Talk:The Times of Israel

POV

In time, the site has proven itself to have a left-of-center agenda, in line with Horovitz's mild left-wing views. The website leaves much to be desired in the way of quality and is a prime example of the pathetic state of modern journalism; stories are based on press releases and translations from local Hebrew sources, rather than involving much investigative or original journalism, and a heavy emphasis seems to be placed on yellow journalism and shock value, as evidenced in the blog section. Expectations of the Times had been high at the start of operation, but it has become abundantly clear that the moniker "The Times" is a misnomer and the website most closely approximates a tabloid.

Since when is this NPOV? When does Wikipedia ever call something "pathetic"? Reinana kyuu (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

What is the popular view of the Times of Israel? Is it not a bit tacky, kinda like Fox News?

I doubt smart people would, in support of their argument, post a link to Times of Israel non-sarcastically, earnestly--74.57.167.219 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As an American Israeli contributor to Wikipedia and a longtime subscriber to the print editions of two major Israeli dailies (Yedioth Ahronoth in Hebrew and Haaretz English edition), when citing a news item from Israel in the English Wikipedia I generally rely on linkable web content in English from those sources first. (For Yedioth that means Ynetnews, its English-language internet edition.) The value of The Times of Israel is the extent of its coverage in English. So its page here provides a caveat regarding the derivative nature of its journalism, e.g. mining previously published material to compose a newsmaker's profile, etc. That does not in itself make TToI a tabloid. Likewise, its publishing of diverse bloggers doesn't affect its main stories, however it may reflect on its editorial policies as a web newspaper. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

David Cole (Holocaust revisionist)

David Cole should (maybe) be mentioned in the contributors, especially under the criticism section. He has a couple of article with this. This is his views on being banned by Times of Israel: http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5587 which details the article and supplies cached versions of them. For talk about a David Cole article see here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:David_Cole but at the very least this controversy should be mentioned in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Prior Newspaper/Journal of same name - where to indicate it?

Where should this info be placed?

From the book Left Behind Or Left Befuddled: The Subtle Dangers of Popularizing the End Times By Gordon L. Isaac (pg. 117):

"In the 1970s [Stanley] Goldfoot published a journal called The Times of Israel that by his own estimation was extremely right wing."

Yoshm (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorial orientation

Surely there needs to be third-party assessments included in this section, not just what the website and its owners say about themselves.207.98.198.84 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

They do pretty explicitly espouse Jewish supremacy and far-right ideology. 72.48.183.62 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that the above comments are by two contributors not using a confirmed Wikipedia account. Take them as personal opinions. Compare with my record as a conscientious WP contributor of nearly two decades, and what I affirmed above (in reply to "Criticism") about my adherence to Wikipedia editing guidelines also when commenting on Talk pages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

OtterAM, {{Infobox newspaper}} you added here is for newspapers not online newspapers, as it's designed for print publications. That's why {{Infobox website}} is used in all news websites articles, such as HuffPost, Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, Breitbart News, Townhall, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, Axios etc. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Times of Israel functions an online newspaper, at least according to Wikipedia's definition of an online newspaper as of Jan 1, 2018.

An online newspaper is the online version of a newspaper, either as a stand-alone publication or as the online version of a printed periodical.

Note in the definition above the term "stand-alone". The Times of Israel has its own reporters, its own editorial office, and functions as a newspaper. Online news websites (especially ones that just aggregate news articles) do not necessarily have these features. In the 21st century, many older newspapers that historically had print versions, have become mostly or solely online publications. But, for new newspapers started in the 21st century, it may not make sense to have a print version. This is happening in many other areas as well, such as academic journals. OtterAM (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@OtterAM: don't create new thread when I just started one about it. All you wrote is irrelevant, because TOI is a website, not a newspaper. Newspaper is printed. Everyone except you understand it as seen in articles listed above. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you copypaste code instead of using "undo" button so I won't see notification? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a bizarre accusation. Please WP:AGF. You appear to be very closely monitoring this page after you made your original edits, so I doubt you'd miss the rv regardless of how precisely it is done. OtterAM (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article use {{Infobox newspaper}} or {{Infobox website}}? (see thread above) --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• quick note – I modified the question to avoid bias by containing one of the proposed suggestions. The two competing terms are online newspaper versus news website. The specific organization involved is the Times of Israel. Although, a number of articles could be affected, from minor things like the Santiago Times to more significant publications like the US News and World Report. OtterAM (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I strongly object to the way the question is phrased above due to bias. The changes that Triggerhippie4 originally made replaced "online newspaper" with "news website", so I don't think that the phrasing "news website" should be included in the question. I ask you to rephrase the question in a way that does not use either of the contested terms:

