Talk:Gideon Levy/Archive 1

Proponent of binationalism?

Is Gideon Levy a proponent of a binational solution? I read his name in another Wikipedia suggesting that but it wasn't conclusive and no sources were cited. If someone can determine this positively then it would be appropriate to apply this new category: Category:Binational solution proponents. --Deodar 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Gideon Levy self-identify as a post-zionist?

In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Gideon Levy as a post-Zionist. There was no source listed. There is now a category for post zionists here Category:Post-Zionists. If someone finds a source for this, can you please add the category and describe him as such in the body of the article? Thanks. --Deodar 14:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha'Aretz articles

I have removed from the article the sentence that states "In 2006 his articles about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War had such titles like the "IDF's war on children" and "The crime of looking a bit too Arab"?"

I can find no article by Levy to which he gave the title "IDF's war on children". This seems to be a (hidden) tag placed by the website From Occupied Palestine on Levy's article originally titled Twighlight zone / Suffer the little children, published in Ha'aretz on 2 December 2004. Levy was not responsible for this tag on the article, which in any case was published in 2004, not 2006.

Levy did indeed write an article titled The crime of looking a bit too Arab. This was actually published on 2 July 2000, not in 2006.

This poorly-written and researched comment is clearly designed to slur Levy -- though I see nothing unacceptable in either title. The editor did not even provide links to the texts, so that readers could read what Levy actually wrote.

I have also replaced the request, removed by Amuroso, for citations for the assertions about the Fatah affiliations of Levy's translators, and that his reports do not reflect Palestinian society accurately. It is not enough to write "Some of his critics say", and these allegations are not borne out -- nor even repeated -- in the letter to the editor and publisher by Irit Linur. In any case, this letter took a scatter-gun approach, denouncing virtually every Ha'Aretz writer and ending with the thinly-veiled threat "Have a nice day, look after your children, and don't sit in a restaurant without a bodyguard". It was a settling of scores by a former leftist moving rapidly to the right, and should be read with this understanding. --RolandR 14:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, I think you got it wrong. First of all it's not our job to make Gideon Levy "look good". If it's a critic we should leave it probably without messing with it. More importantly, the response you brought did not concern the allegation at all. It seems Linur is blaming Gideon Levy for being an anti zionist and a "member of Fatah" and other allegations. What was cited in the article was on the other a very specific allegation concerning the translations from Arabic and this was not addressed at all by the response. It seems logical too that this would be the only allegation brought in the article since it's something more serious that just a political bias allegation which might not belong in the article. Therefore that addition needs to be removed.

The previous anonymous comment misses the point. Linur's remarks were part of a fierce attack on Ha'Aretz as a whole. She did not pick out Levy, and made no suggestion that he was an anti-Zionist or a member of Fatah. In this case, the response of the paper's owner and publisher, and his expression of confidence in Levy and his writing, is surely valid and important. So I have restored the remarks. There is a poor translation of Linur's original letter at [2], but I don't think Schocken's response has been translated, so non-Hebrew speakers may see part of what I am arguing about, and don't need to take it all on trust. --RolandR 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

She specifically attacks Levy as being a ravid anti zionist, and also some others. But this does not appear in the article. The only thing quoted from the article to here is her allegation concerning the translations from Arabic, which is a very valid concern. Usually Mizrachaniam that is people that are familar with the Arab issues or Arab conflict know Arabic extremely well. This is indeed a concern. The response did not address that at all. It's a response explaining that "it's ok to be a "leftist" because it's "ok" to be concerned for other people's lives - it's not only unencyclopedic here it's not interesting. Obviously he'll be attacked for his views which are regardfed as post zionist or anti zionist to many. But this is an allegation regarding his standards, not his views. And thus the response has no relevance whatsoever. I agree that it's not the article's concern to make Levy look good here. It's a valid critic here and it needs not be discredited by something not relevant. The response here is not relevant. And yet it said "in reponse" but it's not, it's response to her attack on his and his collegaue anti zionism, not of the allegation of the shoddy work. Therefore, we don't want to add all the discussion between them but we'll just add this info which is also factually correct - he isn't familar with Arabic the way Yehud Yaari and relevant speakers on the subject are. It's a valid concern. Cheers. Amoruso 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that Linur "specifically attacks Levy as being a rabid anti zionist". Please quote the article, Amoruso, don't use your own unverifiable paraphrase. RolandR 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

let's quote then:

When Gideon Levy is blaming Israel for turning Maruan Barguti from a peace lover to an entrepreneur of suicide attacks – That is to be a logic interpretation as much it is logic to claim that the Spetember 11th attacks are plot of the Mossad. In a private chat with him, He told me once that he wouldn't go 100 meters for saving the life of a settler and it seems to me that his love and his hate are slander for to much time his touching reports from the occupied Palestinian territories. Also, and maybe I shouldn't mention that , All his career is infected with shoddy work, Cause he is one of the only reportes in the world for Arabs matters who doesn't know Arabic, doesn't understand Arabic and doesn't read Arabic. They translate to him simultaneously and it's O.K for him. In my concern it's amateurish press.

Gideon Levy and Amira Hess are the owners of the 'Palestinian department' in HaAretz. Although I recognize in the importents of the reports from the Palestinian territories, I have a problem with your commentary. For the concern of Levy and Hess, Israel will always be blame for the Palestinian suffering and also for the Palestinian murderousness. This is a superficial and a narrow minded commentary, defective from a journalist and moral points of view.

Also, They both are preventing to report about horror acts that the Palestinians are doing to each other and it is surprising that they don't meet other Palestinians: The Anti semites, The Chauvinists, The Corrupt, The ones who clapping their hands whenever there are attacks on Israelis. When the tendencies of Levy and Hess are only Pro Palestinians – I find it hard to attribute credibility to their articles. And because I'm, I beg your pardon, A Zionist, I don't like to enter in times of war to my house, every morning, the thunder voice from Cairo.

