Talk:Arutz Sheva

Arutz Sheva

Is Israel National Radio merely the English department of Arutz Sheva or is it a distinct branch? This needs to be made clear. Thanks --Dpr 05:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Israel National News and Israel National Radio are the English department of A7. However, they have a different set of editorial priorities, and a distinct editorial tenor.

One thing missing is the court cases in which people from A7 were charged with perjury etc.. --Zero 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted none of the writers or editors were ever so charged. The case involved fund-raisers and managers. It should also be given context: A7 was originally pirate radio operating from a boat outside Israeli waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.109.89 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming to Arutz Sheva

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a renaming of this page to 'Arutz Sheva'. --Daniel575 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They still officially call themselves "Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio" according to their website. I see no reason to move. --liquidGhoul 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed unsupported claim

Removed the following text added at 06:40, September 10, 2006, by IP 212.143.253.179 because the cited matter does not support the statement.

Broadcaster Rabbi Tovia Singer enthusiastically supports a joint Israel-U.S. attack on Iran in order to destroy the nation and its support for Palestinians.[1]

In the cited interview, the following concepts are never touched on: any joint Israel-U.S. attack, any intent to destroy the nation of Iran, or any intent to destroy Iran's support for Palestinians. The interview is primarily about a different subject, the interviewee's dispute with his employer about his view on the PLO. Singer's mention of an attack on Iran consists of one question: "Ultimately you feel -- because Iran is very important right now -- that Israel is going to have to bomb Iran?" The interviewee provokes the question by saying that "the U.S. will not attack Iran, as a lot of people think it will" and responds by saying that Israel won't, either. --Hoziron 10:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How to characterise Arutz Sheva?

In describing Arutz Sheva, which is the most accurate description: conservative, right-wing, far-right? The sources I've read all suggest that it's considerably right-of-centre, but I'd be interesed to know how far to the right it's considered to be in terms of Israeli politics. -- ChrisO 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually it is regarded as the mouthpiece of the right wing of the settler movement. It's easy to find newspaper citations for either "right-wing" or "extreme right-wing", but I thought it was easiest to safely call it just "right-wing". The description "conservative" is pure euphemism. --Zero^talk 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Arutz7 a reliable source?

An editor is removing references from IsraelNationalNews from the Michael Ben-Ari claiming that A7 is not a RS. I know he does not believe me, or maybe I am wrong? --Shuki (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a clearly political tendency to discredit this News source that is no less --at least-- than any other.RS101 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A7 is as reliable a news source as CNN, FOXnews or the BBC. Or more so, since A7 researches and writes most of its articles with its own staff and contributors, instead of merely buying the content from big corporate news agencies such as Reuters or DPA. And contrary to other news sources, which officially claim to be politically independant while it is clear that they are slanted to the left (like CNN) or to the right (like FOXnews), A7 informs the reader that it has a bias, namely to the national-religious camp. That is honesty - something rarely found in the news media. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What proves their reliability for me is the fact that A7 consistently provides both sides of an issue in its news stories - quoting, without alteration, the words of those on the other side. That is not true of the AP, which gets its news exclusively from Arab reporters, nor CNN, which openly admitted to slanting its stories under pressure from Saddam Hussein.Pedantrician (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest edits say the following:

• The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel. sourced to this op-ed. I see nothing in the source that comes anywhere close to the text in the article
• High credibility for Israel National News can also be found in such organizations like: The Human Rights Watch which quotes it in an official published book sourced to this HRW book. This is OR as the source does not confer any credibility on Arutz Sheva, that is an original interpretation not in the source
• It's widely cited in books cited to a collection of books citing it. Again, OR, not one source actually says that it is "widely cited in books", that is an OR interpretation not found in the sources
• Next, it gives examples of other media outlets quoting Arutz Sheva. None of these sources say anything about Arutz Sheva except for quoting them. Sources need to actually discuss Arutz Sheva, not just quote them so a random person on the internet can say "look at all these places that quote the paper!!!".

As these edits are all OR I have removed them. nableezy - 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your personal point of view doesn't matter, Don't remove sources RS supporting, citing or backing Israel National News, The National Review actually discusses Israel National News and actually recommendes it. It says that it's widely cited in books, many examples are given, next, it says that the media outlets quotes them, and it does, like Fox, Washington Post, etc. It is what it's termed in the article "acceptance." Accepted by the RS. Do not put your words in order to discredit the material.RS101 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RS101, did your personal point of view have any part to play in your decision to add only negative information about CNN, BBC, The Guardian, Haaretz and only positive information about Arutz Sheva in your very first edits to Wikipedia ? If so then could you at least not say things like "Your personal point of view doesn't matter" to other editors please because you will just start a fire. I reverted your reference to HRW here. Why ? When Amnesty International quoted from Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades press releases about rocket attacks against southern Israel in an officially published report as they did during OCL are they according them a high credibility as a source ? I don't think so. They are simply quoting them. Please don't put words into the mouths of organizations. The statements we make in articles have to come from reliable sources. To do otherwise is original research. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing and advisng about language, I will try to get less personal.RS101 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What you added is nothing but original research. I've removed it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The version discussed above and the one given below were no longer in the article by the time the discussion and reversion took place. To the best of my ability, I had removed pov & editorializing several hours earlier (please see this edit) and the text was further modified by another editor. The "latest edits" were not the latest. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that npov is not the issue in question. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This argument can be said on most articles. One minor error was in the data, here's the current:

Acceptance and reliability of Israel National News

Endorsement

The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel.

