Talk:Haaretz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Irit linor

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)

Description in the lead

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: [1] 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: [2]

"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)

Political allegiance

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 - [3]

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)

Content discussions

per the following diff - [4]

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)

"a turn to the more radical left"

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)

Difference between the two editions?

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)

Haaretz Circulation

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)

"The Nation" and is it reliable?

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)

Socio Economics Profile of Haaretz readers

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 Shabbaz and civil discussion Aug 14. 2009

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)

Discussion with Malik August 14, 2009 -closed

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.[5]

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)

self advertising Aug 15, 2009 -closed

(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)

David Landau

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)

Request for Comments: Comments by editor-in-chief

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

Do the comments belong in this article—in particular, under the title "Editorial policy and viewpoints"?

Malik, this is what you said[

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)

I provided the nessesary quotations fro different sourses. For example"

"The meeting was attended by about 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders, including Landau"

Can I understand that you take your own words back? Please clarify your position and don't send me to "sourses" on WWW. Respekft an all the best. --Rm125 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked other, uninvolved editors to comment. Please read WP:RfC. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the passage on Landau, and whatever he said have absolutely nothing to do with the Haaretz article, it perfectly fits to Landau article - full stop.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It would fit in the Landau article if it was not based on garbage sources. This was sourced to the likes of frontpagemag, CAMERA, and Arutz Sheva. None of those are reliable and none of them should be used to make such statements, especially in a BLP. nableezy - 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, (A)Why is is garbage? ( B) What sourses from what I provided are NOT garbage and why? can you please explain? --Rm125 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik. please invite all of them here on this board. I am happy to greet them.--Rm125 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva, the voice of the settler movement, is not a serious news source. I really dont see the need to say why frontpagemag is not a reliable source, same for CAMERA. The sources in the Landau article are fine, but it has almost nothing to do with Haaretz besides an employee of Haaretz made a statement some didnt like. Haaretz did not make such a statement, why should it be here at all. But the sources you used, (inn, frontpagemag, camera) do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. They belong in a blog entry, not an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The one source that may be usable in your paragraph is the NY Sun, though that barely scrapes by in my opinion. nableezy - 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, (A)what criteria do you use in oder to detarmine that the sourse is " garbage"? (B) After you list your criteria is it applicable to all in principal or just according to your feeling? --Rm125 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not my criteria, Wikipedia's. nableezy - 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote. --Rm125 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V#Questionable sources and WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provid a exact quote to what you refer and why, Malik? BTW I need to leave for awahile( business matters, I hold a regular job, BTW, so please wait for me here.--Rm125 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the 'fringe' sources are merely brought to pad the numbers. Jewish Week and INN are RS. Whether he likes it or not, The high profile editor of an important newspaper, Landau, speaking anywhere is also Landau representing his employer. He should watch his words, retract it, or respond if it is not true. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

INN is not a RS. The internet arm of Arutz Sheva is not a RS. And with your revert you reinserted frontpagemag and CAMERA, are those also RSs? nableezy - 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, removed those two redundant refs. INN is definitely an RS as well as its radio, internet, and print. --Shuki (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Getting back to the question, personal opinions of the editor-in-chief of a newspaper is not equivalent to editorial policies or viewpoints of that newspaper. This, and the line "According to The Jerusalem Post, in 2007 editor-in-chief David Landau said he had told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to promote Sharon's 2004–2005 Gaza disengagement plan" have nothing to do with the topic of editorial policies or viewpoints. These are small events, played up by hardcore partisans (the original refs to frontpagemag and CAMERA should show that) that no serious reference would devote a single word to. nableezy - 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are going to put me out of business, because I spend my time as generously as Social Security recipient. Please let me go attaher..

I have a special link for Malik. This is from a Jewish paper. I hope it is RS or whatever you guys call it.

I am ready for my dinner so please make it final. In other words I hope it is a Grand Finale

of a Century. That's right! Let's uncork a new bottle of Champaign and get glasses. Cheers! I am sure that if David Landau would know what kind of intellectuals engaged in a debate about him he would be very honored and cheerfully toast and agree with me and tell you guys to rake it easy and with a grain of salt and not sweating the small stuff..

So guy here it is and I promise you to get more if I have more time even in Hebrew and Russian. Net problem, lo baaya bihlal (Yes, yes I can speak perestroyka with ex communists too...)

I n any case here it is: Haaretz Editor Urged Rice To ‘Rape’ Israel

David Landau: Crude language over the top, or well placed? by Gary Rosenblatt Israelis are known for being direct and blunt. But comments made by David Landau, editor of the Israeli daily, Haaretz, to Condoleezza Rice about Israel needing to be “raped” by the U.S. to achieve a Mideast settlement caused quite a stir among the 20 or so attendees at a confidential briefing with the secretary of state on a recent visit to Israel. The incident, which took place Sept. 10 at the private residence of America’s ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, has not been fully reported until now. What is contested is not the raw language Landau used but the context of his impassioned comments. Following Rice’s briefing to the gathered military, academic and media elites at the dinner, the guests offered their views and comments about the Mideast impasse. Landau, who was seated next to Rice, was said to have referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, one in need of a U.S.-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would be like a “wet dream” for him to see this happen. When contacted this week, Landau said the description was “inaccurate” and “a perversion of what I said.” He said his views had been delivered with “much more sophistication.” But he added: “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.”

