Talk:The Jerusalem Post

Untitled

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 world 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 a 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)

I agree. I don't think it is accurate to say that the Jerusalem Post has a political allegiance and the citation listed is certainly not proof. The editorials printed in the Jpost have a range of opinions. CarlSerafino (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also point out that Jewish interests dominate the Israeli media.97.77.179.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 13 January 2017 (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 Wikipedia, 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? -Reuvenk_{T 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 Wikipedia: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. -Reuvenk_{T 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)

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:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia 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.

Causteau (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is true that something has to be verifiable for it to be included. This does not mean that because something is verifiable it must be included. --Cherry blossom tree 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have any problem with pointing out that the newspaper considers itself Zionist. I don't like the way it was done, implying that it somehow conflicts with the centrist position mentioned in the previous paragraph. Your source does not support such a statement. --Cherry blossom tree 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ending the redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Post

Why isnt a proper article written describing The Palestine Post? How it came to be the Jerusalem Post and the method that this article is clearly being maintained is obvious.

Erasing the history of Pre-Zionist Palestine is the purpose of the redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree.

for all people intersted by the pre-1948 period, this was an important newspaper, that deserves an article for itself. Ceedjee (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

JP scandal in/about Norway

Would it be relevant to include something about the debate spurred by JP's scandalous article about antisemitism in Norway? It has been yanked from their web-page a few times due to errors, and its content has been strongly refuted by prominent Jews and non-jews in Norway. To add to it all, it turns out that their primary source (a jewish officer called "David Weiss") was a hoax. The debate is very interesting, and it speaks quite clearly about the attitudes (and quality checking) of JP, but the question is whether this big issue in Norway has noteability enough abroad to be added here. What do you think? pertn (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting issue but I don't think it is notable enough for this article. It would be providing undue weight to an issue that is more specific to Norway itself.ShamWow (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

problem with source

I'm not sure "American Newlyweds in Israel, 1948" is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It seems to be the anecdotal recollections of two people and contains things that history books don't. For example: "The bomb was intended to kill Post editor Gershon Agron" - since the perpetrator of the bomb was not determined, how do they know what the target was? It seems like just a personal speculation. As far as I know, it is not even established for sure that the newspaper was the target (there were a Haganah slick (arms cache) and a Jewish police station in the building too). Zero^talk 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) It was also the office of the Mandate government Chief Censor, who had just the day before shut down two Arab newspapers. Zero^talk 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Material published by the Jewish Historical Society is a perfectly reliable source. If "you know" different, then bring a reference for it.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical societies often publish anecdotal material. It is fine that they do that, but it doesn't mean that the material is factually reliable. By its nature it includes personal assumptions, rumors, and mis-recollections. If they published the same claim in an article written by a historian, I'd be happy to cite it. Zero^talk 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of a double standard. Virtually every article on Palestinian villages uses anecdotal material to claim massacres and expulsion. This material comes from Chapter 95 of a published book, and is an RS unless proven otherwise - and not by your own OR.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If an anecdotal account that appears in an article on a Palestinian village contains claims about the motive of a second party that the observer was in no position to observe, let me know and I'll delete it (or you can delete it). Since the writer in this case was present at the time of the explosion, it would be ok to source a description of the effect and aftermath of the explosion to him. But the claim that the editor was personally the target is a claim clearly outside the ability to observe directly. I spent quite a while looking at every account I could find and none of them except this one even hinted the bomb was directed personally against the editor. So at best it is a fringe claim. Zero^talk 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at the sources myself, or look at Zero0000's changes in detail, but the reasoning sounds convincing. I agree that as a general rule we can't use a witness report for verification of something outside the witness' personal experience, even when the witness report is published in a reliable source. The publishing indicates that an editor deemed the factual statements concerning the event to be essentially reliable, not the witness' speculations. Hans Adler 07:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post wants death penalty back in Israel

This site: [JP] has an article published on this Israeli newspaper , claiming for the return of death penalty to Israel.Agre22 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

They also published this article against the death penalty in 2009 http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=160155 , so I don't think the newspaper takes an explicit stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.121.211.107 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

early history

For mining: [1]. We are missing the precursor Palestine Bulletin. Zero^talk 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdated claim

The introduction contained the rather dubious claim that JP "has a much broader reach than these other newspapers in that its readership comprises Israeli politicians, foreign journalists, and tourists, and it is also distributed worldwide". To begin with, the source said nothing about how broad JP's reach is, and it doesn't compare it to other newspapers. Whatismore, the source was from 1990, and only mentioned this in passing. To use one half of a sentence written more than 20 years ago to claim that JP has a broader reach than other Israeli newspapers is very dubious.Jeppiz (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Source

Is there a source for this paragraph (no source cited within article): "In 2011, the paper fired its outspoken columnist Larry Derfner for a controversial post in his personal blog in which he wrote that Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis to oppose the occupation. The dismissal was criticized by many, most notably former editor-in-chief Jeff Barak." Laval (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Type of newspaper

The introduction says it's broadsheet, but the infobox says it's a tabloid. Which is it? Philmac 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmac (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Jerusalem Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajhs.org/scholarship/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=285
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025041543/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-124755737.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-124755737.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"supportive of the separation of religion and state in Israel and against unilateral concessions to the Palestinians."

I suggest 'the Palestinians' here be changed to 'Palestinian people', since I think 'the Palestinians' sounds demeaning and biased - like when bigots say 'the Jews' or 'the transes' - regardless of the editor's intentions which I'm sure were good faith Stephanie921 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Searching for Israeli friend

Is there a personals page of the JP where we can ask our Israeli friend to let us know how he and his family are doing and if they are safe. 2600:1700:9E10:BAB0:5085:AB94:6FC:2706 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)