coin. But since the other side of the coain is already clear you need to be clear. Other than that I don't see any reason to object. But I'd recommend waiting for a response from everyone else.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to make a deal over that word choice, but thanks. I can't say with confidence that I completely understand the rest that you mention or why it is relevant, but I note that we are just using the author's words. That said, I am glad you do not see other reasons to object. Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are using some of the authors words and really paraphrasing. If you would like to stray away from adding mention to Palestine then you'll have to mention the title of the article somewhere. There has be some means by which people will know about what you are talking about. If you put it in like you suggested people will have to assume who the other side is. The only other people mentioned that subsection are Arabs. The source isn't about Arabs and Israelis but Palestinian's and Israelis.

"A 2003 study,"Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", in The International Journal of Press/Politics concuded that Haaretz was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.' or "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was 'more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side' over the Palestinian side.

Common sense dictates the readers need to be able understand the facts. The readers need to know what you are saying. If you think the rules are preventing from doing this then you need to follow the rule WP:IGNORE Ignore all rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just asking because your previous explanation was not articulated too clearly and I did not perfectly understand it, but I think I understand you more now. The #2 suggestion seems fine (the title of the work is unneeded and already in the citation). The only suggestion is that we should change "over" to "than." Thanks again. --Precision123 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Pending comment by others.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to the talk page section titled "My proposal for who's more favorable to whom"Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

an unhappy pollster

I removed this sentence:

In March 2010, ''The Jerusalem Post'' reported that a pollster was unhappy with the way his poll results regarding Israeli views regarding President Obama were presented in the English edition of ''Haaretz'', which he felt was "misleading", due to the fact that the Hebrew word "inyani" had been interpreted as "fair" instead of "businesslike".<ref>Gil Hoffman, [http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?ID=171506 "Haaretz fiddled with Obama poll"], ''The Jerusalem Post'', 22 March 2010.</ref>

because it strikes me as a trivial, one-time criticism, and thus is not on a par with the other examples in the criticism section or the descriptions of Haaretz's editorial stance in the rest of the article. I think we should stick to structural criticisms of Haaretz, rather than having an indiscriminate list of every instance in which someone's been unhappy with something that Haaretz printed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't a common issue, Hebrew to English translation issues, then it shouldn't be included really. This is hardly the place to air out Haaretz laundry. Minor criticisms isn't necessary.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My proposal for who's more favorable to whom

This discussion is continued from above.

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

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

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

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

But I'm not opposed to yours. It does accurately portray the same information.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer mine because it is more specific about what kind of stories the source is talking about. The source is specific, so we should be too. Also, I don't think it's necessary to quote so much actual language from the source. Generally we use long quotes when we're quoting unsupported opinions which are nevertheless notable. This material is from a high-quality secondary source, i.e. an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and so we ought to state its conclusions in Wikipedia's voice rather than hiving them off in scare quotes. That's what I think, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

What you are doing above is trying to paraphrase by interpreting the source yourself (and/or synthesizing its "conclusions"). Per WP:PSTS, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself...." Indeed, several studies have documented cases of "inconsistencies in data between abstract and body and reporting of data and other information solely in the abstract," (see [11], as well as the frequency of publishing abstracts that inappropriately report or "over-interpret" research results (see [12]). (See also [13][14][15] (describing the frequency of article–abstract disagreement and abstract deficiencies).

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

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

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

Please avoid circular arguments. The argument you give for your preferred version is off-point because the source we're using is not a primary source, it is a secondary source. Therefore nothing you can quote from WP:PSTS is applicable in the least. Rather than arguing by assertion, why not try to say explicitly why your preferred version is better "for the sake of accuracy and our discussion."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, can you please stop rewriting your talk page comments after others have responded to them? This is a misleading practice which can lead to extreme confusion. After someone's responded to your comment, it's much better to use strikethroughs if you want to change something. See WP:REDACT for details.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure why you believe this is not a primary source or why PMTS is not applicable. It is.