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c41_a1531/News/Short_Takes.html

And BTW, sorry for my mistekZ, I think it's charming. --Rm125 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, that's your 5th revert, and it's not a WP:RS. Please remove it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I haven't read the entire discussion, but certainly, if the editor-in-chief of Haaretz publishes a media note, the main points in it that are also relevant to the magazine have room in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but since the alleged comments did not mention the newspaper but were in the form of a private political opinion, connecting them to the newspaper is original research. Zero^talk 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero, please clarifyfor yourself the following info:(1) Where was the dinner (2) who were present.

Please reread the discussion and it will become as clear as a whistle. --Rm125 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I reread it. Landau made some comments to Rice on the basis of his personal political opinions. Exactly what those comments were is unclear because there is no reliable report and Landau denied most of it. Landau did not, even in the most dubious reports, say that those opinions (whatever they were) have relevance to the way he runs the Haaretz newspaper. So in total we have some unreliable claims about Landau and nothing at all about Haaretz. It doesn't belong here. In fact, I don't believe it belongs anywhere. Zero^talk 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making Zero points, Zero --Rm125 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So much for your "welcoming" the opinions of third parties. If somebody doesn't see things your way, you berate and belittle them. Nice work, Ronit. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you are just wasting our and your time. Pls. stop your irresposible edits.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I'll respond to your accusation.,Sorry to waste your valuable time.I sincerely apologize. It will never happen again.As to my irresponsible edits- I will try to be responsible from this moment on.Very good advice. Thank you.BTW I noticed a very enlightening advice you gave to another Wikipedian.Here it is:

" Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I will keep your valuable advices close to my heart and if you have anything else of value, please don't hesitate to share your wisdom in the future. --Rm125 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

reply to rfc not relevant to haaretz page. could be used on landau's page with attribution to RS. untwirl(talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary

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

Depends who reads it.Please reinstate what you removed

The reason I don't revert it myself again is because I don't wan't to engage is 'edit wars" again.Unfortunately people use it against me here. Meanwhile I would appriciate if you undo your revert since you based it on wrong impression and overlooked Shuki's post. Thanks.

--Rm125 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

INN is not a RS and 2 users agreed with you. Every other user said the material should go. That is a strong consensus against inclusion, especially considering that every single user not usually editing within the I/P topic area felt it should go. nableezy - 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you're wrong. I read Shuki's comment. I also read the comments from nableezy, Jim Fitzgerald, Zero, and untwirl. Maybe you missed them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I disregarded the comment from Jaakobou because he said he hadn't read the discussion. His comment suggests that he didn't read the text in question either. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized you were responding to my message. In the future, please don't start a new section if you're replying to a message.

"Every one of the outside opinions has said that the comments don't belong in the article": Yes, I read Shuki's comment. I didn't count it because Shuki was part of the discussion we had before I asked for other editors to come and comment, so Shuki's comments weren't an outside opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

INN is not a RS <<<but the Jewish Week is>>>and 2 users agreed with you. Every other user said the material should go. That is a strong consensus <<<strong consensus? Hardly.What about Jacobu, Shuki?>>>against inclusion, --Rm125 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote about Shuki and Jaakobou? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik, the way you disregard and dismiss another Wikipedian view is unjust. Please do not dismiss Jacobu opinion just because it doesn't matched your own.I remind you this Wikipedia is all about NPV- not our personal one.You know better. His post read as follows:

"I haven't read the entire discussion, but certainly, if the editor-in-chief of Haaretz publishes a media note, the main points in it that are also relevant to the magazine have room in the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)"

He didn't read the entire discussion not because he is lazy or not serious. He didn't read it because it is irrelevant. That's right. He doesn't need to read the entire discussion to see clearly that my position is the proper one.You on the other hand trying to misrepresent his opinion, claming that he is kind of "not educated enough" to understand the issue, when knowingly- I know you are pretty intelligent-to misrepresent his views. His point is clear:

"the main points in it that are also relevant to the magazine have room in the article"

Once again, Malik, do the right thing and reinstate the missing portion, please.

--Rm125 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult me or put words in my mouth. I disregarded what Jaakobou wrote because it is clear he wasn't familiar with the situation:

"I haven't read the entire discussion, but certainly, if the editor-in-chief of Haaretz publishes a media note, the main points in it that are also relevant to the magazine have room in the article."

But the editor-in-chief of Haaretz didn't publish a media note, and Haaretz isn't a magazine. Consequently, we don't know whether Jaakobou understands the issue here, and we don't know what he thinks about this matter.