But all that is not what we're quoting and it's of no concern - we're quoting this : All his career is infected with shoddy work, Cause he is one of the only reportes in the world for Arabs matters who doesn't know Arabic, doesn't understand Arabic and doesn't read Arabic. They translate to him simultaneously and it's O.K for him. In my concern it's amateurish press. Amoruso 02:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As I noted, it's a poor translation. But it's good enough to show that the article does not claim, as you stated that it did, that Levy is a "rabid anti-Zionist", that he is "a spokesman for Fatah", or that his translators "are affiliated to Fatah". You simple invented this, presumably in the hope that most readers would be unable themselves to check the original. Which is why I posted a link to this poor translation (by someone who agrees with Linur), so that people could judge who was telling the truth about its content.--RolandR 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I did not invent anything, Irit Linur conveys exactly what I said and I think it's obvious for anyone to see. It's also irrelevant for what you're trying to add to the article of course. See straw-man - the wikipedia article doesn't claim she thinks he's anti zionist if that bothers you, it only claims that he doesn't speak arabic, and there's no response for that claim hence you realise why we won't quote something irrelevant. Amoruso 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

link to www.hirhome.com

I removed this link because it is a personal website of an unnotable individual. The fact that he was interviewed once on FOX-NEWS about being fired from the University of Pennsylvania hardly makes him any bit more notable, surely you must be joking. This guy built a big website to host his personal political views about everything, anybody can do that.--Doron 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's valid criticism and it's not a personal web-site. There's no grounds for its omission. I'd agree with you if this was a blog of a nobody but this person seems to be very very notable : Francisco Gil-White, therefore his criticism is valid here, it's really is a research and criticism, and not just something random. We need to maintain it for NPOV reasons. Cheers, Amoruso 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that his Wikipedia article didn't get deleted doesn't make his opinion on Gideon Levy worth mentioning.

1. His expertise, as you must have read in his article (which I assume you've read), is Biological and Cultural Anthropology, which has nothing to do with criticism of Israeli journalists. His opinion of Gideon Levy is as good as anyone's.

2. Unlike your marginally citable Shmuel Katz, this stuff you're citing now hasn't been published by anyone. Nobody thinks his opinion of Gideon Levy is worth publishing, no scientific journal, no book publisher, no newspaper, so he posts it on his private website. My teenage sister and her friends do this all the time, it's called writing a blog (only I admit this guy's blog is a lot fancier). You're really grasping at straws now, if that's the best you can get against Gideon Levy, probably one of the most provocative journalists in Israel.

Tell you what. I got a few papers published in Computer Science. How about I set up a website where I post my opinion about all sorts of things and start adding links to it all over Wikipedia. I'm sure if I try hard enough, I can get interviewed on Fox News, if that's going to make me OK to cite by you. Or are you tolerant to such meager credentials only for right-wingers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doron (talk • contribs)

Francisco Gil-White only has a wikipedia article because he created it himself. His website is just a long rant that he wrote himself and it is way way below the Wikipedia horizon. --Zero^talk 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We've waited long enough and no valid argument against the source as external link was presented. Please follow mediation procedures if you want to remove it again. Amoruso 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of good arguments above. Also, please refer to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO.--Doron 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Seen it. As it is, the website qualifies as legitimate external link in wikipedia. Try to take on more dispute resolutions if you want to remove it again. RV is not allowed. Amoruso 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are yet to answer the arguments presented above.--Doron 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that the hirhome.com link is in clear violation of WP:BLP#Reliable sources--Doron 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this article contains the sentence "Levy is quite happy to sacrifice innocent Arab life if it can be used to attack the Jews", it falls under the WP:BLP policy's exemption from the 3RR rule ("Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply"; the claim above is obviously unsourced). I am hereby violating the 3RR rule in good faith, and would self-revert if it is established that I am wrong in my interpretation.--Doron 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Please continue to discuss your differences, and consider asking for a third opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is the biggest part of this article a long and detailed description of one person's open letter to Haaretz, which in part criticised Levy? This is giving excessively undue weight to this issue. Plus the only sources cited in respect of it appear to be in Hebrew, which makes it impossible for English-speakers to verify the content. To cap it all, this section is full of typos (eg simulatnous", "Amira Hess") and bad links ("Amira Hess" again). I'm tempted to delete the whole section, but that might be a bit much so for now have just sorted out the typos and obvious errors. Someone who actually knows anything about the open letter - which incidentally doesn't appear to have been "highly publicised" outside the usual fringe blogosphere, if a Google search is anything to go by - might care to drastically cut down, properly reference and improve it. Finally of course, as I understand it, current Wikipedia protocol frowns on "Criticism" sections anyway. --Nickhh 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) this letter was highly publicized all across israel - tv, and news articles. this is part of the reason the Papers leading man, Amos Shoken wrote a reply. (hence the volume)

(2) beying that no one will consider one israeli journalist attacking another international news, it's fairly clear why this is in hebrew rather than english... no?

(3) this guy is a very prominent critique of israel, i think we should add a section of his political opinions and activity for balance on the critique. i'm sure he would like it that way.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

a) Your point 1) contradicts your point 2), given that the article doesn't say "highly [sic] publicized in Israel". b) I didn't question why the source was more likely to be in Hebrew, I merely noted that it was and that this made the story difficult to verify. c) As for 3) I agree entirely that the article should set out what his political views are - however that's my whole point, currently the article is 80% about the details of one single piece of non-notable criticism, with only a brief and general reference before that to his own views. You might also find time to thank editors who correct your typos and tidy up some - but not all - of your equally frequent language errors, but leave your glaring WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:Undue Weight etc alone Nickhh 11:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) thank you very much for correcting the typos - i was about to do that the moment you had noted them, but you beat me to it - not oly that, but i probably would hve missed the english names for the articles on wiki, i initially thought you've made a mistake with Irit Linur's name, since in hebrew, it's always spoken as Linor - so thank you. (2) i have no objection to adding the words "in israel", it's actually the proper thing to do. (3) i would encourage people to indeed extend on his political view - i took my time to expand on something that i happen to find more notable than his actual critique of israel - i.e. the publicized aspect of the criticism he endures (just about every time he's on TV or writes something). anyways, i'll try to add more things as i find time, to be frank, i can't believe i wasted so much time on this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I think it needs less about this incident, and more about his views more generally. Not knowing enough about him and his history, and not having much time at the moment, it won't be me who does that .. Nickhh 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

latest edits

This is a disgraceful page and perhaps should be reported for using Wikipedia to insinuate a diatribe against a living person. The remarks by Linur can stay, paraphrased, only if some significant material is included by quality journalists and writers world-wide who have expressed their esteem for the high quality of his reportage. Secondly Plaut is out. He is an Unreliable source, and has been judged by an Israeli court for defaming Neve Gordon. His editorializing, unlike Linur's, aims purely to smear, as one can see by the sites he posts his trash on.

I have put in bold the following passages:-

'one of the only reporters in the world for Arab matters who doesn't know Arabic, doesn't understand Arabic and doesn't read Arabic. He gets simultaneous translations and that is enough. In my opinion, that is amateurish journalism.'

