Talk:Ynetnews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Advertisement 2 Vote on channels section 3 Secular Zionist 4 Lets get things into perspective

[edit] Advertisement

This is one big advertisement. I propose deleting the entire 'Ynetnews channels' section. --Daniel575 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit this and make it better, this was included as part of trying to show what ynetnews is like and not to advertise anything. This is still being modified and edited please give time even though it is clear you don't like this newspaper as you have stated in your addition to the article. Davidoff 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Davidoff, the article contained plain lies. It claimed that Ynetnews' 'talkback'-feature was 'unique'. I'm sorry, but the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and IsraelNN *all* offer the same feature, and *all* three started offering it before Ynetnews was even launched. This is just one example of a point where you inserted obviously untrue information. Please refrain from such silly claims in the future. --Daniel575 01:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on channels section

• Delete channels section as per Dan575. Pure cruft. Not even CNN.com or BBC News Online are bloated like this. Why does this tiny site need to have every mouse click described? --Shuki 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Modify so if nobody objects, we'll give it until tomorrow night or so. --Daniel575 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote. Czrussian may be right. Instead of deleting, we can delete out the plain advertisements and add some widely voiced criticisms. Feel free to do so from other points of view as well.
• Keep I object. Nothing wrong with it. Go expand BBC if it's not that uh... expansive! :) Is it notable, I ask? So the more the merrier. And I wouldn't call it "cruft". - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(Made this a bit clearer, hope you don't mind, Czrussian. --Daniel575 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

• • Explanation: Basically, cruft is something that is of specialized interest to a narrow minority, not of general encyclopedic value, and way too detailed. If the site is notable - to all, not to few - then a little writeup on its sections is fine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Explanation I didn't say delete the article, I voiced an opinion to delete that section for babies that is simply not needed. --Shuki 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it just describes the general things you would find on the site. i think things are getting a bit out of hand hereDavidoff 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secular Zionist

Shuki: The Maariv, Haaretz and Arutz Sheva articles all list the political and religious affiliations of those media. Why shouldn't this article contain this information as well? I don't see any POV in that, it's just a plain fact. I will quote. From Maariv: " it represents mostly the secular centrists and moderate left-wingers, as these are the expressed views of its most senior writers". From Arutz Sheva: "Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio is a right wing Israeli radio station." and "In terms of politics, the station is considered far right wing , and religious zionist in its outlook, and is focused on Israeli nationalism." From Haaretz: "Its views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tend to be leftist" and "The position of the newspaper in Israel's religious spectrum is decidedly secular." And so does the The Jerusalem Post article. So, what's the big deal? --Daniel575 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they should all be removed, or rather moved. Please check The New York Times for how it's done there. The labels should not be in the description paragraph, but relegated to a criticism/bias section where OR is usually tolerated. --Shuki 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So put it in the Criticism section. (Edit: I just did.) --Daniel575 23:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get things into perspective

I think some people had taken this article as some sort of personal attack, which it is not. Ynetnews is an israeli site with israeli news for people around the world. it is well respected and should not get the remarks being added to the article. Please feel free to improve it but not put personal opinions on the article saying the newspaper is racist towards certain people. This is not to say that these are statements are right or wrong but simply to make the point that they do not belong here. this is a general article and it does not matter if the newspaper tends to one side or another. as we all know the media is always biased in some way or another but you won't add that sort of information on the CNN or Fox news articles. Davidoff 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with such criticism. The paper is most definitely virulently anti-Orthodox to the point where most people agree that it could provide good competition to Der Sturmer concerning the level of anti-Semitism found in the paper, if Der Sturmer would still be around.

Do you know any other Israeli newspaper which writes about the problem of Chareidim moving into previously secular areas (in Jerusalem) and buying properties there? I'm not talking about this supposed 'problem' itself - I am talking about the language. Can you imagine the New York Times writing "Orthodox Jews are moving into this-and-this neighborhood, and this is a very serious problem for which we see no solution"?