I have explained explicitly why our preferred version is better. It avoids controversy per WP:PSTS and WP:QUOTE. It is not based or derived from a sentence in the abstract (which research has shown often does not correspond with information in the body of the article). Our proposal does not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or attempt to paraphrase the source in our own words, which is clearly what was done in your proposal. That is why it is more accurate, neutral, and correct. --Precision123 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In Principal I think everyone can agree that factual information is what we should provide. We have option A and option B. The question most important about either one, are they factual. Is the source accurately represented in A or B? There's a reason for the law. We need only maintain the spirit of the law especially if it is going to cause an argument. Personally I think both examples sound good. I prefer option A. It doesn't sound as monotonous. But I also recognize that option B is a valid choice. Besides the fact that option A does not conform to your stricter interpretation of the rules is there actually anything wrong with it Precision? And Alf besides particular preferce for option A do you see anything wrong with option B?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Option B is better because Option A interprets and attempts to paraphrase the source in Alf's own words.

This is definitely a primary source. Per guidelines on Wikipedia:

• WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. ... [A] scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment."
• WP:USINGPRIMARY: "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source."

As for other reliable sources describing primary and secondary sources:

• "Primary sources allow researchers to get as close as possible to original ideas, events and empirical studies as possible. Such sources may include ... publication of the results of empirical observations or studies. Examples include: Data sets, technical reports, experimental research results." [16] On the other hand, "scholarly articles that don't present new experimental research results" are secondary.
• "Primary sources ... includes journal articles of original research [exactly what this is], conference papers, dissertations, technical reports, and patents." [17] --Precision123 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

(1) There is no reason to ignore Wikipedia rules when a conforming option is valid. The options here do not say the same thing, but if that were the the case, then there would be no reason why not to use Option B, especially given advice on WP:QUOTE.

(2) There is no "strict" interpretation of the rules here, there is application of the rules. Only when we cannot apply the rules do we resort to ignoring Wikipedia rules and guidelines. They are there for a reason. :) Wikipedia policies are clear in distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, and clear in advising us to exercise "special care" when citing primary sources. The spirit of these rules are important as well; in fact, it is one part of those rules that is written in bold.

Option B here applies the rules whereas Option A does not. Alf has said explicitly that "nothing you can quote from WP:PSTS is applicable in the least" and the editor's proposal is based on the misguided notion that this is a secondary source. So clearly, if one applies the rules and is valid, and one does not, the choice should be clear. --Precision123 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I support alf laylah wa laylah version for the reasons discussed since 5 Feb. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Serialjoepsycho, I too had already solicited the opinions of other editors in dispute resolution, which Alf chose not to participate in. This is becoming redundant and some direction by an admin or uninvolved party could have been beneficial.

Re: your comments, I do not agree that "both statements mean the exact same thing." This is an opinion and you may continue to assert it. If it were true, then there should be no reason to continue objecting. In reality, there is a subtle difference in the meaning and language of the two options here, and we should avoid interpreting or paraphrasing a primary source ourselves.

I am fully aware that WP:QUOTE is not a rule, I referred to it as advice for avoiding controversy, and it is indeed persuasive as common advice. The reliable source noticeboard is also persuasive as advice.

Special care was not taken in writing Option A, rather the author of Option A seemed to do exactly what PSTS warns agains. This editor explicitly stated that the rules that advise to use special care (i.e., PSTS) do not even apply. Certainly, the editor did not apply policies that the the editor him/herself said are inapplicable. Really, if there is no reasonable objection here we ought to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I strongly recommend Option B. --Precision123 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what is being discussed any more. For example, looking at all occurrences of "option A" on this page is not sufficient to determine what it is. In case it is relevant, the argument against "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" has been stated repeatedly: it is correct but only refers to one of five indicators studied in the article. It would be fine if expanded to mention the others. Also, I am completely unconvinced by Precision's argument that we can't base our summary on the abstract. The rules simply do not tell us that; in particular PSTS does not distinguish between parts of the same source and so can't possibly tell us to use one part of the source and not another. Zero^talk 10:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero, we are citing one finding in the study. The article's conclusion make no conclusion about Haaretz. It makes no conclusion of the five indicators as applied to Haaretz (as opposed to the Times). We cannot make a conclusion ourselves. The finding in the article that we are citing appears on p. 117: "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side." That is the language used.