But let me play along with you for a moment. Even if I were to assume that Jaakobou said the information belongs here, there are still four outside editors who expressed the opposite opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you really need to move on from this. Most of the editors who commented feel that the material does not belong. You clearly do not have consensus for the inclusion of this material here and continually arguing about it is becoming increasingly disruptive. nableezy - 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Look nablezy, The way I look at it you will find all kind of trivial excuses to eliminate this information from Wikipedia.What does it matter if it is a note or an quote confirmed by landau? What does it matter if the article is in newspaper or magazine? This is just an excuse. You would find another reason to exclude it. I am going to ask Yaakobou about his version of this on his talk page. Let's see what he has to say. But I am sure in any case you will find another reason to eliminate this peace of information.

--Rm125 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is in a newspaper or a magazine. What matters is this has absolutely nothing to do with Haaretz. The topic is covered at David Landau because it has something to do with Landau. But not every time Landau opens his mouth to give his opinion on some topic does that mean we put that in to the Haaretz article. Are there any sources that relate this to Haaretz? Are there any sources that even suggest he was speaking for Haaretz when he said this? The answer to both those questions is no. Then the answer to whether or not this belongs on the Haaretz page is no. And note, I did not disregard what Jaak said, I told you 2 other users agreed with you, but without any type of convincing argument that went beyond Landau works for Haaretz so whatever Landau says is relevant to the Haaretz page. That argument does not cut it. Bring some sources that relate this to Haaretz and maybe this could go in given the proper weight, but as it is there is nothing in the sources that justify inclusion on this page. nableezy - 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Landou was invited as a editor in chief of Haaretz. As a seditor in chief he is responsible for the Haaretz direction. We already covered it here. The bottom line Malik we had a dispute and invited people to comment. We are still in the middle of dispute. There is NOT clear agreement. Malik should undo his revert, live it at the same point till we come to a agreement. He basicly took the liberty to erase it ijn the middle of discussions. This is against policy of Wikipedia. He should revert himself to the original state or I will do it myself till we reach an aggreement as we should. You can not just shange without a consensus. I also posted to Jakobou asking him to clarify his opinion. This way we can be sure what he means.Althou your claim about him doesn't make sense I still want him to clear it out for your benefit. I am sure you will come out with something else but let's clear this out and then will see what else excuse you will come out next. Meanwhile I am asking Malik Shabbaz to revert to the previous state till we come to a conclusion.

--Rm125 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, we asked for comments, and we received them. Now you have to heed what the other editors said.

Repeating yourself won't change anything. Please read WP:IDHT. It's time to move on. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed your RfC because we already have one on this page. If you feel so strongly that the material needs to be in the article—against consensus—while we wait to see if anybody else drops by to offer an opinion, please revert my edit. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked opinion NOT ABOUT LANDAU ISSUE but about your revert. You reverted me claiming that all respondeds agreed with you and there was a consensus I claimed that this is not so. For example Yaacobou adreed with my point. So this is a question about CONSENSUS. I asked you to revert to the state when we asked the opinion. What happened you reverted WITHOUT achieving a consensus. This is the issue here, Malik.I still ask you to revert till we reach a consensus here.

--Rm125 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

{{rfctag|media}}

We are in a middle of discussion. Some posters agreed with position that David Landau quote about "raping Israel" when he, acting as editor in chief of Haaretz and being invited to dinner with Condi Rice lectured her. The setting was in American ambassador house to Israel in an official dinner with 20 opinion makers in Israel as chiefs of think tanks, major editors in chief of newspapers and top political commentators. The claim of some is that Landau acted as a private citizen and not a representtive of Haarets newspaper. Some claim that this is a major event and must be included in the article. Malik Shabbaz took the liberty to take off this section claiming that there is a consensus. He is saying thay Yaakobou aggreement with me doesn't count because he didn't read all of our discussions. This is NOT the case as I demonstrated above. I also posted a question to Jacobou inviting him to clarify his position. We are waiting for his reply.( Although it is clear to me but this is for Malik benefit )As for now I am asking Malik to revert to previous state till we come to a comsensus. Is my request reasonable? I would like to ask if we should leave it in a state till we come to a consensus. --Rm125 (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding the RfC tag, there is already one open. nableezy - 03:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap:

Even Zero half agreed. His only issue was if he was a private citizen or represented Haaretz ( which were proven by direct quote from RS of “Jewish Week” already.)