.

Someone will have to go back and look at the original, if it is a translation, because you cannot say in English 'one of the only reporters in the world. 'One of' means 'one of a group': 'of the only reporters' is both solecistic, pleonastic, and meaningless. It can't go back in until the original meaning is determined and corrected phrased in English.

Linur attacked Levy's reports, which always hold Israel responsible for both Palestinian suffering and Palestinian murderous activity, as narrow minded, shallow, and journalistically and morally impaired and suggested that Levi and his Haaretz companion Amira Hass

Not a very clever attempt to use a clause to assert a POV as if it were objective. Either Linur attacked L's reports as always holding . .etc' or nothing. For as it stands, the text gives a judgement that belongs to its editor, and not to Linur.Nishidani 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

you've made some good edits here and i hope you don't mind some non-grammar related notes.

1. why take away the "highly credited" to linur's status as a writer? perhaps it's better to use highly acclaimed or something else - but i think the ommission is unjustified.
2. levi's accusation regarding marwan barghouti is not a one time accusation but a narrative of his reportrs - considering the paragraph is now talking in linur's name - we should put things in teh proper menning - when levi accuses - it's the same as...
3. she gives a full paragraph to the issue of what's most glaring (pro-Palestinian tendencies) in the reports of hass and levi, i disapprove of the ommission of that part from the text.
4. "internecine strife" - is probably good english, but in my honest opinion, too high choice of words which doesn't mean much to the average person reading the encyclopdia.
5. Shoken was surprized at the terms beying directed not only at himself but at three people and the paper as a whole - the new phrasing is better english, but incorrect to the original.
6. why remove steven plaut?
7. as to your 2nd question, it is my understanding that once we've stated it's someone's opinion, we don't ahve to keep apologizing for his words on every sentense since it's clear it's his words and not an ampirical truth... not to mention that gideon levi was never shy about repeating his beliefs and reasoning.

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1. why take away the "highly credited?

The first reason was stylistic. 'highly' occurred just underneath it in the text, and you never repeat adverbs so closely. Secondly, it is evident she is who she is, a well known writer. To add 'highly credited' tends to 'give credit' to her account. It is not our job to give credit to anyone, Levy or her.

1. levi's accusation regarding marwan barghouti is not a one time accusation but a narrative of his reportrs
   

I do apologize but I don't understand this. I'm not being nitpickety, here Jaakobou, and will be quite happy to reply to the question if you could kindly reframe it.

1. she gives a full paragraph to the issue of what's most glaring (pro-Palestinian tendencies) in the reports of hass and levi'.
   

Again it's badly worded, and makes her looks foolish, so I think to save her reputation one had better get it right. To say Levi's anti-Zionist, and pro-Palestinian, is neither here nor there, in that it implies he should be pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. Perhaps she thinks that, but it doesn't require a whole paragraph. To reply is difficult because I haven't the text in front of me, and am working from memory, but most of it read, to English eyes, as a very confused narrative, and Linur's opinions were so poorly phrased that she looked, excuse me, a bit dull-witted, which she mustn't be. I'll take another look.

1. "internecine strife" - is probably good english, but..
   

You may have a point. 'fratricidal' is probably more familiar, since it is a clan brotherhood sort of world. What I am opposed to here as elsewhere is this extremely awkward, unencyclopedic style that uses long sentences for simple ideas that can be expressed in short simple sentences.

1. Shoken was surprized at the terms beying directed not only at himself but at three people and the paper as a whole - the new phrasing is better english, but incorrect to the original.
   

Well, if so, I'll try to fix it up and correct it if that is the distorsion my edit caused. Check it later and if unsatisfactory we can work further on it.

1. why remove steven plaut?
   

I know it gives comfort to some to drag in any sort of material that puts a writer one dislikes in a bad light. But, as I have argued in many other pages, with regard to Jewish critics of Zionism or Israel's policies, there are many excellent, highly intelligent and acutely critical minds whose articles and books one can cite against the Finkelsteins or Pappes of this world. I am always, editorially, opposed to using trash editorializing by second-rate minds, and I am afraid Plaut's record is this. No substantial academic work of distinction on the subject at hand, but a lot of cheap journalism in tabloid newspapers. The remark quoted is useless, you can hear that listening to the washing women over the fence. I'm sure Levi has better critics of his perspective in a cultural community as richly endowed as Israel's. One must be selective, and seek, I insist, quality in an encyclopedia, especially in the age of the Internet which makes us all raucously vocal, but the noise level is one that prompts editors like myself to prefer music of qualitative dissonance or forceful sonority, not discordant hackwork.

1. as to your 2nd question, it is my understanding that once we've stated it's someone's opinion, we don't ahve to keep apologizing for his words on every sentense since it's clear it's his words and not an ampirical truth.'
   

I'm afraid not, the sentence after report, (comma) 'which . .' in English prose, means that the sentence, and the judgement, is not Levi's, but either Linur's or the editor's. It also means that objectively what is said there is true, instead of being Linur's call on Levi's attitude (apart from the fact that it is untrue. I have a file of most of Levi's articles over the past few years, and made a brief check, and indeed it is thoroughly untrue, but I am not supposed to judge content, and won't in this edit.)

A general consideration. One is stylistic, and I can hardly blame you if some of the finer points of a foreign language miss you, as I myself am woefully ignorant of your mothertongue. But style is what makes an article, and an encyclopedia. 'Le style, c'est l'homme'. Secondly, I know you have a POV as you know I have one. I think what we fight about is quality. I would prefer to lose an argument if I can't find a qualitatively good defence for my position in it. I don't trust the Internet, but books, because the internet is jammed packed with very fastly confectioned material from a 1000 different perspectives, most of which are nonsensical. As an anarchical democrat, I welcome all this, but in an encyclopedia, as in learning, one goes for the best, not the cheapest material. If one is a neo-Con, one cites Leo Strauss, or the early Francis Fukuyama, not flakes and fakes like Plaut or even Daniel Pipes. If one is an anti-Zionist, one looks at Finkelstein, or Idith Zertal, not some antisemitic nazi hack's rant page. If we could agree on this, on quality of material, not material chosen for its utility for a POV to shout down another POV, I think we should fight less, certainly on other areas. I have a regard for the Benny Morris's and Martin van Crevalds of this world because, unlike so many who share their views, they are honest and do not finesse their ideas or research with spurious arguments that look silly to anyone in the know. Cheers Nishidani 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

fanboy bloat

I suggest the Irit Linur section be reduced to the following:

In a widely circulated letter cancelling her subscription to Haaretz, Israeli novelist Irit Linur argued that the newspaper had become compromised by an anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian agenda, and she cited Levy's work as an example. Haaretz 's publisher expressed bemusement at the outburst, describing his newspaper as Zionist and Levy's reports as "a description of the effect of the Israeli occupation on the lives of the Palestinians in the territories."