Should a news organization that publishes online use use {{Infobox newspaper}} or {{Infobox website}}? (see thread above)

Triggerhippie4, would you please modify the question. As the question is currently stated, I don't think it's reply directly relates to the article in question. This is an important distinction because a "newspaper" is generally seen as more prestigious than a "website". OtterAM (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox newspaper – An institution like the Times of Israel creates its own news stories with its own reporters, thus being a newspaper. Wikipedia's article on online newspaper already states that a physical print version may or may not exist. I'd also like to note that the template {{Infobox newspaper}} can already accommodate online newspapers, as the long-standing version of the article shows. OtterAM (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not believe that news aggregators should not be considered newspapers. These are a different story, and my !vote should not be considered to relate to these. OtterAM (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note – for what it's worth, the Times of Israel describes itself as an "online newspaper". [1] OtterAM (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@OtterAM, Number 57, and StevenJ81: All other online news outlets with their own reporters and content (such as HuffPost, Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, Breitbart News, Townhall, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, Axios) are described as a news website and use Infobox website. Everyone understands that a newspaper, by definition, is print. The Times of Israel can describe itself however it wants (WP:PRIMARY). What's more important is how secondary sources describe it (WP:SECONDARY). Google search for "The Times of Israel" "news website" gives 276,000 results including many reliable sources. "The Times of Israel" "online newspaper" gives 76,600 results with most of it are texts copied from Wikipedia. "Online newspaper" is just a fancy name for a news website, anyway. Axios describes itself as a "new media company", but we're not gonna use {{Infobox company}} in its article. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Infobox website, as explained above. @OtterAM: "Online newspaper" and "news website" are the same thing. These two articles you listed were newspapers. The Times of Israel was never printed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the phrasing of "online newspaper" versus "news website" is in contention because you had changed every instance of the former to the latter. OtterAM (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Not !voting at the moment, but I have been bold and removed the duplicate RfC and amended the wording of this one to be neutral. I hope this reduces the bickering between OtterAM and Triggerhippie4. Number 57 22:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine. OtterAM (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Also not !voting yet. But who cares, really? What difference does it make? StevenJ81 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  My question was more this: Why do you passionately care about this? Who cares what infobox is in it? It's just an infobox. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Infobox newspaper @Triggerhippie4: You are right that an "online newspaper" and a "news website" are the same thing. An "online newspaper" is an "online news periodical". But then you are also asserting that a real newspaper needs to have been printed on actual paper at some point. Why should we adhere to that criteria, especially when it would be at unecessary odds with WP's article on newspaper where the most basic definition is "a periodical of current events"? Also, there is nothing about the newspaper template that suggests that it is only meant to be applied to paper printed publications, especially since there is a "Website" property, nor that it was meant only for online publications that were at one point printed on paper (for at least one volume? One issue? At least once? Only on newsprint?)

All of the WP articles mentioned above are indeed of online news publications. The websites are managed by companies that are using it as a means for publishing their news. "New media" is just a hip buzzword that makes it sound like you are intune with modern technology and social media. So yes, even Axios, which is clearly an online periodical publication of current events, could be accurately described as an online newspaper, and it very well may be other things as well.

As far as I can tell, any of those WP articles would benefit from the newspaper Infobox because many of the properties for the template would be very relevant to them and would be a lot more descriptive of the article's subject. The website Infobox seems like a more generic kind of template for a site that might not fit the category of any particular type of online publication.

There is definitely still some ambiguity that needs clarifying, maybe not now but maybe in the future. The articles all seem to mean to focus on the news publications managed by their respective companies. However, sometimes the articles talk about the companies themselves without distinguishing explicity from the website. So the Salon article describes its subject as "an American opinion and news website" but also says that Salon is "headquarted" in Francisco, California, which appears to be talking about the company itself as opposed to saying where the website is hosted. On the whole, the articles are about the news publications and the companies.