So your claim about ‘ consensus’ is incorrect .Sorry, Malik.--Rm125 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, please read WP:RFC to see what a "Request for Comments" is and what it isn't. It isn't the appropriate place to ask other editors whether they agree or disagree with my edits, or whether your request is reasonable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the only reason this passage was in the article at all is because you forced it in over the objections of a number of editors. The only reason it stayed in was because people were willing to put up with your continued persistence in keeping it in. I am not. Most of the users who have responded to the RfC have been against its inclusion. Nobody in favor of its inclusion has shown, with secondary sources, how this is related to the editorial policy of Haaretz. Until you either bring such sources that show the relation or get consensus for putting in this wholly irrelevant piece of nonsense it stays out of the article. nableezy - 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malik and with Nableezy, I do not see how this paragraph is relevant to the article. If those remarks were to be published in Haaretz it would of course be another matter.Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how this paragraph is relevant to the article.<<<In this chapter we have people like JJ Goldberg, organizations like CAMERA, News agency like BBC, Study from a journal about I/P issues, “Nation” describes Haaretz in certain way etc, All this considerate a legitimate in this chapter but editor in chief of the same newspaper views illegitimate here? >>>If those remarks were to be published in Haaretz it would of course be another matter<<<The chapter called editorial policy AND viewpoints. Other people and institutions are not connected to Haaretz at all. So what you tell me that the only opinion that is not relevant is editor-in chief.. You understand no doubt the nature of this argument and can not confront it directly since it is ridiculous, so you INVENTED the idea that the fact of him being in private situation or an official situation matters. This criteria does not applied to others in the same chapter. Here we have a #1 editor of Haaretz and he is the only one whose views are not allowed while views of people and institutions of foreign countries are allowed. This is NOR NPOV principal and doesn’t stand a basic logic. This is “facts” I am talking about and doesn’t even require an opinion. If his opinion is not relevant then other opinions are not relevant either. I revert>>>

--Rm125 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What is covered in that section is about Haaretz. All those sources are talking about Haaretz. Editorial policy and viewpoints refers to the Editorial policy and viewpoints of Haaretz as a paper. This has nothing to do with Haaretz. nableezy - 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, you keep getting users saying this does not belong. Stop editwarring it into the article. nableezy - 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy you say “it is not about Haaretz but this is what the Jewish Week says not me. It is RS. Jewish week title says :‘Haaretz Editor Urged Rice To ‘Rape’ Israel” It doesn’t say David Landau “privately says” It starts with:“comments made by David Landau, editor of the Israeli daily, Haaretz,” It doesn’t say made by David Landau in private conversation not related to his position as editor in chief.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c41_a1531/News/Short_Takes.html

Plus you revert when we are in the middle of discussion and 30 days are not over.--Rm125 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the majority view here is not to include the passage. That's the position of Nableezy, Malik Shabazz, Jim Fitzgerald, Untwirl and myself. As many users have said, while this may be relevant to the article on David Landau, it's not relevant to this article. As the consensus is in favour of not including the paragraph, I hope Rm125 can accept that and move on.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero also wrote against including the paragraph.

Rm125, please stop reverting, or your edit-warring will be reported to WP:ANEW. In your short time at Wikipedia, you've already earned quite a reputation as an edit warrior.

Please read WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. It's time to move on. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link that says specificallt about Haaretz connection

“The editor in chief of Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper, David Landau, confirmed yesterday that he has pleaded with Secretary of State Rice to "rape" Israel and its neighbors into resolving their problems.”

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/journalist-us-should-rape-israel/68612/

--Rm125 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just including the word Haaretz as part of Landau's job description does not make this connected to Haaretz. You need to find sources that actually talk about Haaretz and this supposed controversy. nableezy - 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent issues

I can't say that I'd be able to follow up all the bickering without getting peeved and going to do something else. I respectfully request that the source, and a main diff or two of possible versions be listed here so I can make a serious attempt to help resolve this debate, which we can all agree, seems quite jammed.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may disagree, I don't think the issue is particularly jammed at all. We have six users all agreeing that the passage doesn't belong here and one single user who has spent most of the time after his recent block for disruptive editing inserting the same passage. The consensus seems to be to keep it out.Jeppiz (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even see 6 editors debating the issue. Please clarify (as well as respond to my initial request).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125 wants to include this paragraph. Those who have opposed is during the last day are Malik Shabazz, Nableezy and myself. Going back a few days, Untwirl, Jim Fitzgerald and Zero000 have also opposed including it, as we all six feel that it is not relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the issue in a nutshell is this:

The editor-in-chief of Haaretz made some controversial comments at a "confidential briefing" by the US Secretary of State. Do the comments belong in this article—in particular, under the title "Editorial policy and viewpoints"?

Here's the diff. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Sorry once again you are being dishonest here, Why didn't you mentioned 2 who agreed with me? Shuki and Jaakobou. Yes, my friend time to refresh your (selective) memory. --Rm125 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo mates,

Sticking to content, I agree that compliments Haaretz editor(?) gave his country in any meeting is not relevant to an "Editorial policy and viewpoints" section. There is room, however to consider the level of notability on this controversial statement and possibly, add it as a one liner in a "controversies" section. Personally, I'm unhappy with the structure of the discussed section. I think it would be more encyclopedic to make that section more simple and "lead"-styled and move the controversies and cancellations to a "criticism and controversy" section. As of now, I'm undecided on the notability of the compliment Landau gave Israel, but if it has taken some notability, then there is room to include it somehow into the article (in a conservative way - i.e. a short one liner).

