| Revision as of 16:07, 19 October 2008 editHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Political standpoint: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:17, 19 October 2008 edit undoRCS (talk | contribs)7,222 edits →Political standpointNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| :::I think Causteau is coming from the position that Zionism is exclusively an ideology of the right and therefore any statement that the Jerusalem Post is moderate/left should be tempered by a statement that it is Zionist. Naturally his/her assumption is quite incorrect (particularly in Israel). ] (]) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | :::I think Causteau is coming from the position that Zionism is exclusively an ideology of the right and therefore any statement that the Jerusalem Post is moderate/left should be tempered by a statement that it is Zionist. Naturally his/her assumption is quite incorrect (particularly in Israel). ] (]) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Given this editor's generally faulty logic your explanation actually makes some sense. --] (]) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | ::::Given this editor's generally faulty logic your explanation actually makes some sense. --] (]) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I actually think the real explanation is Iranian policies and Iranian money. Simple enough. --] (]) 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 19 October 2008
Is there much point to having a seperate article for "The Palestine Post" At the right of writing "Palestine Post" points to this article. Robertbrockway 20:52, May 24 2005 (UTC)
this article is about the newspaper, not a website
The Jerusalem Post is a newspaper. It has a website (external link) but it is not a website. There are many organizations that exist in the owrld with websites, but you would not slap a website category onto their individual articles unless the article was specifically about 'a website.' It is the prerogative of the WP editor to remove faulty information from the project, we are always trying to improve it. And certainly, the onus is not on a correcting error who removes a perceived error to go write an new article to rectify that problem. --Shuki 21:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Political allegiance
I dont think the Jerusalem Post has any political allegiance. Centrism is a specific view of politics and is different from no allegiance. --Shamir1 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Controversy
I don't know if the content of this section needs to be in this article. It seems like a minor issue of the advertising department or even perhaps a rogue employee using the mailing lists to push a political candidate. Newspapers promte politicians all the time in their content. And even if it was decision to get a few extra bucks, then it is not a 'controversy'. At most a very minor issue, valid as it may be, not needed to be recorded in an encyclopedia. --Shuki 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
mandate
From 1920 until 1948 Palestine was called Palestine, NOT mandate Palestine..No credible historian calls Palestine, Mandate Palestine. If the latter was true, then how come the Jerusalem Post was called "The Palestine Post" and NOT "the Mandate Palestine Post". If you check out Palestinian stamps from this period you will realize that the British inscribed the name Palestine in English and Hebrew. To employ the word "mandate" before "Palestine", this is a Zionist point of view. Now the problem is that in Misplaced Pages, you have to be objective and not subjective or biased towards one party, meaning this entry cannot be Pro-Palestinian or Pro-Zionist. If you check the narratives of credible historians you will see that they do not employ biased or politically biased language such as "mandate Palestine'. Check out the book titled "The ebbing of European Ascendancy" by Sally Marks , who is British by the way.George Al-Shami (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article Palestine refers to the historic region, while the mandate article refers to the era, more relevant to the article. --Shuki (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then why remove reference to a section in the Jerusalem Post titled "Iranian Threat".George Al-Shami (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just commenting on the Mandate Palestine part: I think that the article should read "...newspaper-editor, Gershon Agron in Mandate Palestine. During...". "Mandate Palestine" is less ambiguous than just "Palestine." Additionally, as already has been pointed out, the article Palestine is a very general article, whereas the article British Mandate of Palestine is much more specific as to the subject. Today, the word Palestine has taken on a connotation of an Arab Palestinian state, which is not what we are referring to here. Our goal is to present the information clearly, right? -ReuvenkT C 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, understood, that's exactly what Shuki argued, however your last sentence is not true, from 1920 until 1948 Palestine was still an Arab Palestinian state, Palestinians had everything that characterizes a state except sovereignty. And the user in question is not explaining why the section on Iranian threat is being removedGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Palestine between 1920 and 1948 was certainly not an Arab state. My gosh, I suggest you read up on history. In all documentation from that time, there is clear talk of two residents of Palestine, Jewish and Arab. The term 'Palestinian' was synonymous of both people. As for the Iranian threat section; it's NN. Why aren't all the sections listed in the article? It is OR to single out one section. And how are editors supposed to be respected if they use the edit summary for wild weenie accusations? --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shuki it's you who does not know what on earth you are talking about, I have studied the history of this region in depth!!!I suggest that you go pick up a history book on the ME. You are definitely wrong about the make-up of Palestine!!From 1920 until 1948 Palestine WAS AN ARAB MAJORITY including both the foreign jew and the indigenous jew, do you understand Shuki??And don't pick up a history book from the jewish school you went to in Montreal. Pick up a book used in many North American universities such as "A history of the Modern Middle East" by William Cleveland and here let me give an exact quote from a book used in many political science courses..titled "A history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" fifth edition by Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner..Shuki I'm going out of my way to give you this information, because forgive me for saying this but it looks like you are an ignorant Zionist! Turn to page 81 and it says that in 1946 there were 1,269,000 Arabs and 608 000 Jews, that is more than double the jewish population. Do the math Shuki that's 68% for the Arabs and 32% for the jews, so that's an overwhelming Arab majority..Switzerland is usually called a german country because 65% of the Swiss are German!! that's a majority..and then the issue about the "iranian threat" section..why are you removing it??If you want to add the other sections than by all means do so, but why remove this section?This is blantant POV vandalismGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- STOP! Lets keep this Civil.