So, in conclusion, I don't agree with only using the newspaper Infobox on online publications that were at one time printed on paper. That seems like arbitrary criteria. The newspaper Infobox improves this article which is about an online newspaper (news publication) by providing more details about very relevant subject matter (editors, history, state of publication, etc.) than would be provided by the more generic website Infobox. Ender and Peter 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In such case, an article should use Infobox appropriate to it's current status. If it's currently printed, it should use newspaper Infobox. If it's online only – website. There's countless number of articles about news sites, and virtually all of them use Infobox website, because editors decided so independently from each other. It's common sence! I listed some examples of much more notable websites which receive more attention from editors. If someone thinks this article should use Infobox newspaper they need to made the same change in hundreds of other articles about news sites, and I don't think it will fly. And if there's missing properties in the Infobox, it should be addressed by adding parameters to the template {{Infobox website}}. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to use the website Infobox template for articles about online newspapers, but the newspaper Infobox is a lot more relevant to the subject matter of these articles and so using that one is an improvement but it is not necessary. If someone wants to do it, I am all for it. No one is saying that every such article must use that Infobox, only that a newspaper Infobox is more relevant to an article about an online periodical publication of current events than the more general website Infobox, and so I advocate such a change for an article like this. Since it very clearly improves the article, I would not support a change to remove it, unless it was replaced by some even more relevant Infobox, which is why I'm voting in favor to use the newspaper one instead of the website one. If someone made an "Online Newspaper" Infobox I would be all for using that one here. I would likewise support the UK School template over the School one if the article is about a school in the UK. I would support the Simpsons episode box over the Television episode one if the article was about a Simpsons episode.

Yes, the editors independently decided to use the website Infobox, which is totally appropriate for articles about websites. Likewise, any editor who wants to use a more specific Infobox about this particular kind of online publication would be making a good decision as well. At no point did we obligate ourselves to only use the website Infobox for an online publication. You're looking at how most online publication articles are setup and concluding that there was some kind of agreement to only use that Infobox for such articles. I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by discouraging the use of the newspaper Infobox on articles about periodical online publications, but I do see how it is improved by providing the means to associate very relevant data with the article in the scheme of summarizing for readers and providing useful metadata about this subject to APIs. Ender and Peter 22:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

>"Since it very clearly improves the article"

Infobox website contain parameters not found in Infobox newspaper, as well.

And Infobox newspaper simply cannot be used if the subject is not a newspaper.

In conclusion, I strongly oppose making this change in this unpopular article if there's little participation in this RfC. Infobox newspaper can be used here only as a result of discussion where editors of articles about other news sites participated, as well. Are we going to notify other news sites' talk pages, and then convert all their Infoboxes if it's the result? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• @OtterAM, Enderandpeter, and StevenJ81: I've expanded the Infobox. The only parameter in Infobox newspaper that cannot be replicated in Infobox website is "Political alignment", which is subjective. Meanwhile, a more valuable parameter "Alexa rank" in Infobox website is not available in Infobox newspaper. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: It is definitely good to add more relevant details in the Infobox about the article, so I'm all for that.

So, from what I understand, the criteria you have for a true newspaper is that it must have been printed at some time. My point is that this criteria is your own opinion and not backed up by anything I can find up here that anyone bothered writing down. You are saying this view is justified by how most online newspaper articles are using the website Infobox. The choice to use that Infobox was not a claim that the subject of the article is not a newspaper. Again, that is your own personal criteria: that an online news publication must have been printed on paper at one point to really be a newspaper. And again, one has to ask what the threshold is. Are you talking about at least one printed edition? Are you talking about a certain kind of paper? What exactly is the test to determine if an online newspaper is a real newspaper? This just sounds like No true Scotsman talk to me. This line of questioning would only be to find out what you personally consider to be a newspaper or not. Again, the WP article on newspaper is a very appropriate metric of our criteria and it includes the subject of this article among the things one can identify as a "newspaper" and your only counter to that is how there are currently many website newspaper articles using the website Infobox. The community is not voting to determine what online publications are really newspapers when some other Infobox still relevant to the subject is used.