This provided it can be established that when the lady novelist switched newspapers this was a notable event, and that her correspondence regarding same was "widely circulated." More sources, more sources, more sources. Or bin it entirely.--G-Dett 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that an exemplary synthesis of what I merely corrected stylistically, while lamenting inwardly the wretched state of the paraphrase. I see no reason why that shouldn't be posted immediately. That indeed is how quality articles are written. We're in your, uh, debt. RegardsNishidani 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. have reworked the criticism section to be cleaner - i'm sure nishidani, that you may come up with grammar suggestions - i only hope they will not include omissions to the input itself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That your poorly sourced gossip about the lady novelist's subscription cancellation is even being mentioned in an encyclopedia entry on a major Israeli journalists is a gift to you, Jaakobou. It's not clear that this "story" ever made it past the circulation desk at Haaretz, and yet here it is on Wikipedia. Don't push your luck with it though. If you keep bloating it up, I'm going to delete it completely.--G-Dett 03:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you don't seem to note a sensible gesture that meets partially your aims, when you see it. Dett's synthesis is the maximum one can give, since the original virtually reprints Linur's diatribe by an extended paraphrase that swamps what little we have been told about Levy's work. What is needed here is some well-sourced description of Levy's distinctive approach (he doesn't know Arabic. He does have the intimate confidence of Palestinians who, after suffering large casualties, allow him into their territory in order to listen to and describe their version of what happened. Those versions are Palestinian points of view, incident for incident, that Levy provides the world so outsiders can measure them against what IDF reports, which basically inform world reportage, say). If I get time I will research this. So far we have little on Levy and a huge amount on Linur. Don't push your luck on WP:Undue Weight. You can put in eventually as many links to reliable critics as you like, but only after some substantial work has been done expounding what Levy's articles do and say, otherwise it looks like a cheap smear job, using selective evidence to make a living person look like a ranting biased maniac. If you wish to give scope to his critics, the premise is, first of all expound via reliable sources what the author does or thinks he is doing. Nishidani 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any gesture. i see two proffessed anti-israel editors claim soething is undue based on their lack of knowledge into how publoicized this letter was - seriously, any of you seen one interview with gideon levi? i used to watch his talk show on fridays on channel 3... quit the POV pushing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what can a man say. The page is becoming a comic masterpiece. I advise all to leave it untouched. Some pages self-destruct by the sheer inertia of their POV weighting. Nishidani 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the last sensible version. Having such a long section on the Irit Linur section is ridiculous and is definitely a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I will continue to revert any attempts to reintroduce unless there is a similar length inserted on Levy's supporters. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also added back in the criticism from Plaut and the comments by Gideon Ezra. However, the Linur incident really does not need any more expansion, and I hope common sense prevails now. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, one of the reasons editors have removed Plaut is that he was found by an Israeli court to have libeled an ideological opponent as a "fanatical antisemite" and a Nazi sympathizer, etc., and forced to pay damages. He's an economist by training; his views are published in FrontPageMagazine, where Norman Finkelstein is known as a "Holocaust denier."

Jaakobou, I am not anti-Israel and have never "professed" to be so.--G-Dett 02:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point about Plaut, but I believe he is currently appealing the verdict. Nishidani's description of him as a "controversial polemicist" is an accurate one though, and gives some background to the quote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite looked fine to me in terms of content, though I'm still surprised we're giving so much space to a subscription-cancellation-as-political-statement. Was this reported anywhere besides "News First Class," whatever that is? Was it in Haaretz? Jerusalem Post? If it was "broadly circulated," that would suggest yes. But where was it broadly circulated? On blogs? Usenet threads? Anyway, my changes were tweaks only: statements intended to be understood rhetorically (regarding a "Palestinian department" for example) shouldn't be introduced as "claims," etc. Minor things. In the meantime, we should be looking for quality material on Levy; he is a controversial journalist, and surely we can present the notable controversies through material meatier than the lady novelist's subscription cancellation.--G-Dett 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps links to his 'Twilight Zone' column on Haaretz would be in order, and certainly as important as the secondary commentary. In most of these pages, I find that giving a straight synthesis of what the subject does, through his own words, an indispensable prelude to opening up the criticism section. Levy's basic technique is to go in after any conflict, and get the version of people on the other side, the injured, the relatives of the dead, the environment of Palestinians caught up in the endless war. That should be noted, but I presume a source is required.Nishidani 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

fun stuff

planning on adding this source in the near future.

http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=1510&MenuID=681&ThreadID=1014003

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

same about this one:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829726.html

better version here:

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/2007/en/0226-levy.html

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

another:

http://classic.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=1293&MenuID=735&ThreadID=1014018

- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

I've weeded out 'left-wing'. Accept the use of this supererogatory term in these contexts and you open the way to going through every page on people, living and dead, and dropping 'left-wing'/'right-wing' on everybody from Mickey Mouse to Menachem Begin. It adds nothing. It may, in the context, be even tautological, if one is minded, wrongfully in my view, to confuse concern for human rights with the 'left-wing'. George Bush Sr., at one stage (1991-2, from memory) and James Baker, not to speak of Raul Hilberg, were all 'right wing' (i.e. Republicans) but expressed highly critical judgements on Israel's behaviour in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.Nishidani 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(2)

'A recurring theme of his articles is what he calls the 'moral blindness' of Israeli society to the effects of its acts of war and occupation, an attitude which he attributes to a systematic dehumanization of Israel's neighbors.'