- A few points:
- 1. I wont argue details. But in short, Mandate Palestine in 1946 clearly was not "overwhelmingly arab." There were Arabs and Jews both living on the land. 68-32 is not an "overwhelming majority." 90-10 would be.
- 2. George, it seems to me that "forgive me for saying this but it looks like you are an ignorant Zionist!" is a violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I am not currently turning to ArbCom or anything like that, but if this type of attack continues, I may.
- 3. The Jerusalem Post is a Jewish newspaper. Therefore, I think it would be in keeping with the style of the article to write "Mandate Palestine." As Shuki and I have written before, the use of the word "Palestine" in 2008 does not immediately conjure up the idea of pre-State mandate Palestine. -ReuvenkT C 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- George, the 'Iranian threat' insertion into the article is not refering to seperate edition published by the company. (I assume you understand that that is what the paragraph is about.) What other context can you provide to prove the notibility of this section. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shuki it's you who does not know what on earth you are talking about, I have studied the history of this region in depth!!!I suggest that you go pick up a history book on the ME. You are definitely wrong about the make-up of Palestine!!From 1920 until 1948 Palestine WAS AN ARAB MAJORITY including both the foreign jew and the indigenous jew, do you understand Shuki??And don't pick up a history book from the jewish school you went to in Montreal. Pick up a book used in many North American universities such as "A history of the Modern Middle East" by William Cleveland and here let me give an exact quote from a book used in many political science courses..titled "A history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" fifth edition by Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner..Shuki I'm going out of my way to give you this information, because forgive me for saying this but it looks like you are an ignorant Zionist! Turn to page 81 and it says that in 1946 there were 1,269,000 Arabs and 608 000 Jews, that is more than double the jewish population. Do the math Shuki that's 68% for the Arabs and 32% for the jews, so that's an overwhelming Arab majority..Switzerland is usually called a german country because 65% of the Swiss are German!! that's a majority..and then the issue about the "iranian threat" section..why are you removing it??If you want to add the other sections than by all means do so, but why remove this section?This is blantant POV vandalismGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Palestine between 1920 and 1948 was certainly not an Arab state. My gosh, I suggest you read up on history. In all documentation from that time, there is clear talk of two residents of Palestine, Jewish and Arab. The term 'Palestinian' was synonymous of both people. As for the Iranian threat section; it's NN. Why aren't all the sections listed in the article? It is OR to single out one section. And how are editors supposed to be respected if they use the edit summary for wild weenie accusations? --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, understood, that's exactly what Shuki argued, however your last sentence is not true, from 1920 until 1948 Palestine was still an Arab Palestinian state, Palestinians had everything that characterizes a state except sovereignty. And the user in question is not explaining why the section on Iranian threat is being removedGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just commenting on the Mandate Palestine part: I think that the article should read "...newspaper-editor, Gershon Agron in Mandate Palestine. During...". "Mandate Palestine" is less ambiguous than just "Palestine." Additionally, as already has been pointed out, the article Palestine is a very general article, whereas the article British Mandate of Palestine is much more specific as to the subject. Today, the word Palestine has taken on a connotation of an Arab Palestinian state, which is not what we are referring to here. Our goal is to present the information clearly, right? -ReuvenkT C 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then why remove reference to a section in the Jerusalem Post titled "Iranian Threat".George Al-Shami (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Political standpoint
The introductory reference to the political standpoint of the newspaper contained a section starting "However, an editorial published on the Jerusalem Post's website in August 2008 self-identifies it as "a staunchly Zionist newspaper"". This seems something of a non-sequitur - the Jerusalem Post has always been clearly Zionist, and nothing in the previous paragraph suggests otherwise. LeContexte (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not a non-sequitur. The previous paragraph discusses the "new ownership and editorial leadership of editor-in-chief David Horovitz since 2004," and how the "paper's political identity has moved again to a more complex centrist position" as well as its subsequent "support for the August 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip and the paper's advocacy for privatization of Israeli religious institutions. The next sentence, however, mentions its still clearly Zionist leanings and pro-Israel activities with the creation of the Campus Post newspaper. Also note that a so-called "non-sequitur" is no excuse for removing material from reliable sources. From WP:VERIFY:
Causteau (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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.
- From where in the world are you getting the idea that "Zionist leanings and pro-Israel activities" are remarkable for an Israeli newspaper? (Let alone even remotely incompatible with a "complex centrist position".) It's not even a question of undue weight, because there is no way this can be controversial. It's just completely pointless. Encyclopedias don't contain sentences that make no sense whatsoever. At least they shouldn't, and if they are discovered they are removed.
- Since you don't seem to be willing to listen to what others tell you, I have started a thread about your edit warring at this article. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think Causteau is coming from the position that Zionism is exclusively an ideology of the right and therefore any statement that the Jerusalem Post is moderate/left should be tempered by a statement that it is Zionist. Naturally his/her assumption is quite incorrect (particularly in Israel). LeContexte (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Given this editor's generally faulty logic your explanation actually makes some sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think the real explanation is Iranian policies and Iranian money. Simple enough. --RCS (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Given this editor's generally faulty logic your explanation actually makes some sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think Causteau is coming from the position that Zionism is exclusively an ideology of the right and therefore any statement that the Jerusalem Post is moderate/left should be tempered by a statement that it is Zionist. Naturally his/her assumption is quite incorrect (particularly in Israel). LeContexte (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)