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already included in the Landau page because it is relevant to that page. How is it relevant here? nableezy - 16:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

If I were reading about a newspaper and, for example, their editor was also a terrorist; that would certainly be worth a short mention in the newspaper article. This case is, surely, different but having the content listed on the biography of the newspaper editor doesn't mean it is excluded from mention in the newspaper article. Yes?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, all I want is a source making this an issue about Haaretz. A source where somebody calls on Haaretz to fire Landau because of this, or a response from Haaretz about this or any article focusing on Haaretz talking about this. Just picking random pieces of information and connecting them ourselves is a no-no. nableezy - 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, have you seen the proof that he was speaking as an Haaretz editor? Do I need to bring a special form from his mom? This is rediculous. So whatever Candolisa Rice tellsall the big cigars over there is considered her "private opoinion"? 20 of the the most influential opinion makers are gathered in the home of American ambassador for "confidential briefing" in presence of secretery of state Condi Rice. They discuss; heavy stuff" this is not a coctail party. So in this setting If Candolisa Rice -for example- agrees with Landau and says" Yes landau you right it makes sence- so in thois case she speaks as an individual not as a secretary of state. Look you can say anything even the earth is flat. It doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is about reliyng on common sense and facts.You can say anything you want but this information CAN NOT BE HIDDEN like it never happened. If Landau was a just a regular reporter it is one thing but he was an EDTOR IN CHIEF of the most influential newspaper in Israel. You can not ignore this fact. ALL OTHER NEWSPAPERS had HEADLINES saying EDITOR OF HAARETZ-not DAVID LANDAU THE REPORTER. Non of this would make headlines all over the world if he wasn't EDITOR OF HAARETZ. I am very disappointed at the stubbornes and stiffness of mind of those who refuse to see the obvious. I made a special section that proves BEYOND DOUBT that he was speaking as an editor of HAARETZ. You can not fool the headline.

If you dsay that Landau presense there is not represent Haaretz You are saying that any polititian, MP, member of congress doesnt represent his employer. Jimmy Carter sells his books because he is an ex President of US. Ant poiliticisan who is cought in extra marital afair can claim he did it as a private citizen. In 21 Century and our information age we can not clain he is nor representing his newspaper. This is not honest. This is not right. This is not common sense. This is not majority-minority issue. This is important principal. Wikipedia should reflect modern reality not last century conservatism. Look you guys do whatever you want with this. I personally loosing respect for this Wikipedia project.

--Rm125 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Rm125,

Off course, Landau is a representative of Haaretz. It doesn't mean that his compliments towards Israel are automatic encyclopedic content though. We should really review the sources in a condensed fashion and consider the level of notability and the encyclopedic value. Here's a thought, I figure there is room to make a connection between ctiriticsm of these compliments of his and the Irit Linur criticism.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, thanks for your feedback. I think at this point we have to compromize. I realize that I have to respect opinions of others and even doesn't make sense to me personally I have to live with this. After considering all the points I find it reasonable to eccept your suggestion to make is as short as this novelist who canselled her surcription. I want to thank everybody for their efforts.Jaakobou, Once again thanks for your help to resolve this issue Even though I am only partly happy I want to eccept this solution for the sake of peace with much respect to fellow Wikipedians. Also thanks to Malik Shabbaz and Nablezy, Zero, Shuki and G-d forgove me if I forgot somebody.--Rm125 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Nableezy: I recollect one of the sources citing his Haaretz affiliation in the title. I haven't gone deeply over the sources for this complaint. Basically, you have half a point about how should his comment be considered in relation to the paper. Well, the paper itself won't be criticized for it (obviously) but rather the criticism will be directed at "haaretz editor". This is the same with other newspaper articles, as if, for exapmle, an Arutz Sheva, editor would have said something exceedingly vicious and it was noted by external media, I would expect a mention on the article page for Arutz Sheva.
General notes: From a note made to me by Rm125, I gather that there's been a bit of an attempt at a rewrite that went rejected. I'd appreciate a diff so I can review the disputed versions and try to suggest possible compromises.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jaak, they do report his affiliation with Haaretz, usually along the lines of saying "David Landau, editor-in-chief of Haaretz, said ...". But thats it. They are not talking about Haaretz, they are talking about Landau. If there is a source that actually discusses how this affects Haaretz by all means out it in, but not everything that comes out of Landau's mouth matters to the Haaretz page. nableezy - 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is summary of Landau discussion

This is the source

David Landau: Crude language over the top, or well placed? by Gary Rosenblatt Israelis are known for being direct and blunt. But comments made by David Landau, editor of the Israeli daily, Haaretz, to Condoleezza Rice about Israel needing to be “raped” by the U.S. to achieve a Mideast settlement caused quite a stir among the 20 or so attendees at a confidential briefing with the secretary of state on a recent visit to Israel. The incident, which took place Sept. 10 at the private residence of America’s ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, has not been fully reported until now. What is contested is not the raw language Landau used but the context of his impassioned comments. Following Rice’s briefing to the gathered military, academic and media elites at the dinner, the guests offered their views and comments about the Mideast impasse. Landau, who was seated next to Rice, was said to have referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, one in need of a U.S.-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would be like a “wet dream” for him to see this happen. When contacted this week, Landau said the description was “inaccurate” and “a perversion of what I said.” He said his views had been delivered with “much more sophistication.” But he added: “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 neededmore vigorous U.S. intervention in the affairs of the Middle East.”