As to abstracts, take it from the several studies researching their reliability and accuracy. "Studies comparing the accuracy of information reported in a journal abstract with that reported in the text of the full publication have found claims that are inconsistent with, or missing from, the body of the full article." Abstracts are sometimes not the author's words, but that of journal reviewers and editors or third-party services.[18][19][20][21][22] Indeed, several editors shared these concerns. However I prefer not to get into a discussion over this point as much as we should evaluate the merits of our options that conform with WP policy.

I also kindly call on @Sitush: @Dougweller: @Yobol: @ElKevbo: to give their insight on this case. It it one where the language and details in the abstract of a primary source do not completely correspond with the findings in the publication. --Precision123 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You only pinged people who you think supported you at RSN. This is called canvassing and can get you blocked. Zero^talk 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Abstracts that appear with papers in academic journals are written by the authors. For this journal the proof is here. Editors might fix spelling and grammar, and try to make other changes, but the authors get a chance to approve the changes. In decades of editing academic journals I don't remember any exceptions. Summaries appearing in other places like review journals can be written by anyone, but that is not relevant here. Zero^talk 13:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Never use abstracts - read the entire piece and cite that. This has only recently been discussed at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Since we all have read the entire article and have cited it, I don't get your comment. Zero^talk 12:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Agree with Sitush. Cite the article, not the abstract. The editor said "read the entire article and cite that," which is clear. An abstract is not the article, but an original document itself.[23] Really, this should be so simple. Never should it be so controversial to cite an article itself using the author's words. --Precision123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Viser's article

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

Sources: Haaretz used Israeli sources twice as often as Palestinian sources.

End quotes: (These are quotations that give one side the final word in an article.) After 9/11, Haaretz gave Palestinians the last word more often. It doesn't seem to mention Haaretz before 9/11.

Story topics: Ha’aretz was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.

Topic locations: (This refers to where articles appeared in the newspaper.) Articles on the front page were more likely to appear above the fold if the perpetrators of violence were Palestinian.

Fatalities: In 2000-01, Haaretz named the Palestinian fatalities more often than it named Israeli fatalities. Other periods are not quantified.

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

Thanks, I agree that it does appear clear that the article makes its conclusion about the Times, not of Haaretz. We can cite a finding, but should not make a conclusion ourselves. --Precision123 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the difference between the meanings of the verb "to conclude" and the noun "conclusion." The paper in fact concludes exactly what our article says it concludes, whether or not that conclusion is contained in a section of the paper entitled "conclusion." Zero0000's summary shows, as does the article, that the single indicator you'd like to pick out as indicative of the content of the article only reflects one out of five of the article's conclusions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

No confusion here, Alf. I never said that one finding was "indicative" of the entire article. Rather, one passage is indicative of a specific finding. The author does not accumulate those five indicators to make any sweeping conclusions about Haaretz (e.g., your proposal that it say Haaretz's reporting in general was more favorable to the Israelis rather than his specific finding on p. 117). Trying to make our own would constitute original research. Again, Option B quotes his specific finding. That is neutral and reliable. --Precision123 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're not confused, maybe you can explain what you mean when you say: it does appear clear that the article makes its conclusion about the Times, not of Haaretz. That's not clear to me at all. Can you explain it differently somehow so I might be able to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an unimportant point and I prefer it not distract us from the matter at hand. Yes, the author briefly discusses his findings collectively and comes to a conclusion at the end, but that conclusion is about the Times and not Haaretz. There are some individual findings about Haaretz, and the relevant one has been quoted in Option B. Let's stick with it and move on. --Precision123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

You say that every time. Are you going to converse or not converse? You can't assume that you can define the terms of a conversation through your responses and expect others to continue to find it worthwhile to talk with you. Why don't you explain what you meant, since you seemed to think it was important enough to say. In fact, I suspect you don't know what you meant, but I suppose I'd be happy enough to be proven wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf, please calm down, please, and avoid overly dramatic language. Focus on content, not the editor. And please do not accuse me of "not knowing" what I mean. Between accusations of "plagiarism" and treating this article as a secondary source, it is becoming absurd.