Have you ever read the hate propaganda, the plain lies, and the dirty stories they publish? Ynetnews is the filthiest thing on the Israeli part of the web (unless we take Reform Christian, oops, I mean 'Jewish' websites into account. --Daniel575 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of this article is to describe another national israeli paper, which is well respected in israel. This article is not about the choice of Ynetnews's content, simply to tell people that it is out there for them to read and make their own descisions about what Ynetnews reports and the stance that they may or may not take, so biased opinions either founded or not do not belong here. Davidoff 12:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Then write a commercial page for them. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. Meaning that there is place for both praise and criticism. If you don't like that fact, have the article deleted. Furthermore, "In the Haredi world, Yedioth Ahronoth is widely known as Idiot Ahronoth." is a simple fact and one which any chareidi person can confirm for you. Again, if you don't like the fact that some people don't like Yedioth or Ynetnews, have the article deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for commercials. --Daniel575 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• lets agree that most of wikipedia readers are not Haredi and this statement you added again is completely out of context, and just seems random which makes wikipedia look bad. This is not a commercial and if this was classified as a commercial then all major companies featured here on wikipedia such as cnn, fox, bbc, etc. could be considered to have commercial content on wiki and should all be removed. I understand that you do not like this newspaper but let other readers form their own opinion of Ynetnews, and don't forget they will have this discussion to read as well. Davidoff 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So what that most readers are not Chareidi? Who cares? It is not out of context, and it is not random, and it does not make Wikipedia look bad. And you most definitely were making this look like a commercial in its initial version. You wrote plain lies to make Ynetnews look better than it is. And how are other readers supposed to form their opinion if the article only provides praise about Ynetnews? You said it yourself: let the reader decide. Then what is the problem with a section of criticism? It says so: Criticism. So what's the big deal? --Daniel575 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the OR claim, ynetnews is not widely respected at all. It is merely the english translation of the hebrew website of an Israeli daily tabloid. Yediot, ynet, and ynetnews are proven anti-religious, anti-charedi, anti-right, and anti-settler leftist propaganda organizations which do not bother to hide their conflict of interests vis a vis reporting about companies. If it might seem quoted a lot, it is merely because of the lack of english Israeli news websites. Any other repsected foreign media wouldn't want to quote substandard translated material. --Shuki 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. About the fact remark: how can such a thing possibly be proven? For that matter, how can you prove anything regarding opinions in the chareidi world on the internet? The source for it is, unfortunately, OR, due to the lack of any other source. It is a commonly held opinion (joke) in the chareidi world. I cannot show you any scientific publication for that. --Daniel575 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it up. There's a plethora of sources for these claims, virtually all in Hebrew of course, but I'll keep my eye out for English instances. --Shuki 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The way Shuki wrote it looks excellent to me. Davidoff and anonymous, I once again repeat that Wikipedia is not a commercial site. The way you initially wrote this article was most definitely from a commercial point of view. You wrote a blatant lie, namely that Ynetnews would be the only English-language Israeli news site providing a 'talkback' feature. That shows either complete total ignorance and would seem VERY unlikely. If you know so much about Ynetnews, how can it be that you never read www.jpost.com or www.haaretz.com or www.israelnn.com ? They all have a similar feature, and all of them had it LONG before Ynetnews was even founded. Just this indicates that you are either totally ignorant of the facts or you were intentionally writing this as a commercial. Oh, and if you don't like the fact that in the chareidi world Yedioth is known as Idiot, send them an email and suggest that they write neutrally about chareidim. That will help more than denying the existance of any criticism against them (Yedioth). --Daniel575 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with criticism on the article, although i think it should be writter in a tasteful manner and not the way you wrote it, and that is my only point. i have no issue with haredim or what they think about Yedioth, all i am saying is that there must be a better way to describe it other then saying Idiot on a wikipedia article. As for it being a commercial i totaly disagree and like i said feel free to modify and make it sound neutral and objective for all (isn't this what wiki is all about), and not to point out racist remarks in a blunt manner towards the newspaper, although criticism is fine by me. Davidoff 12:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So explain how it can be that you had no knowledge at all of the existence of a 'talkback' feature on the abovementioned sites. Further, the 'Idiot' thing is merely to illustrate the expression used in the chareidi world when referring to Yedioth. There is nothing weird about it. I am not referring to Yedioth in that way - most chareidim do. And that's what the article says, and that's the way it is. If Yedioth doesn't like that, it should change its practices. Actually I would much rather see it the way Shuki wrote it, the way it looks now is not so nice. If you want to revert it to Shuki's version, feel free to do so. --Daniel575 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine now, with Shuki's edit. Thanks, issue resolved! I find Shuki's words very creative. Very nicely written. --Daniel575 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)