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c41_a1531/News/Short_Takes.html

This is the section called Editorial policies and viewpoints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz#Editorial_policy_and_viewpoints

This is the part we are talking about:

In 2007, Landau stirred up controversy when he referred to Israel as “failed state” in a confidential briefing between about 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and at the residence of US Ambassador Richard Jones with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza RiceHe told her that "Israel wants to be raped by the U.S." in order to achieve a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. In an interview with New York-based Jewish Week, Landau admitted to making a similar remark: "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."

Some refuse because they claim he talked as a private person-not as Haatetz editor.

(A) There is a confidential briefing 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 claim that he was invited as "an individual"?

My claim (1)of course he attended as Haatetz editor in chief(2) This is not an issue since in this section other sources like Nation, JJ Goldberg and others.(3) The sources specifically called Landau-editor in chief- look at the headings and first paragraphs (4) 2 people already agreed with me ( Shuki and Jacobou)

Jewish Week and INN are RS. Whether he likes it or not, The high profile editor of an important newspaper, Landau, speaking anywhere is also Landau representing his employer. He should watch his words, retract it, or respond if it is not true. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that opinion of editor in chief of Haaretz is less important ( in the Haaretz point of vies section) but opinions of “the Nation” BBC, JJ Goldberg is important.

In addition Malik changes his mind all the time for all kind of excuses for example:

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)

Now that there is a proof he still refuses.

If you can see the title of articles they say Editor of Haaretz Daviv Landau and than a first chapter too. Headline of the article- Haaretz Editor Urged Rice To ‘Rape’ Israel Do you need more proof?

--Rm125 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof that Landau was speaking as a Editor of Haaretz

The Jewish Weekly Quote:

Headline: “Haaretz Editor Urged Rice To ‘Rape’ Israel”

“But comments made by David Landau, editor of the Israeli daily, Haaretz, to Condoleezza Rice about Israel needing to be “raped” by the U.S. to achieve a Mideast settlement caused quite a stir among the 20 or so attendees at a confidential briefing with the secretary of state on a recent visit to Israel.”

The Jerusalem Post headline: “Ha'aretz editor: Israel wants to be raped”

“Ha'aretz editor David Landau told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a recent private dinner that Israel "wants to be raped by the US" and needed more vigorous American intervention to resolve Middle East conflicts, according to a report in the New York Jewish Week. “

From Stephen Walt0 The New Forein Policy

“The editor of Ha’aretz, David Landau, conveyed much the same sentiment last September when he told former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States should "rape" Israel in order to force a solution. Landau's phrase was shocking and offensive, but it underscored the sense of urgency felt within some segments of the Israeli body politic. “

Israel National News:

Headline: “Haaretz Editor Asked US Secretary of State to "Rape" Israel”

“(IsraelNN.com) Haaretz’s Chief Editor asked US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to “rape” Israel, using other unsavory terminology as well in his request for American pressure. 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”

By any benchmark, Landau's behavior as an Israeli citizen would be deemed unacceptable. But it is surely unconscionable that the editor of one of Israel's most influential newspapers, which also appears in an English and global internet version, could urge an American Secretary of State to "rape" his own government. If ever there was a crossing of every red line in terms of propriety, national integrity, and civic responsibility, this extraordinary intervention tops the bill. This is surely not behaviour befitting the editor of a major newspaper. Could one possibly visualize the head of a major European media outlet behaving in such a manner in relation to his country?

He is RS look at his resume http://www.leibler.com/biography.php

http://www.leibler.com/article/287 --Rm125 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some people who note he is Editor of Haaretz but don't indicate he was talking on behalf of or regarding the newspaper, Arutz Sheva, and Isi Liebler's personal blog. Thanks for summarising. You have no case. Please give up. Zero^talk 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero, I disagree. Looking through other newspaper articles, it is now common to include actions/opinions of owners and editors. Gone are the days when the media was objectivly reporting. We now know that each media outlet has an agenda and political leaning. Looking at National Post, a newspaper similar to Haaretz, there is a lot of background to owner/editor opinion, political support, and actions and think that it is valid there as well. Employees of stature might not be directly representing their employers are still in the spotlight for their actions and opinions voiced publicly and behind closed doors and exposed. I do not think that this exposure should get UNDUE, but a short mention is legitimate. --Shuki (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then go fix that article. If there are reliable secondary sources that talk about this as an issue for Haaretz then fine, but there havent been any presented. You cant just connect topics because you feel like it, you need a reliable source making the connection. nableezy - 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero even assuming Arutz Sheva and Leibler are not RS there are others like J Post an Jewish Week so you can't argue farther unless you clain J Post and ehw Jewish week are non RS.--Rm125 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• This statement was said during a meeting with other "media leaders" so its pretty obvious that Landau was at the meeting as a representative of Haaretz. If the editor of chief of a newspaper says something while in the capacity of representing a newspaper, what he says probably deserves atleast a short mention in the WP article on the newspaper. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He was not "in the capacity of representing a newspaper" he was representing himself. Do you have any sources that relate this to Haaretz, or is this just canvassed backup? nableezy - 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a meeting with media leaders. I guess its theoretically possible that they decided not to invite the editor in chief of the Haaretz to a meeting of media leaders, but decided to invite Landau because he's cool. But that's extremely unlikly. Right? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