Serialjoepsycho, that proposal is one that you and I both proposed. We agreed it was valid. I have noted my objection to Option A time and again. There is a subtle difference between the author's finding ("Ha'aretz was more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side.") and Alf's conclusion in an attempt to interpret the entire article ("Ha'aretz reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is more favorable to the Israelis than the Palestinians."). One interprets the source in an editor's words, in violation of WP:PSTS—that is the problem with it. According PSTS, extra care must be exercised in order not to interpret, over-interpret, or somehow misrepresent an author's finding. That is why Option B is acceptable, because it is careful. --Precision123 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thoughts on the "Notable journalists" subsection

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

(a) Only blue-linked journalists on the lists

(b) Only blue-linked journalists or red-linked journalists accompanied by a source stating enough about them to provide probably cause to believe they'll someday be blue-linked

(c) Leave it as it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Doram Gaunt for example. http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/doram-gaunt-1.363 He's senior editor for the English version and he's got a cooking column. This could be great argument to show that he is a notable journalist for Haaretz. That doesn't mean that he's notable enough for his own wiki article. Should he be red linked anyway? Your criteria is to simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence has arguably waned

I removed this:

However, the former prestige and influence the newspaper once held in Israel has arguably waned in recent years, along with its standing in the country's political life.<ref>[http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/427/479.html עורך 'הארץ' לשעבר: 'הארץ' איבד את מעמדו הציבורי][[Maariv (newspaper)#Online version|NRG Maariv]], 01/08/2013</ref><ref name=downfall/><ref>[http://www.presspectiva.org.il/cgi-webaxy/item?238 מרמרי: 'הארץ' הפך משחקן במגרש למשקיף מהמרפסת] 08/01/13 Hanan Amiur</ref>

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

Hanoch Marmari is the former editor of the paper. His view is as a notable or 'high quality' as the other sources cited, and deserves inclusion, especially since it is more recent than those other sources and it is an Israeli view (rather than an article in the New Yorker). Avaya1 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Marmari's view is important. That doesn't give you license to post blog posts or CAMERA nonsense as sources, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How is the article a primary source?

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

Precision123 is becoming a pain-in-the-ass POV-pusher about this issue; he's now taken it again to RSN. Let's put it to bed. I think it's preposterous to try to argue that the Viser article can't be used on the basis that it's somehow a primary source. But to put a wooden spike through that argument, it would be possible to use other sources who cite Viser; a list is available here. I personally think this isn't necessary, but it does at least show that Viser's article has received attention from other scholars. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As an example of how this could go: an article "Bias in the News? The Representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the Coverage of the First and Second Intifada" by Annelore Deprez and Karin Raeymaeckers, International Communication Gazette, 2010; 72; 91, asserts "Various studies have repeatedly claimed that the Palestinians are more likely to be portrayed as the perpetrators and the Israelis as the victims in the newspaper head- lines, and that Israeli victims, moreover, are more individualized (e.g. Korn, 2004; Rinnawi, 2007; Viser, 2003)." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And another: "For example, according to Matt Viser, when the New York Times and Ha’aretz, an Israeli publication, were assessed for their portrayals of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it was found that both newspapers were more favorable towards the Israelis, while the Palestinians received less coverage (2003, 118)", at [24]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925002822/http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/bronfman/kesher29.heb.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/bronfman/kesher29.heb.html#haaretz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120226155151/http://www.dumont.eu/dumont/dir/?101798 to http://www.dumont.eu/dumont/dir/?101798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130527082723/http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/journalists-at-israels-haaretz-newspaper-strike-over-job-cuts_241385.html to http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/journalists-at-israels-haaretz-newspaper-strike-over-job-cuts_241385.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

English online edition

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

"In 2012 and on, some news outlets ..."

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

Thanks for bringing this up on article talk I updated the section heading for clarification on the discussion.

For the third time I ask Why is it POV??? why is it biased??? There are 6 independent sources with these similar statements. In addition, before my edit, the article already cited a 2003 opinion from the "Journal of Press" that stated "Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians." We now updated the article (using 6 independent sources- some more qualified than others) with opinions of a different view.

Also, don't lie and make false accusations - We DID attribute the opinion the the sources. Here is the text "some news outlets including the Algemeiner reported".