Books

It's widely cited in books, even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book, highly critical of Israel, have quoted IsraelNationalNews.com.

Media

Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Washington Times The Huffington Post, and Foxnews. RS101 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

References

As I explained on your Talk page, that's original research. In order to write about how widely quoted Arutz 7 is, you need to cite secondary sources. Instead, you've cited ten books that quote Arutz 7, which are primary sources.

Who decides that ten books makes Arutz 7 "widely cited in books"? Why ten and not 25 or 250? That's why we rely on secondary sources, so we can attribute the opinion. "According to XXX, Arutz Sheva is highly regarded and widely cited." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you on my talk page. No one said "highly regarded." Can you point to me that text? This sounds like the argument that previous user (N.) before you - made, it's not just to exaggerate my words in order to discredit it. The only argument you might have is to alter the word "widely" into "many times" or the like. Please check what it says before replying. I hope that clarifies things.RS101 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RS101, please do not restore the material to the article without addressing its original research problems. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint has been addressed, though maybe not to your personal satisfaction, (again recapping, more than asking to alter "widely quoted" to "quoted" or to "quoted many times," [after sean.holyalnd has removed: "high credibility" text and HRW] you have no case, otherwise all is being said without drawing conclusion to run into any original research problems - I did check the original research link) your view doesn't hold more than mine. Though, I don't wish to revert edits so frequently, as you seem to be doing. I also noticed you followed my contributions to alter other edits, which you did immediately. Is this allowed? Now let's see how wikipedia, honesty and non-discriminatory plays out.RS101 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sighted the material and also read the discussion here, and as an unaffiliated third party in this edit war I have to say that all the sources and references cited in the questioned sections above seem to be accurate enough to warrant inclusion into the article. Please be constructive and stop this edit war - you may change the wording here or there, and maybe there is something I overlooked. I therefore reinserted the disputed part into the main article and hope you will continue your work on this article in a more civilized and sensible way. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What you overlooked is that it's original research and that original research is not allowed by policy. So, you reinserted material against mandatory Wikipedia policy. That isn't allowed or sensible. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy on original research does not apply here, since what he did does not qualify as "original research" at all under the wikipedia guidelines. All he did was to compile a list of secondary sources about Arutz Sheva, and he commented the links in some cases. Now you may take issue with some of the comments or their wording, but then go ahead and edit those specific passages. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the comments above in this section that carefully explains why it is original research ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, yet I cannot see how this should qualify under the term original research. If it did, you'd have to delete practically the whole wikipedia, with the sole exception of those entries which have been copied and pasted from other encyclopedias -- which is forbidden, too, since it would infringe on the copyright of those encyclopedias - hence in fact you would have to delete wikipedia wholesale. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, you read it but you don't understand it.

• Do you understand that, for instance, The Guardian quoting both Farfour and Israel National News in this piece that you restored does not contain any information about the acceptance and reliability of either Farfour or Israel National News ?)
• Do you understand that "It's widely cited in books,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]" is a textbook example of original research, "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources" where via synthesis the mandatory rule "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." is broken ?
• How about when you changed "John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their book" to "John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book" ? Can you see any problems with that one in terms of compliance with the mandatory WP:NPOV+WP:V policies (setting aside the additional problem that simply quoting a source, Pol Pot, Baby Doc Duvalier, Farfour, Israel National News, conveys no information about the acceptance and reliability of those sources) ?
• Then there is "The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news", a statement that is not in the source, an absolutely shameless and clear cut policy violation. Freelance writer Barbara Lerner, not The National Review, described them as conservative and "pirates" but there is no mention of a "highly recommended" and "objective" so why did you put it in an encyclopedia which has a rule, WP:V, that specifically forbids people from doing things like that ? Maybe the National Review and Lerner really do highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, who knows, who cares, but if you want to say that you have to find a source that says that rather than put words into people's/organization's mouths. Also, who is Barbara Lerner and why should Wikipedia care about her opinion piece ?
• Last of all, in your edit summary you refer to the removal of clear policy violations by myself and Malik (an admin) as "vandalism". I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious debate? Everyone knows Arutz Sheva is a microphone for settler fundamentalists. Derp. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest attempt to delegitimize Arutz Sheva

Since the 'nom' failed to note the discussion here, I am. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arutz Sheva --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

Arutz Sheva's operations became fully legal under media laws enacted in 1999."A Decade after Demise of his Alternative Station, MK Katz Alters Broadcasting Authority Law". The Jewish Press. 5 March 2012. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

Source: A Decade after Demise of his Alternative Station, MK Katz Alters Broadcasting Authority Law Jewish Press,

MK Katz himself was involved in the late 1980s and through the ’90s in running a pirate radio station called Arutz Sheva off the coast of Tel-Aviv, serving up alternative programming and giving the state’s official broadcasters a run for their money.

In February 1999, the Knesset passed a law legalizing the operation of Arutz Sheva and absolving it of earlier illegal broadcasting, but Israel’s Supreme Court ruled on an appeal that the law was null and void. In October 2003, ten employees of Arutz Sheva were convicted of operating an illegal radio station, and then station director Ya’akov Katz (Ketzaleh) was convicted on two counts of perjury. Creating the means, today, of appointing a Broadcasting Authority Supervisory Council which would act to bring into the public broadcasting fold voices that so far have been barred from government-sponsored studios will surely bring closure to Katz’s own two and a half decades of struggle.

The 1999 law was declaried null by the Supreme Court, and the article does not indicate any change to Arutz Sheva's (il)legal status.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)