They did invite the editor in chief, they invited him to hear his views. And that translates into editorial policy of Haaretz how? Do you have any sources that relate this to Haaretz? Any? nableezy - 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the editor in chief of a newspaper makes a political statement while in the capacity of editor in chief, what he says is clearly related to the viewpoints of the newspaper. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Says a Wikipedia editor. I repeat my question. Do you have any sources that relate this to Haaretz? nableezy - 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We're making editorial decisions about the inclusion-worthiness of specific content. There's no need for say CNN to say straight out that "Since Landau's statement was said in the capacity of editor in chief of Haaretz, his political statements belong in viewpoint section of Haaretz's WP article". Editorial decisions go by common sense good faith collaboration, not WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:BULLYING. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it the answer to my question is no then. While you have put up a number of essays, none of which apply, let me give you some policies and guidelines. WP:V, WP:OR. You cannot make a connection no reliable secondary source has made, and that is what you are trying to do. If you can provide a source that actually pretends that this is an issue for Haaretz then we can discuss due weight. But as it is you are trying to push in your own analysis, something policy, not an essay, says is prohibited. nableezy - 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no essay here, and saying that there is one doesn't create one. You're wrong on policy application. There need not be a source saying straight out that this statement is related to Haaretz before its eligible for inclusion in the Haaretz wikipage. As long as its verified that he said what he said in the capacity of being the Haaretz EIC, it belongs. Say Michael Jordan hits a game winning shot to lead the Bulls to victory. The information rearding the game-winning shot belongs on both the Michael Jordan page and the Chicago Bulls page. The reliable source need not say something like "this relates to both Michael Jordan and the Bulls". Same here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Both links you provided, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:BULLYING, are essays. WP:OR is policy. But as you used an example I enjoy reliving let's go with that. Suppose Michael Jordan makes a game winning shot in the championship clinching game to lead the Chicago Bulls to yet another championship. In that instance yes the shot belongs on its own page, on the game page, on Jordan's page, and probably on the Bulls page as one of the biggest shots in franchise history. But suppose for a second that Jordan hits the game winning shot in the Olympics gold medal game. That belongs on the Jordan page, but even though articles about the shot would refer to Jordan as "Chicago Bulls star Michael Jordan" that does not mean we put that shot on the Bulls page. That is what is being done here. nableezy - 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If Michael Jordan hit a game winning shot during the Olympics it would not belong on the Chicago Bulls page. Similarly, if Landau said something while he was employed by the Tapai Times it would not belong on the Haaretz page. But if Michael Jordan hit a game winning shot for the Chicago Bulls it would belong on the Chicago Bulls page and if Landau made a political statement in his capacity as Haaretz EIC it would belong on the Haaretz page. Checkmate.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jordan hitting a game winning shot while "on the clock" for the Chicago Bulls is one thing, Jordan hitting a game winning shot while employed by the Bulls but not playing for them is another. That is the relation. Is there anything to suggest that Landau was speaking for Haaretz? Anything at all? And, again, if there are no sources making this related to Haaretz neither should Wikipedia. That is original research which is prohibited by policy. nableezy - 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to go pick up my car from the shop and then its almost Shabbas. I'll address your goalpost moving when I get a chance.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I have been making the same point the entire time. Bring a source that relates this to Haaretz. Otherwise for you to say it magically is related to Haaretz is OR. nableezy - 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts because you initially welcomed the Michael Jordan/Chicago Bulls analogy but then when you realized that you don't like its results you went back to your previous made-up idea that content can only be included in an article if a reliable source ratifies that the content is part of the article's subject. However, I'll get baited into this wrong premise and respond accordingly. The reliable sources covering the incident don't describe Landau as an "Israeli journalist", "Israeli activist", etc. If that's they way they describe him, when discussing this incident you may by right. Rather, the sources describing Landau in relation to this incident refer to him as the "Haaretz Editor" [6][7]. This description combined with the fact that this took place in a meeting of Israel media leaders while he representing the Haaretz, makes a rock solid case for its inclusion in the Haaretz article. Enough with the whitewashing and WP:IDONTLIKEIT masquerading as wiki-policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. I do like the analogy, but my point with it is what Jordan does outside of the Bulls uniform, like at the Olympics or an even better analogy at an All-Star game wouldnt go in the page on the Bulls, even if he is described in reports as "Chicago Bulls star". And it isnt a made up idea that the that the sources need to make connections that you try and make in an article, that is policy. The fact that he is described as a Haaretz editor does not make this about Haaretz, it is about him. He was not representing Haaretz and no source has been put forward to show that he was. Enough with the WP:ILIKEIT masquerading as evidence of a connectoin and provide a source that makes that connection. nableezy - 05:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Landau is in uniform, which is a suit, in his case. As for the rest of your comment, let the record speak for itself. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry, it does. And it appears that most of the respondents to the RfC agree that this is not relevant to the Haaretz article. nableezy - 05:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer (yada, yada) Thanks for your noble attempts to resolve this issue. Just wanted to thank you. Jaakobou already looke at it and gave his"verdict" witch is to mention this but no more then this Nurit whats-her-nane who canselled her transcroption, I am not 1005 happy but for the sake of peace and understanding I will go for it. I also thanked Malik and others gor their contributions. They actually helped me to dive into the issue and I am sure I will remember David Landau all my life. I am sure he is watching us discussing his fate and also happy we are in agreement. Thanks again and I am happy we are over this already,--Rm125 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Zero^talk 03:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want now Zero?--Rm125 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We still have an open Request for Comments. I'd like to hear from uninvolved editors, especially from ones you didn't canvass. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this information to the article. Rm125, please stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you reverse while last time YOU reverted while we are in the middle of discussion. What a shame --Rm125 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for the information to be in the article until there's consensus to add it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This was rewritten so all disagreemebta are gone. What is your problem now Malik. I did exactly the way Jaakobou suggested. You told me Jaakobou wasn't relevant before because he "didn't read all discussion" What is your excuse now? --Rm125 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This was your excuse Malik;