In either case due to your unexplained "claims" I will specify more clearly the sources of the opinions.

I ask again please don't disparage my writing skills. Caseeart (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't and won't discuss this with you until you have read the policy and two guidelines linked above: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Until you've read them, we have no common vocabulary—it's as if I'm speaking Spanish and you're speaking Yoruba. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Again you refuse to answer. I read it. I also put the text in the heading. Now please respond.Caseeart (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article stated "A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.[27]"

Here was I wrote:

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

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

• Algemeiner "Haaretz’s Owner Proves Paper Has an Anti-Israel Political Agenda" [25]

• Arutz Sheva "The Anti-Israel Campaign in Haaretz" [26]

• HonestReporting.com - "Haaretz Admits its Politicized Agenda" [27]

• The Tower Magazine "Downfall of a Great Newspaper"..."Slashed budgets, plummeting standards, and political radicalization have turned Israel’s most respected newspaper into a case study in the collapse of modern journalism." [28]

• Mida (magazine) "Ha'aretz Publisher is deliberately slanting an already anti-Israel newspaper for his English-speaking audience, in directions even his Hebrew paper will not go – or his Israeli audience tolerate" [29]

• JNS.org "Does Haaretz’s public stance on ‘occupation’ reveal anything new about the paper?" [30]

• Matzav.com "Haaretz is a Tool of Anti-Israel BDS movement" [31]

• The Jewish Link "MK Yair Lapid: “Haaretz Has Become Tool of BDS” [32]

• Israel Hayom "Yesh Atid chief: Haaretz is a tool of anti-Israel BDS movement" [33]

• IsraelSeen.com "STEVES' BLOGSYesh Atid chief: Haaretz is a tool of anti-Israel BDS movement" [34]

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

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

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

• @Malik Shabazz I want to note your apparent double standard in editing articles:

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

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

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

@Zero I attempted to reword. Here is the exact wording of the addition:

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

The 10 sources were all mentioned earlier. Some are better than others, but there are at least 10. I was summarizing the wording of sources as accurate as possible.

Maybe you have an idea to better word this (without altering the sources)? CaseeArt ^Talk 06:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

I believe I responded a month ago (along with the other concerns - and I will now clarify further) that this appears to be in line with various sources who write: "The Anti-Israel Campaign in Haaretz", ""Haaretz Admits its Politicized Agenda", "They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign..." etc. etc. - and yes - newspapers could become into a campaign.

In either case we could change the wording. How about something like "Haaretz has an Anti-Israel Campaign and a politicized agenda" or "Haaretz has within it...". Do you have any other idea? CaseeArt ^Talk 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Caseeart

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

Caseeart, it's now been a month and a half and you still haven't explained how a how a newspaper could "transform into a campaign and agenda". Does Google Translate not work where you live?

I've also explained that most of your sources are not "news outlets" (as you call them) but op-eds and other opinion columns whose views must be attributed with in-text attribution to the authors, not the newspapers. See WP:INTEXT. Please re-read what I wrote on May 1—to which you never responded—and what Zero wrote on May 5. There won't be any progress until you start hearing what other editors are saying. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz I've answered twice.

• A- The Sources (NOT ME) cite things like ""Haaretz has an Anti-Israel Campaign and a politicized agenda" or "Haaretz has within it..."etc. etc. B- I am happy to change the wording - How about the new proposed wording?.
• There are 10 sources in all (some are news, some opinions, some sources better than others). How many names should we list??? - (Previous opinion in the article with only 'one source - does'nt cite name either). CaseeArt ^Talk 04:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

POV deletions of criticism

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

Please re-read the onus and consensus articles. That's not how the policy works to my understanding. If I'm wrong, kindly flag the policy that indicates that the information having been in the article for any length of time constitutes "consensus." Also, kindly flag the policy which indicates that consensus is needed for removing material.

I removed the information because it constituted original research. There was no news article or other appropriate secondary source that I could find that wrote about this incident. PPX (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Haaretz as Israel's most influential newspaper?