Here 'moral blindness' is a consequence('effects) of belligerent policies, which constitutes an 'attitude' attributed to systematic dehumanization of Israel's neighbours. Logically, this is ouroboric. I.e. belligerence makes for moral blindness, the attitude of moral blindness, an effect, is then explained as an effect of systematic dehumanization. The same outlook (moral blindness, attitude) has two distinct causes. What the original author wished to say could be expressed more limpidly perhaps. For the moment I have simply tried to make the sentence, as it stands, run smoother.Nishidani 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, i'll rewrite him being a left-wing figurehead in a way that won't break your "controversial polemicist"^[3] edits - being that i don't want to set example on supererogatory terminology.

p.s. i don't think (2) is under any dispute here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually 'controversial polemicist' is a concession. I don't think people who write airhead opinions to trash public figures should be heard on wikipedia. But if you like, I can remove Plaut altogether. Find a quality source critical of his work, not a man judged by an Israeli court to have defamed a colleague.Nishidani 07:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't think you should call Haifa University Professors "airheads" just because you disagree with their POV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a personal judgement, of course, based on patiently reading his blog. You seem, from lack of experience perhaps, to overestimate the quality of academics. There are as many duds in that profession as in most other spheres of life. Watson the other day came out, using his fame for his 1953 discovery, to opinionize about blacks. He is not a reliable source on the issue, since, unlike Stephen Gould he has no publishing record on the topic of IQ measurements and genetics.

I have no problem with airing POV criticism from 'left' or 'right', as long as it reflects quality and intelligent analysis. That kind of material is abundant, certainly in academic journals, but tends to scarcity on the net, where it is filtered down to the public through lobby sites. What you are citing from Plaut is on the level of an uninformed kibitzer and shows no trace of the intellectual formation requisite for obtaining a university position. One of the problems of Wikipedia is that it has become a dumping ground for third-rate opinions, which are easily available on search engines, because tabloid debris is all online. By contrast, academic or highly professional critiques of colleagues are difficult to access, and therefore find less purchase in articles. In any case, in so far as Plaut has been formally judged in an Israeli court as having defamed another academic, he is not a RS for Levy.

I'm happy to leave it as it is, however. I don't think you realize that posting patently incompetent material like that actually works in favour of Levy's repute, as with the Shin Beit material. Whoever posted that there doesn't appear to realize that for the average reader, it looks positively good for Levy, since it documents that, in Israel, a person critical of government policies on an occupied people can run the gauntlet with senior parliamentarians who call for them to be put under surveillance by the secret police. To anyone with a memory of the Ist part of the 20th century, the echo is ominous, that defenders of a liberal tradition of civil rights can be threatened with clandestine surveillance by the secret police speaks, not against Levy, but against his critics. Some of your POV edits assist those you oppose more than you appear to realize Nishidani 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm not over-estimating anyone - only noting a distinct duplicity of "supererogatory terminology". i'm also still at a disagreement about the censorship applied to this article and will continue with my objection until i'm otherwise convinced by proper discussion - WP:NOT.

p.s. no personal attacks about the implications of my POV edits (per highlighted text) please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reread the policy you draw my attention to. There is nothing like a personal attack in my note above. Noting that you are inserting POV material is not a personal attack. It is a statement of opinion. You put 'left-wing' without sourcing it. For all I know, Levy could be a right-wing campaigner for human rights. They exist you know. The Rabbis who endorse Levy's views and work for the same cause are not known to be 'left-wingers'. p.s.please feel free to interfere with my text by highlighting things that interest you. I have no objections. Now, let's edit, rather than fritter away each other's time with personal differences.Nishidani 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually,

(1) there's no reason to contest this if you know the person, in any event, a citation tag ({{cn}} or {{fact}}) is the proper way to deal with these issues rather than a swift deletion.

(2) i did source it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing of Criticism section

Jaakobou, I'm going to be very, very frank. Your editing of this section is damaging the article. The writing is of a consistently poor quality, the style and tone wholly inappropriate to an encyclopedia, and the material itself tendentious, non-notable, gossipy junk you're digging up from the nether regions of the internet. There is also a troubling – and frankly exasperating – pattern of inserting bloated, copiously detailed coverage of this marginal and partisan material into the article, and then leveling the accusation of censorship at anyone who attempts to trim it down in proportion to its notability. Please consider presenting your material on the talk page first, so that other editors can determine its relevance and do the extensive copy-editing necessary to make it mainspace-ready. I would also suggest – again, being very candid – that you try to raise the level of your research. Most of the material you add here (and elsewhere) is drawn from tabloid journalism at best, and convicted libelers on obscure, extremist online sites at worst. (Here's the first sentence on the home page of ThinkIsrael, your Plaut source: "We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam. Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu.") Your fluency in Hebrew could be a great asset to the project if you set your sights a little higher.--G-Dett 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

you should give a quick look at WP:CIV and WP:NOT. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take the problem seriously, Jaakobou. You are damaging the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Please note Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. 'You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry — we all make mistakes.'

Wikilawyering, the endless citation of irrelevant rules, when one experiences difficulties with others, is best avoided, particularly when one's interlocutors demonstrate the fundamental ethos of Wiki editorship, common sense. Nishidani 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, i don't see how the usage of some wiki-slang and complex words makes much of a case for censorship - rather than obsessing about it, you should go over some of Levi's article's and history and buff up the biography a tad rather than remove anything that doesn't sit well with your perspective.

p.s. please don't talk to me about common sense after trying to lower down the death toll of 1929 Hebron massacre due to "moral grounds" and selective reading of the sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading Levy for several years, and can find nothing in my memory of his work which gives the slightest grounds for the sleaze attacks he has been exposed to. I'll be more than happy to write a full biography on the man for the page, if someone provides links to any material in any major language other than Hebrew, which, answering too many questions in here, I have not had the time to learn yet.

As to Hebron, keep your comments on that page. And, when you do comment, don't distort my quite precise analysis of the problem of writing 67 when the number directly massacred (as opposed to the number who died as a consequence of the riot) was probably 64-65, 58 on the day, and 6/7 of their wounds, as the September report of the Jewish authorities to the Mandatory government notes). You yourself, on the page, eventually admitted I had a point. But that is not pertinent to this page Nishidani 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

to the topic, anyone interested in adding to the article is fully able to - i've kept the input short and to the point and will also get some validation references where there is still concerns however, where the proper, and fairly notable references exist, we can only discuss how much room they take in the article compared to other material... if there is some other material inside to compare it with... not if there's nothing in there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've made many major changes, ignoring points raised against several of them (of the 3 refs for his 'left-wing', only as far as I can see, does the ABC article have him mentioned as left-wing. One other source you use is there only to document that he widely reprinted articles are also on sites sponsored by Iran, i.e. smear by association, I presume). Hence since you ignore the dialogue in here, you give me no alternative than to revert the whole text. If you wish to collaborate productively make one or two edit changes at a time, as mostly others do, section by section, so that others can accept or reject without the problem of an aut/aut decision a massive rewriting over all sections poses.Nishidani 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. there's no smear by association, his articles have been reprinted in the arab world - he himself has stated that he doesn't take offense from it, so why should you?
2. you've made a few major changes yourself - the most impressive one was calling someone by the impressive title, "defamatory polemicist"^[4] - i wonder where you get the nerve to talk to me about possible smears.
3. i'd love to discuss each point seriously, however i don't see you or others taking the article or the points i raise quite seriously... for now, i mostly see POV censorship/pushing.
4. i've already made 3+ rewrites trying to accommodate the points raised so i'd appreciate some collaboration on your part rather than a revert to a version still holding the weasel term "defamatory polemicist".
5. regardless, i seem to have missed a few good changes in your version, and i'll leave them in next time i return all the POV blanketed material... that is, unless you will find a way to reinsert them in a way that would be more acceptable to the both of us.