Also I repeat: There is no obligation to change the Infoboxes on other articles as a result of this RfC. It's not like we're establishing WP Law here. This discussion is just about this article. It most certainly can relate and be very relevant to other similar articles, but if this one uses one type of infobox and another similar article uses another type, that is perfectly fine. Using the newspaper Infobox is just one way to improve the article. Anyone is free to do so, but it is by no means necessary. But if someone does it, such a change should not be reverted in favor of the website Infobox especially based on the reasoning that the article in question is not really a newspaper because of criteria that is not articulated on Wikipedia, especially when any criteria we can find up here that does say what a newspaper is definitely includes this article's subject. The newspaper Infobox would only make this article better. If there is a concern about the loss of the Alexa ranking property, you might as well add it to the newspaper Infobox if that's the only important thing that would be lost. Would that really be necessary though? Does the article on The Boston Globe need to show the site's Alexa rank? Surely that would be useful info for that article as far as a metric of readership, but why would a true newspaper's article be okay without the Alexa rank and an online newspaper that entered the game after the print craze need one? Why would the Times of Israel need to show its Alexa rank but any other online news publication that had a printed version at one point in time would not? Ender and Peter 00:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Enderandpeter: The Times of Israel was never printed, so the question of how many editions must be printed for a newspaper to be qualified as such, is irrelevant here. The place to address the absence of Alexa rankings in newspapers infobox is here: {{Infobox newspaper}} (talk). And please, don't leave such large replies, it's decreasing chances of this discussion going anywhere. In fact, it would be helpful if you edit them to make smaller so people won't ignore this talk. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I encourage you to more directly address the points I'm bringing up. I've repeated some of them because you have not responded to most of my arguments.

The key point to take away: Your assertion that the newspaper Infobox is for paper-printed publications and that a real newspaper needs to have been paper-printed at some point is not supported by anything Wikipedia says. I'm also asking you to elaborate on your paper-printed criteria because I am personally curious, but it is indeed not relevant to determining if the subject of this article is a newspaper because it is your own personal criteria. It is not "common sense" especially seeing how your view is at odds with the articulated consensus here on the criteria of a newspaper. You are taking the fact that many online newspaper articles here use the website Infobox and then just making up criteria for what a newspaper is that is contrary to WP's description of a newspaper, which includes the subject of this article, making the newspaper Infobox very appropriate.

Again, I am not personally concerned with the Alexa ranking property not being present on the newspaper Infobox. I'm just saying that if you are concerned about that info being missing for an online newspaper article using the newspaper Infobox, then you might as well add it to that Infobox. I'm just trying to find out why exactly it would be a bad thing to you to use a more relevant Infobox for this article. Editing an Infobox is not exactly rocket science. If I helped in the effort to add the Alexa ranking property to the newspaper Infobox, would you be alright with using it for this article?

You seem to be hung up on thinking that many other article Infoboxes would need to change if this one did. That would not be necessary. You're just adding more and more arbitrary criteria. Yes, it would be very useful for more editors especially who have contributed to similar articles to chime in, but I don't see how it is useful to be some kind of sentinel of reversion until that time. Ender and Peter 17:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox newspaper – I agree with otterAM. The Times has reporters and all newspapers are going digital. The paper is an artifact of an old business model with a shrinking clientele. What defines a newspaper is original reporting. A news website is like google news. They create no content at all.

Panix comics (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

↓Infobox website↓
The Times of Israel

Screenshot [[File:|border|240px]]
Type of site	News and opinion
Available in	English, Arabic, French, Chinese, Persian
Headquarters	Jerusalem
Created by	David Horovitz, Seth Klarman
Editors	David Horovitz (founding editor) Suha Halifa (Arabic) Stephanie Bitan (French) Li Jingjing (李晶晶) (Chinese) Avi Davidi (Persian)
Employees	Joshua Davidovich (deputy editor) Elie Leshem (deputy editor) Ricky Ben-David (news editor) Miriam Herschlag (opinion editor) Luke Tress (photographer) Sarah Tuttle-Singer (social media editor)
URL	www.timesofisrael.com
Launched	February 2012 (2012-02)
Current status	Active
OCLC number	969749342

