| Revision as of 11:27, 29 October 2012 editZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,847 edits →Poll← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:36, 29 October 2012 edit undoVanished user lt94ma34le12 (talk | contribs)8,065 edits →PollNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :::I am not interested on a discussion, which is in its root based on already proven mistake. Both sides (even the original publisher - Haaretz - see the sources) have acknowledged this was indeed a mistake. The article did not represent the poll, which is precisely what was heavily criticized and finally acknowledged by Haaretz. Do you or anyone else challenge these facts? The discussion you are suggesting (about the poll itself and not about its misinterpretation in Haaretz) is not substantially connected to this acknowledged criticism or to this already acknowledged mistake.--] (]) 11:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | :::I am not interested on a discussion, which is in its root based on already proven mistake. Both sides (even the original publisher - Haaretz - see the sources) have acknowledged this was indeed a mistake. The article did not represent the poll, which is precisely what was heavily criticized and finally acknowledged by Haaretz. Do you or anyone else challenge these facts? The discussion you are suggesting (about the poll itself and not about its misinterpretation in Haaretz) is not substantially connected to this acknowledged criticism or to this already acknowledged mistake.--] (]) 11:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :: Not wishing to fork the discussion at the other talk page, there are specific problems with the text AsiBakshish wants to add. (1) It makes judgements in the voice of Misplaced Pages, such as "based on a misinterpretation of a poll" and "although it was incorrect". This is unacceptable under any circumstances. (2) It is dishonest: "Haaretz published a clarification stating, that the article did not accurately reflect the findings of the poll". As AsiBakshish knows perfectly well, the clarification refers only to the original headline of the article, not to its content. And, AsiBakshish, statements like "I am not interested on a discussion", apart from being bad English, are a fast-track to getting banned. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | :: Not wishing to fork the discussion at the other talk page, there are specific problems with the text AsiBakshish wants to add. (1) It makes judgements in the voice of Misplaced Pages, such as "based on a misinterpretation of a poll" and "although it was incorrect". This is unacceptable under any circumstances. (2) It is dishonest: "Haaretz published a clarification stating, that the article did not accurately reflect the findings of the poll". As AsiBakshish knows perfectly well, the clarification refers only to the original headline of the article, not to its content. And, AsiBakshish, statements like "I am not interested on a discussion", apart from being bad English, are a fast-track to getting banned. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::1) - Can be easily resolved. | |||
| :::2) - Valid point. The addition should not be based on this clarification alone but on what other sources have to say. A single opinion piece is insufficient for such an addition and better sourcing should be provided. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:36, 29 October 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haaretz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
' 'Haaretz fiddled with Obama poll'
oh! Oh! "Fiddled' with the poll? It believe that this strike against the reputation of the paper is news and important information that WP should carry. I think it belongs in this article, but not sure where or how. Any suggestions? Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:UNDUE? Maybe you should give it a try. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an outrageous claim. I mean the advert on the JPost site that says you can learn Hebrew in 10 days. Hopefully it will be removed from Jpost’s online print edition archive and they'll rewrite the edition of the story that remains online so that it makes no reference to the claim. Other than that I didn't see anything noteworthy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Founding
The intro says 1918, the summary 1919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.9.97 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like it says 1918 in both places. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Importance of newspaper?
Readership declined but the newspaper is important? The circulation / readership figures are old. Mgromabc642 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Improving this article
How come this article is not allowed to be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millsstory (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is stopping you from improving the article. But if you vandalize it again, as you did here and here, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mostly because the editors here are Arabs, Communists, Muslims, neo-Nazis, and other anti-Semites. nableezy - 03:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not know that adding facts was vandalism. Millsstory (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are adding tags without explaining why. You are required to justify tags here. You need to be able to demonstrate that the tags are valid by citing evidence from the article and reliable sources. Misplaced Pages has an article that explains what a fact is and a policy WP:V that explains when a piece of information is regarded as verifiable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
CAMERA
Could someone explain to why CAMERA's opinion on this topic is suitable for inclusion. Has it been published by a reliable third party RS in relation to the topic for instance? Dlv999 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Although I don't know much about CAMERA, Andrea Levin is a notable source for information relating to media bias, and she's the author of the piece that's been cited in the article since May of 2010 without anyone objecting to it. I've supplemented what was there with a more definitive RS where Levin articulates some of her views vis-a-vis Haaretz, since they're important in our context. CAMERA is a reliable source for Levin's opinion – she was or is the organization's executive director.—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if the opinion of Levin is reported as relevant to the topic by an RS I have no complaints. Dlv999 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poll
There are lengthy, ongoing discussions regarding the poll at the Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Dialog_poll section and subsequent sections. I suggest that planned additions to this article regarding the poll are coordinated with the discussions over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Haaretz fiddles polls. As a matter of fact, even Haaretz published that statement. But this statement was repeatedly censored from Misplaced Pages. Such a disgusting anti-Israeli bias!--AsiBakshish (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- All material related to this poll is under discussion. All material has been kept out of articles while it is being discussed. Both sides in the discussion have accused each other of censorship. So, I suggest you self revert, join the discussion rather than trying to impose your will by force via edit warring which is rude, arrogant, and inconsistent with policy and guidelines. Also keep your personal opinions off the page. They don't matter and will make things worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not interested on a discussion, which is in its root based on already proven mistake. Both sides (even the original publisher - Haaretz - see the sources) have acknowledged this was indeed a mistake. The article did not represent the poll, which is precisely what was heavily criticized and finally acknowledged by Haaretz. Do you or anyone else challenge these facts? The discussion you are suggesting (about the poll itself and not about its misinterpretation in Haaretz) is not substantially connected to this acknowledged criticism or to this already acknowledged mistake.--AsiBakshish (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not wishing to fork the discussion at the other talk page, there are specific problems with the text AsiBakshish wants to add. (1) It makes judgements in the voice of Misplaced Pages, such as "based on a misinterpretation of a poll" and "although it was incorrect". This is unacceptable under any circumstances. (2) It is dishonest: "Haaretz published a clarification stating, that the article did not accurately reflect the findings of the poll". As AsiBakshish knows perfectly well, the clarification refers only to the original headline of the article, not to its content. And, AsiBakshish, statements like "I am not interested on a discussion", apart from being bad English, are a fast-track to getting banned. Zero 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 1) - Can be easily resolved.
- 2) - Valid point. The addition should not be based on this clarification alone but on what other sources have to say. A single opinion piece is insufficient for such an addition and better sourcing should be provided. Ankh.Morpork 11:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- All material related to this poll is under discussion. All material has been kept out of articles while it is being discussed. Both sides in the discussion have accused each other of censorship. So, I suggest you self revert, join the discussion rather than trying to impose your will by force via edit warring which is rude, arrogant, and inconsistent with policy and guidelines. Also keep your personal opinions off the page. They don't matter and will make things worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)