p.s. if the source is reliable, we don't remove it even if we don't like the content.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this 'weasel word' business won't stand. If Alan Dershowitz, acute professor of law, can call Neve Gordon someone who has defamed so many people, as well as the nation of Israel,' without an ounce of proof, I don't see why I can't call Plaut a 'defamatory' person when he was convicted before an Israeli court of libel and defamation in 2006. In the first case it is mere chat, in the second it is documented in judicial evidence. Quote Plaut on Levy (and he shouldn't be) and you must qualify Plaut for what he is convicted of being, so the reader can get perspective. Take Plaut out if you dislike the truth about him.

I don't take offence at GL's articles being posted in the Arab world. I note only that (1) the source from Iran you cite for them does not back up the claim you made, in sourcing those articles there, i.e. that Levy is 'left-wing'. The ABC article does. The only way I could understand the ineptness of this sourcing, was to suspect that you like pitching his stuff as IranianmullahfanaticArabhorde-oriented. I may be wrong. That source stays, but not where you, wrongly, put it.

Okay. Let's bury the past. Neither of the two of us will edit the page before putting our suggestions here, for mutual critique, and the suggestions of our peers? I will not post anything before allowing you to vet it, and hope to oblige me with similar consideration. Regards Nishidani 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm willing to cooperate, however, being that the removal of material is stemming from your part (unless you count the term you've used for plaut) - perhaps you should go over that version and point (in small segments) the issues that bother you most. please try to remember some basic basic stuff such as, for example: that i've never seen anyone contests that he is a left wing advocate, to the contrary even - it's an issue he's proud of. anyways, i'm willing to give a more tempered attempt a shot - but remember that i'm doing it from a position where your revert was last, so you should not abuse this good faith attempt. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I reverted to the version most editors accept as a reasonable base for building up the article. Personally, I'm not at all troubled by 'left-wing', as you seem to think. I only edited out your sourcing it with two references that do not use that adjective of him. There should be no dispute on this. It is settled. As for Plaut, the adjective reflects a decision by an Israeli court. Again, I don't see why there should be problems with this. It is a public, legal judgement. We can play shuttlecock over a word or two, but the problem with this article is that is thin, and needs substantial fleshing out. So rather than create problems over nuance, we should be looking for more material to fill out his bio., and strengthen the material on the page. IF you have more, by all means link us to it, and suggest how it might be edited. Remember though that Wiki is not supposed to be a boxing ring for editorial POVs, but an encyclopedia that registers relevant facts.Nishidani 09:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick couple of points - there is no such phrase in normal English as a left wing "advocate", at least in this context, so please can that not go back in? For once however I would side with Jaakabou and say that I am not bothered either about the phrase "left wing" appearing, since to my knowledge it would be a broadly accurate description; also I find the "defamatory polemicist" tag currently attached to Plaut a bit strong, even if it can be said to be strictly accurate. --Nickhh 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, there's no problem with 'leftwing'. I find it rather effete as a compliment, but certainly harmless. It was the sourcing that was problematical. As to 'defamatory polemicist', well, Jaacobou wants an epithet for Levy, one he takes as damaging I presume, but quite okay. So his Plaut m,ust also wear an epithet, and the one he gets reflects a judgement by a judicial body on one egregious example of his polemical style (against another 'left-winger'.) One can remove the link to Plaut, since it has absolutely no value as a 'comment' on Levy except for its potential defamatory character. But if you want to keep the link, 'defamatory' should stay. 'Defame' is something many people like Plaut and Dershowitz accuse the Levys and Neves of this world as doing to Israel (I have a small file on this word). One could of course take away the adjective, and transform in into a parenthesis of the type, S. Plaut, recently convicted of 'defaming' another 'left-winger' has said that Levy . . , but that is verbose. The adjective is succint, and truthful Nishidani 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A note on Amoruso

Amoruso has returned in style, and as regards my own work, has reverted or cancelled everything I have written over the last few days. Predictable stuff. I added Levy's recent comment in Haaretz, in which Levy gives his view of the settlement policy as criminal. It is criminal, Levy says, because the continued expansion of the settlements violates solemn undertakings to freeze settlements assumed by Israel over the last decades. This is Levy's view. For Amoruso, to cite Levy's view constitutes a POV. I gather Amoruso wants to engage in an edit war by stalking. He won't get one. This and other texts will be systematically restored, without haste, in order to eliminate his disturbance of their neutrality Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia is of little interest to the readers. If anybody has been doing any stalking, it would be you. You seem not to understand basic wikipedia principles. This is not Gideonlevy.com . His ideas are already presented in the article. It's an encyclopedia. Try to understand it, although we all know it's difficult for you. Amoruso (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

we all know. 'To say we and mean I is one of the most recondite of insults, as the man from Frankfort once wrote. Nice also to see that Levy's 30 years of journalism contain such a thicket of ideas that, in your view, they can be thumbnailed in two sentences. Try again.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that when you say for example Palestinian Land, it's only the mindless jabberwocky of Gideon Levy, and it's not a fact. Amoruso (talk)