The sources are from a decade ago or are referring to Israel in the 20th century when the paper had great influence in Avoda, and as we all know the influence of the paper is today limited outside of (and even inside) Avoda. The situation was different in the 1950s/1960s/1970s when Israel was effectively governed as single-party state. I would propose specifying the time period ('was for many years'), or else we have a misleading sentence. Nobody on earth could argue that Haaretz is more influential in politics than Yedioth Ahronoth in 2017. In terms of reviewing books or cultural events, it is different. Avaya1 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that you re-read WP:V and WP:NOR. Your thoughts about the influence of Haaretz are interesting, but without reliable sources, they don't belong in the article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They're not my thoughts and have been reported in reliable sources. Even the newspaper's former editor says that the paper has lost its political influence. We have sources supporting that the newspaper was the most influential in Israel in a specific time period, not that it is in 2017 (which is unsupportable).Hence the need to qualify the sentence. Avaya1 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you for providing a source. Unfortunately, Google Translate isn't cooperating with me tonight (and it does a rotten job when it does cooperate) and I am only able to understand portions of the article. Also, I don't have a Hebrew keyboard so I don't trust my Ctrl-F search, but I didn't see עבודה in the article. Haaretz may be declining in influence, but (based on my limited ability to see) it didn't look to me like Hanoch Marmari was attributing that to Labor's lack of power.

The solution, however, is not to write our own interpretation ("was for many years"); unless a source says that, we can't say that. What we can do is (a) add to the existing text the dates/years in which statements about its influence were made or, if the sources refer to specific periods, make that clear, and (b) add more sources about its declining influence in recent years. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section and editorial standards

In my opinion, the whole criticism section as it currently stands does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Out of the 4 criticisms, two are isolated incidents, one of which (the Limmud one) is a single source alleging a verbal statement for which I could not find independent verification - reeks of yellow journalism. Furthermore, every single instance of criticism comes from a political opponent with a vested interest in undermining Haaretz' credibility, and I doubt any of it represents mainstream, leave alone impartial points of view. Most Wikipedia articles on media outlets inform the reader about the subject's (true or alleged) political stance without giving a bullet list of politically motivated smears... OneAhead (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As a minimum, the nature of the sources of the criticism must be clarified for international audiences (and since this is en.wikipedia.org , entities should be referred to by their English names whenever possible). I made some edits driven by my quest to answer my own questions ("who is Ayelet Shaked and why should his or her criticism be notable?" "What is a 'Habayit Hayehudi’?" ...) but Avaya1 reverted one of them (2 times). Since the person has been previously blocked for edit warring, currently appears to be sanctioned, and his or her edit reasons seem unconvincing, I will assume it was done in bad faith and revert back. Avaya1, reverting again will be a clear sign of edit warring and may incur further sanctions. Talk it out here in the comments, that's what they're for!

And BTW, I do believe that many of the items in the criticism section are without merit, but instead of deleting them, I'm being nice and just providing "full disclosure" regarding the sources of the criticism. OneAhead (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OneAhead. I think you're right that these criticisms do not meet Wikipedia's standards. It's not just the sourcing, but also the matters of POV pushing and of giving Undo Weight to insignificant criticisms. I fear that by "being nice and just providing 'full disclosure'" we are letting these clutter an otherwise solid article. Perplexed566 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire Criticism section is disturbing in my opinion, since it doesn't provide at least a balanced POV (I mean both negative and positive POVs about the subject of the article). Not to mention the fact that all the current POVs are way far from neutral and unbiased. I hope the amazing Community of Wikipedia will fix this unpleasant situation. AtseTewodrosII (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 - Fixing a typo

There's a typo in the Journalists section:

Change: Sammy Peretz - economic affarirs columnist (in The Marker) To: Sammy Peretz - economic affairs columnist (in The Marker) JaAlDo (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

The ownership is incorrectly stated as being owned 60% Schocken family, 20% Dumont Family, 20% Leonid Nevzlin. The reality is Nevzlin purchased Dumonts 20% plus 5% of the Schocken share so Haaretz ownership is; 75% Schoken Family and 25% Nevzlin. Per Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/shareholders-bought-haaretz-stock-owned-by-m-dumont-schauberg-1.8343399 JustTheT (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)  Done Changes made to both the infobox and the text. Thanks for the information and link. Zero^talk 03:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

