Talk:Neta Hebrew

Who is matt teitlebach? can someone support the notion that he's an expert? --Vonfraginoff 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Matt Teitelbach" does not exist. Neither does "The University of South New Mexico". Under the circumstances, we have taken the liberty of removing this "Study" that comes very close to slander. Please help us keep our entry clean and factual.... - The NETA Team

Ok-why are the teachers forced to join "i hate neta"? i mean wouldnt they have a choice? they are not forced therefore i think that that part should bet taken out. in fact, i shall do so. I like the group though ;-)66.99.28.98 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)a suffering Neta student

The facts are that your program is completely socialistic, and repudiates capitalism on your website by calling the NETA program the "antidote to the more laissez faire teaching methods so prevalent at Jewish day schools." The students that love the program are too much like teenagers to admit that it's so amazingly easy! I haven't learned anything new from the NETA program. I'm lucky my teacher teaches content ahead of what's in our book. The pace is incredibly slow, and after taking Spanish for two years, and Hebrew for 4 with the NETA program plus elsewhere since Kindergarten, I am more comfortable speaking Spanish. I am the best in my class, and I plan to go on to become a linguistics major, and this program does not teach you the language and immerse you in studying it. It gives you childrens' stories about dreamers atop of red roofs! And yes, my class burns our books every year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.82.233 (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Constant reverting of this page
It looks like someone from NETA is constantly reverting this page. It may be more helpful for them to spend more energy citing their sources so they stop looking so bad.Nekng (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Every claim NETA makes, such as number of participating schools, etc. has been factual, as opposed to the childish actions of anti-NETA authors, like fabricating universities and professors to substantiate their subjective claims. Referring to NETA as "socialistic" simply due to use of the term laissez-faire is absurd and adolescent. Please, let us keep this article free of personal biases. Notice- we have preserved facts such as the existence of anti-NETA facebook groups, regardless of our own opinions. - The NETA Team
 * While this is all well and good unfortunately you need to backup your claims with data. You may want to post this supposed data on your website and then cite it in the article. Until that time the previous claims of this article appear to be true. Nekng (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

--

This is very sad. Junior high and high school students who don't appreciate their education are spending time slandering the only comprehensive Hebrew curriculum (that's how you spell it) rather than doing their homework. The NETA students I have met are happy to finally have a consistent, coherent Hebrew curriculum, like they have in their French and Spanish classes. Many students don't like school or simply aren't good at it. That's not a reason to slander the educational programs brought to them by their school.

Article's Neutrality
There was no reason given as to why the neutrality of this article is disputed. As such I am removing the tag. 128.220.155.75 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is just a student's complaint about the program. It contains many negative claims that are not supported with references, as well as inflammatory language. Here are some problematic sentences:

"Although many teachers attempt to back up and support the program, students adamantly believe that the curriculum has not furthered their fluency in the language, even after years of the program's use. In fact, many believe using Neta is simply a waste of time, money, and effort, for the materials used have in no way correlated to success in educating hebrew-speakers."

"It is unclear why their research that goes into their curriculum is not shown on their website, causing many to believe that NETA is unable to back up claims of their program's success."

"Despite the fact that NETA largely fails to backup claims of their program's success they do have a mission with good intentions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.202.204 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your correct (about the citations), I've added citations. If there are no objections then I think that I'll remove the neutrality message. 128.220.155.75 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The inflammatory language is still a problem. These sections need to be rewritten in neutral language. Nor do your citations provide verifiable support for your negative claims against the program. Please do not remove the neutrality tag, as the entry still shows bias against Neta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.202.204 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the inflammatory issues have been resolved. I am going to remove the neutrality tag.98.218.43.40 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There remain instances of editorializing in the entry, such as, "Despite the fact that NETA largely fails to backup claims of their program's success they do have a mission with good intentions." Statements like this express personal beliefs about Neta and don't belong in the Wikipedia entry. Also, the flag should only be removed after there is agreement that the dispute is resolved--not because one person is happy with the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.202.204 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent edits were not NPOV, I edited them in an attempt to make them more neutral. Entries in Wikipedia are not intended to be advertisements for products, rather they are to educate about a particular topic. In terms of the line "Despite the fact that NETA largely fails to backup claims of their program's success they do have a mission with good intentions." this is a well cited belief that is presented in a section that is describing student's various reactions to the program. It is not editorial, but rather fact. I am going to remove the NPOV tag in a week unless there are any objections. 128.220.155.75 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that your edits and the original statement are from a NPOV. I am submitting a request for comment. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.202.204 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of View of Article
There is an ongoing dispute whether this article is written from a neutral point of view. One side contends that the article is unfairly biased against Neta, while the other argues that changes intended to correct this merely serve as advertising for the program. 24.107.202.204 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though this article was wrtitten by Neta's PR department: "we fulfill our commitment to cultivating a community of Jews who are poised to be active participants in the continual renewal of Hebrew culture and who feel a profound attachment to Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) and Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel)". This is presented, without quotes, as the view of Wikipedia! The article is clewarly not written from a neutral point of view. RolandR (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

May 2014
A long-running, slow-moving edit war seems to have resumed here. All editors should keep in mind that edit warring is unconstructive and can lead to sanctions. All editors should also bear in mind that Wikipedia policy says, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." The goal here is to produce articles that cover notable subjects with a neutral point of view. With those points in mind, editors should be working together to improve the article.

From my perspective, a key problem has been the paucity of independent reliable sources about NETA, which has not only impaired the editing process but also leaves uncertainty about the notability of the topic and its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've added one such reference, a lengthy 2005 article about the program from The Jewish Week. If more independent coverage can be identified and added, it would go a long way toward ameliorating the long-running issues with this page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)