Thanks for putting on record you hostility to the subject of the page we are editing. You're entitled to think personally that Levy's journalism is mindless jabberwocky, but that private opinion should not influence your editing of this page. The page is devoted to documenting what he thinks and writes. If you have examples of mindless jabberwocky from his pen, please add them to the page, but do not suppress citations of his stated opinions. The page must simply outline his views, and refer to critics of those views. As for 'Palestinian land', again this is your private opinion, so keep it off the page. Legal title and international law determine if the land in Palestinian hands is theirs, not some factitious muscling act by an army-backed squatter movement Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Palestinian Land is not yours to decide nor Gideon Levy's, which is why I NPOVED the page. In fact, if you think I have a personal opinion here, then it only proves I'm the only one trying to NPOV the page and make it clear that this is Gideon Levy's opinion and not the fact. Your dishonest attempt to POV the page by trying to make it show as if Levy's opinion is the fact, is the problem here, not the other way around. When I call his work mindless I mean that whatever a person writes is not encyclopedic and becomes a fact, unless what he writes is already accepted as a fact of life like the earth is round and not flat. This is how wikipedia works. I was trying to explain you that point by using this figurative langauge, and it could have been done regarding anyone. That being said, Gideon Levy is indeed a pretty unstable person. Amoruso (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the fact that your function in here is mainly to try and get editors that are disliked into revert wars or exchanges of abuse so they can be hauled over the coals in some arbitration case and banned. It won't work anymore, I'm sorry to inform you. This page is not about the 'truth' which you confuse with NPOV. It exists to document Levy's life and opinions. Therefore whatever position Levy upholds in his writing can be paraphrased or quoted without fear of censure. I cite Levy's opinions, as Levy's opinions, and your feeble attempt to insinuate that in doing so, I am colluding with Levy to push as fact what is his opinion, won't work. Your last remark is an instance of what in the textbooks is called 'projective psychology', and interests no one.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your deceptive "paraphrasing" is not allowed in Wikipedia. You are not allowed to present quotes of other people as if they're fact. That's dishonest. Something which you do quite a lot lately even though I consistently try to presume good faith, but you make it very difficult. Amoruso (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This

morning, he & Ali_Hasan_Abunimah discussed the Gaza migrant crisis on Democracy_Now!, worldlink. Is there an article?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RolandR's revert

I put in a documented description of Levy as "far left" by Shmuel Rosner. RolandR reverted this, claiming that Rosner is a "marginal journalist", which is far from the truth -- read his bio. I think this description is far from unreasonable given the controversies he seems to be involved in. Wikipedia has a major problem with whitewashing of biographical articles by people ideologically aligned with them (across the whole political spectrum), and I think it's important to avoid this. From RolandR's user page it is easy to see that he himself is far-left, at least in his views on Israel. I put the text back, this time in "criticism" where hopefully it will be less offensive to people like RolandR. Benwing (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

quote

How is it undue? This is a page about Gideon Levy and his views, how can it be undue to have a quote from him on those views? nableezy - 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially now that the criticism section is more than half of the article. nableezy - 15:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

The criticism section is 3 short paragraphs so if you're curious about the value of the quote, I don't share any relation between that and the criticism section which is perfectly conservative considering the discussed character and his leading role, participating in a fringe political movement. The quote seemed repetative and inflated (read: hyperbole) with terminology that has no room in a quality encyclopedia. All due respect to Levy's perspectives, they are well represented in the "Political views" section with such as moral blindness to the "acts of war" and "occupation" and it is undignified to push the envelope with thievery and boots.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section takes about half of the article, that is due weight given to his critics? And "with terminology that has no room in a quality encyclopedia"? Whats that even mean? Wikipedia isnt saying those words in its narrative voice, we say Levy said it so I dont see your point. nableezy - 13:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Levy has been writing and talking his views for many many years and that quote has absolutely nothing special to it. The point where he believes Israel should not present demands towards the security of its citizens while the situation is the way that it is, is presented and this has nothing at all to do (other than pointy behavior) with the criticism section that is written in a very conservative manner and is only 3 small paragraphs long. The political views, btw, is the size of 3 slightly smaller paragraphs and explains his perspective in an encyclopedic manner. Allow me to expand a tad by noting that regardless of how Hitler, for example (just an extreme example), explained his views on why the Jews should be annihilated, you can't list it down with bloated quotations from his writings to counter-act criticism made towards him - and I'm sure/hope those are written in a conservative manner on his article page as well.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it antisemitic to compare a Jew to Hitler? If I were to do that at say Talk:Avigdor Lieberman what would your response be? And how often are you going to accuse others of acting tendentiously or disruptively before you realize that somebody with your track record and continuous pattern of acting both tendentiously and disruptively make your proclamations against others meaningless? nableezy - 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero's personal opinion or Wikipedia rules?

Your personal opinion is fine, but is it objective? I doubt it. Why my opinion has less weight then yours? 1) This is not really a critic about levy. This is how the reporter from Spiegel observed him. I can switch it to "his poiltical opinions, may be it is more suituble. 2) All opinions about Levi come from within of Irrael and it is reasonable to include an opinion from well respecrwd Spiegel which is a German publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What one person says about Gideon Levy is not important enough to go into a biographical article on Levy. Please read biographies of living people. nableezy - 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It really depends who that person is and if his opinion represents that of others. The question of relvance here is notability. There is room, however, to reconsider the volume and conservative encyclopedicity of commentary in biograpihes. I'd appreciate a link+short quote so I can possibly raise suggestions on resolving this dispute.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What one person says about Gideon Levy is not important enough to go into a biographical article on Levy. Please read biographies of living people<<< And where have you read that?>>>--Rm125 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to err. I think everyone here should try to uphold a collegiate atmosphere even when disagreement arise.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To the IP

Heyo, you are obviously new to Wikipedia, but if something is cited in the body of the article - it could be conservatively phrased in the lead of the article. I would appreciate your participation on the talk page so that we can iron this issue[5], as well as any others,[6] out. In the meantime, it would be prefferable if you don't remove content from the article prior to discussion as it seems you are unaware of Wikipedia proccess.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not everything that is cited in the article belongs in the lead. Why is that line important enough to include in the lead? nableezy - 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That line is not even encyclopedic. There are always people who disagree with journalists and politicians, that is nothing new. If we put criticism of every politician and journalist in the lead, the leads will be very long. Just imagine what could be done with the opposition to Obama, or with all those who compare Likud policies to the policies of South Africa. All kind of criticism can be found, but the question is whether it is relevant to have it in the lead.Jeppiz (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jeppiz,

Your comparison is invalid though as Obama is not known for being "X's most radical commentator". He is rather known for being the US president and an advocate for discussion. The criticism towards him is probably not notable enough in context of his biography but rather in context of his bill suggestions and similar issues. For this article, where the criticism on him is almost as notable as the criticism he dishes out, there needs to be some basic and conservative mention of this criticism in the lead. I've chosen to opt out of connecting him with the Haaretz cancellations and keeping this as a soft note that he's viewed as overly emphasizing the Palestinian perspective. This seems like the best possible long term encyclopedic way of shortening the entire issue without giving too much leeway to possibly going into smear-territory. I'm open to hear other suggestions on treating this issue with dignity.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for suggestions here. Otherwise, the toned down version seems like the best option.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What "toned down version"? nableezy - 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The text in the lead that summerizes the entire criticism section into "criticized for focusing too much on the Palestinian perspective". That's pretty toned down IMHO. Toughts/concerns/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Celebrating Hamas victory