Can the Hebrew logo also be added to the infobox (next to the English logo): File:Haaretz_logo.svg? Victor LP (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see in the template only one logo can be used. Though I think we could replace the English with the Hebrew one. Thoughts? nableezy - 21:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that on a scale from 1 to 10, I don't care about this at all, I would assume the English Wikipedia would go with the English logo, which I'm assuming was made for the English speaking audience. Also, I'm going to close the edit request while awaiting editor input, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

After rereading that, it's possible my time wasn't clear. What I was trying to get across is that I support, in the weakest possible terms, using the English logo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove "The Palestine News" as the English name of the newspaper

The name "The Palestine News" appears in the first sentence of the article. This name translates the Hebrew word "Haaretz" (literally land) to "Palestine", which is a baseless translation. Moreover, a reference is given, but the name "The Palestine News" doesn't appear there at all. This name should be removed. Wikiation (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Was added here without a reference by Sokuya. I agree it is not referenced so will remove, Sokuya if you have a source for this feel free to add, but even if it is added it would go in the history section not as a current name. nableezy - 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That was the name of a British paper that became Haaretz after the end of the war. It was never called that otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In Haaretz website they say that Haaretz strated as the Hebrew version of the British newspaper 'The Palestine News' they even put a picture of the first edition from April 1918. Its says "News from the Holy Land" in Hebrew at the top right corner, later shorten to 'News from the Land' and then eventualy it became just "The Land" as we know it today (which is Haaretz in Hebrew). I have no problem for it going under the History section. To provide information to the tens of thousands of soldiers who were in Sinai and southern Palestine, and to the subjects under their rule, the British put out a weekly newspaper called The Palestine News. It was published in no fewer than six languages: English, Arabic and Hebrew [...] The first issue of the Hebrew edition appeared on April 4, 1918 (cost: “one Egyptian piastre”). After one issue, the name was shortened, the word “holy” being deleted – the British discerned that that designation was attributed to the land only in the Hebrew version. After the war ended, the British closed down the newspapers, while putting their licenses up for sale. The Zionist Federation decided to buy the Hebrew-language edition and civilianize it (English ref 2019) (Hebrew ref 2001) Sokuya (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Im cool including that in the history section. nableezy - 19:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way Selfstudier, it was still in use by Haaretz after the war in 1919, see picture in link or just read the text at the top left cornet in the thumb image. The Palestine News is in parentheses and in 1919 it wasn't in British ownership. Sokuya (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Learn something every day, still not entirely clear about it though. http://virtualstampclub.com/lloydblog/?p=8793 (or https://services.israelpost.co.il/mall.nsf/prodsbycode/1376?OpenDocument&L=EN) What do you make of that? (here's another article, idk why they did two https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-haaretz-at-100-always-critical-always-independent-1.7398154). Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

According to my library catalogue, which holds most English issues, the "Palestine News" was published from No. 1 (Mar. 7, 1918) to No. 58 (10 Apr. 1919). Haaretz from 1918 to 1964 can be read here. I notice that there is a gap between April 10, 1919 (when the English Palestine News ceased), to June 18, 1919 (when daily publication began). The last issue with "The Palestine News" in English in the masthead was April 27, 1925. Zero^talk 02:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Zero0000, You removed the section about hate of Haaretz (including pre attack Bnei Brak Mar.29.22). Where is the discussion about reliability of Haaretz?Truth3v3r (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

At WP:RSP, entry for Haaretz. As you can see there, your view appears to be in the minority.Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper of record? What?

Haaretz is by no means Israel's newspaper of record. Its viewership is less than 5%, and there are more than a couple newspapers who are faaaar more relevant to that claim. Let's not jump over our head, Haaretz in Hebrew is very, very, rarely read. Shovalis (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The concept of "newspaper of record" has nothing to do with the size of the readership. Zero^talk 06:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A 2011 Tablet article is entitled Israel’s Paper of Record. Mcljlm (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

They must have been cynical. in israel everyone knows it's a tabloid not a real newspaper. 141.226.163.195 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In what way 141.226.163.195 is it "a tabloid not a real newspaper"? Mcljlm (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Best not engage with non EC editors. Archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

References