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)

Now he is speaking " as an individual" So now what? Just because?

--Rm125 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Who died and made Jaakobou king? He made a suggestion, just like 8 or so other editors who have given their opinions here. We should consider it when we decide what to do. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik, remember?

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

Last time you reverted under a false pretense and before we reached the final completion-everybody can see that, Mr principal. You take advantage of the fact that people are not following and it is confusing, but you know it, Malik, --Rm125 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the problem with my adding are you clueless, you don't want it there but you don't know why, this is the thing?--Rm125 (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik do you have a clue what do you want now or you need to talk to your friends first?I will wait--Rm125 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are still more editors who don't think it belongs in the article than ones who support its inclusion. In any event, I think it should stay out until we reach a consensus. If you want it back in, revert me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not hide behind our mama as "girly" guys do . Do you have your own opinion or you are running away?--Rm125 (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you babbling about, Ronit? Put on your reading glasses. I gave you my opinion. As I wrote, if you feel so strongly, revert me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My name is not Ronit, Malik. Second I don't wan't to revert again because our mutual friend Nablizy will revert again. I've been there already. If not some other cartel members will show up. I strongly recommend you to tell me why you have a problem with the latest version. I feel you don't want to clear things out. What is the problem to state why did you PERSONALLY reverted? If you were cincere you would do it but you are not. This is childish along with your name calling --Rm125 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I thought your User page used to say that your name was Ronit.
• I've explained my problem with this. I don't think it belongs in the article. The majority of opinions on this page agree.
• Speaking of name-calling and childishness, who called another editor clueless? Who accused whom of hiding behind his mama? And who ran off to ask Jaakobou for help? (Hint: It wasn't me.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, there is currently no consensus to add this to the article, and as this is not a vote and nobody who has supported its inclusion has given a satisfactory rationale backed by policy to include the info it should not be in the article, no matter how many people you canvass to come here and say it should. If you can provide a source that relates this to Haaretz it can go in the article, but you have not done that. All you have done is provide sources talking about Landau, not Haaretz. nableezy - 05:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Now if you want to honor your last suggestion lets create this tag.--Rm125 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, talking of rules/regulations and assuming you have another finger or thumb (if not, nableezy, stop persecuting physically handicapped immigrants) it's better to use 2 because you'll need the shift key for the colons : which you need to properly indent your comments on talk pages. Have a look at Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation. It will make it easier to follow for everyone and I can see that you are already making the effort for capital letters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break - Proof that Landau was speaking as a Editor of Haaretz

And it appears that most of the respondents to the RfC agree that this is not relevant to the Haaretz article. nableezy - 05:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oy, nableezy. Check again, besides that I assume you know about WP:VOTE, it seems that you are misleading people in saying that 'most' agree that it's not relevant. FWIW, the argument against including is not as NPOV as the argument supporting including this mention. --Shuki (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked again, my count is myself, Zero, Malik Shabazz, Jim Fitzgerald, untwirl, and Jeppiz. For I see youself, Rm125, Brewcrewer and Jaakobou. And yes I am aware this is not a vote, but I also am aware that not a single source has been presented making this relevant to Haaretz, just some people saying whatever the editor-in-chief says is relevant. That is not a valid response, please provide a source that makes the connection you are trying to make in the article. And as I was not misleading people, unless you can show who I missed, would you mind crossing that part of your comment out? And finally, I dont put a whole lot of stock in your reading of NPOV, so just saying one argument is more NPOV than the other is meaningless. nableezy - 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)