↓Infobox newspaper↓
The Times of Israel

[[File:|border|frameless]] The Times of Israel homepage
Type	News and opinion website
Founder(s)	David Horovitz, Seth Klarman
Editor-in-chief	David Horovitz (founding editor)
Editor	Suha Halifa (Arabic) Stephanie Bitan (French) Li Jingjing (李晶晶) (Chinese) Avi Davidi (Persian)
Deputy editor	Joshua Davidovich Elie Leshem
News editor	Ricky Ben-David
Opinion editor	Miriam Herschlag
Launched	February 2012 (2012-02)
Political alignment	Centrism
Language	English, Arabic, French, Chinese, Persian
Headquarters	Jerusalem
OCLC number	969749342
Website	www.timesofisrael.com

@Enderandpeter: Yes, it is common sense that a newspaper is print. It's even in the name. Below are definitions of newspaper from the most authoritative dictionaries. Note that both dictionaries have a definition of "selfie", so they're updating and aware of the internet.

"A printed publication (usually issued daily or weekly) consisting of folded unstapled sheets and containing news, articles, advertisements, and correspondence." Oxford

"a paper that is printed and distributed usually daily or weekly and that contains news, articles of opinion, features, and advertising" Merriam-Webster

You're calling this (unfinished, 2 vs. 1) discussion a "consensus", while ignoring the real consensus – the fact that for years this type of sites used Infobox website. I didn't find any proposal to change to newspaper on talk pages of the articles I listed above. And they are more numerous, more notable, more edited and more discussed.

Here's comparison of two infoboxes on the right. Infobox newspaper would not only be misplaced but not adding anything essential. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: In the Merriam-Webster definition, where does it allow for newspapers that no longer have printed editions? It says a paper that is printed. So it is no longer a newspaper if it is no longer printed on paper?

Also, it would appear that a few online-only newspapers mentioned here such as AllNovaScotia and Southport Reporter were online since their inception yet they are using undisputed newspaper Infoboxes, so there are some counterexamples to your claim. Why not apply that practice to here? And even after doing so, there's no need to do so on all such online newspaper articles.

There could be mention of the Alexa rank or even other metrics in the Readership property of that Infobox perhaps? That is literally the only thing missing in the side-by-side comparison whereas to my point, the newspaper infobox has more relevant info, and even more properties are available if need be.

Maybe there is not yet consensus but I do want to highlight how those dictionaries should not overrule the definition of a newspaper found here on this site and that there are indeed similar online-only newspapers using that Infobox to their benefit. Once again, there's no need to think that using the newspaper Infobox here would require doing so on all such articles. You're creating a requirement that no one else is endorsing. Someone wants to use an Infobox here more relevant to the subject matter, and it looks like they have some precedent after all. Ender and Peter 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clear at this point that Infobox newspaper would be neither more appropriate nor an improvement necessarily, but there's few participants here. @OtterAM and Enderandpeter: please reconsider your votes. Also, @Number 57 and StevenJ81: pinging editors who indicated they may vote, but didn't yet. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

My position that "infobox newspaper" is the correct template to use here still stands. It looks like the content of this version of the infobox was improved in the comments above, so I recommend using this version on the article page. OtterAM (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made a "request for closure" for this discussion, since it seems that the comments have been made. The article is currently in it's pre-RfC consensus version. My reading of the situation is that most editors who have given their opinion here support the "newspaper" infobox, with the noted exception of Triggerhippie4. OtterAM (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chinese edition

According to [2], a Chinese edition was debut at May 2018 (the Wedensday before May 28th was May 23th). From what I see in the Internet Archive, the site exists in the snapshot of 2018-03-12 and is a redirection on 2018-03-27. Tzafrir (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove the Obliterate Palestine section

Times of Israel offers a blog platform that is open to 3rd party users who sign up. It is similar to "Blogger" or any other blogging platform. Times of Israel does not get involved in editing or the editorial policy of any of these blogs. Someone wrote an article with an inflammatory headline on the platform ("Obliterate Palestine"). And now, this case is being misrepresented and blown out of proportion, as if Times of Israel itself wrote and endorsed the article. In fact, Times of Israel removed the article when it found out about it. But it is being used to tarnish Times of Israel. This was as insignificant an incident as any racist comment on Twitter or Facebook that was later removed for violating the policies of those sites. Why is this encyclopedic information about Times of Israel? It's not. It's just being used as fuel to further antisemitic and biased views about the newspaper. 194.90.65.106 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The incident was covered by a source independent of Times of Israel, so it's legitimate to cover it in the article.

Do you think the incident is covered in the article in a non-neutral way? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)