Heyo Zero,
I'm not entirely following the problem with this source and, btw, we seem to have lost the citation with all the removals. Could you please add the cited source here and we'll discuss the merits of including this Hamas-related note or lack-there-of?
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what source there is for Plaut's opinions, they are not allowed here. Plaut is an economist whose field of expertise is urban economics, like fluctuations in house prices. His position as an academic in an irrelevant field does not give him any more status regarding his political opinions than my aunt Mabel has (who would be delighted to be quoted here). The fact that Plaut is mostly known as a far-right activist doesn't help. The rules don't allow me to say more, but the image that he had at the head of his blog for many years is a fair indication of the intellectual quality of his commentary. Zero^talk 02:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor photoshop skills aren't really relevant here and neither are personal opinions on Plaut. What matters is the notability of the 'Hamas Victory' issue and this could be determined by the publishing source. If, for example, Ahmad Tibi, who is a very controversial figure with strong Palestinian and anti-Israeli authority perspectives was published as making criticism at a fellow Knesset member like Avigdor Lieberman, then there would be room to consider adding that criticism into the Lieberman article pending the notability of the issue at hand. This case is similar though, there's probably less cursing involved. Btw, the issue of his study area is really not important for his criticism. It just shows the issue that it was somewhat notable that Levy was accused of celebrating the Hamas victory. Anyways, I'm open to rephrase suggestions but it's best if we can get a look at the citation. I could very well agree that the issue is not notable enough but I can't make an educated decision just because (as it seems) you don't consider Plaut to be a respectable person.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I would feel more comfortable if you tone down (i.e. change) your above commentary towards a living person (see also WP:BLP). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tibi is a prominent politician; his opinions are notable even if they are ill-conceived. Plaut is only a self-appointed activist. They aren't nearly the same. The fact that Plaut was convicted of libel in an Israeli court after he said rather similar things about another person he doesn't like is another good reason why we shouldn't quote him here; in fact I think WP:BLP requires us to not quote him. Zero^talk 06:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know why Plaut is an unacceptable source for assertions about his opponents. He is Really useless; nothing to suggest he is trustworthy.RolandR 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Plaut is a living person as well so, regardlessofwhat you feel about him, both of you should tone down the rhetorics. Zero, I was serious when I asked you to refactor your comment above and tone it down. Please respond to this request. Content-wise, I would really appreciate the good faith move of putting forward the used citation. I'm not necessarily interested in Plaut as I am in commentary about Levy's reception of the Hamas victory in 2006. I'm open to rephrase suggestions as well as other sources being brought forward.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments about Plaut here are very mild. I intentionally restricted myself only to widely known facts, but at your request I am changing two words to even more objective ones. If you prefer, I can quote "reliable sources" as saying much worse. But I'm not interested in that, I'm only interested in restricting this article to the opinions (positive or negative) of those who are worth quoting. Zero^talk 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First I'd like to thank you for toning it down a tad. It doesn't matter if others have used worse, its not our place to abuse this place for taking pot shots at living individuals.

Secondly, I felt the notice that Plaut was an advocate against the Oslo peace process was a clear enough note to point out his advocacy status. This doesn't amount to a clear enough reason to disqualify them completely since they are not presenting "facts", but an interpretation on Levy's attitude towards the Hamas victory. If this opinion was published at a highly notalb eplace, then there is room to consider it regardless of the concerns about Plauts judgement. On this very case, a large number of of the people used to critique Israel have, themselves received critique but we allow both sides to present their general view (within encyclopedic value of that opinin). Personally, I felt the note about how right wing activists who object the Oslo process see Levy's approach to the Hamas victory as a notable viewpoint regardless if we like or dislike their perspective. This is a good place to use words like "charged" rather than "reported" and the reader is intelligent enough to discern the opinions of "a critic of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations process" from the perspectives of others.

Lastly, I went ahead and found the relevant citation. And it seems that the most relevant debatable issue here of notability can be decided as 'not that notable' based on this, apparently, single source. I have no objections, pending the finidng of other more notable publications of this issue, to keep Plaut out of this article. I am still interested in commentary on Levy's depiction of the Hamas victory but I think its more pressing to focus on other issues that were argued here first.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed descriptives

Heyo Nableezy,
I'm not sure if you were aware of this but just the other day it was confirmed that the IP removing content from this page was a banned editor evading his ban.[7] I therefore reintroduced the removed content but was a tad surprized to see that you removed it again, citing BLP as your concern. Personally, I don't quite understand where BLP relates to this text, removed by the banned editor, and I would appreciate your explanation.

• The removed text:
  Gideon Levy's views have been criticized for what commentators and criticts described as "far left", "anti-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian"; His approach to Palestinian issues was noted in Der Spiegel, which cited him as the main reason given by Haaretz readers for subscription cancellations; and he was dubbed by the magazine as "[Israel's] most radical commentator".

I can't say that I understood the "this is not a collection of peoples complaints against Levy" summary for this revert.[8]
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that a CU found the IP to be Nickhh. I also think that there are problems with the passage. The New Republic piece used does not criticize Levy at all, it just says he is "far-left" so it does not fit with the sentence that his views have been criticized. The Omedia piece reads like a polemic editorial and has no place here. The lib.cet.ac.il ref is actually referencing an editorial in Maariv by Amnon Dankner and likewise has no place here. The Der Spiegel source is not terrible but the language used is. That one sentence I could see as being useful, but the rest is garbage better suited to a blog. nableezy - 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Every article criticizing Levy -- or anyone else for that matter -- would "read(s) like a polemic editorial". I can't say I'm following your argument to why basic, and fairly normative, descriptives are objectionable. Certainly, the way Levy is depicted by Dankner and Der Spiegel are notable enough for inclusion as long as it is written in a conservative manner (unlike the common style of Levy, btw). Thoughts/suggestions?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a WP:BLP and we do not include polemical editorials in BLPs (it is not just an article, it is an editorial, an opinion). I already said the Der Spiegel source is fine, but not the way it was written in the article. The rest does not meet the standard set by WP:BLP. And calling somebody "anti-Israel" is not "fairly normative" if that is even the word you are meaning to use. nableezy - 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guy appears in al-Jazeera right next to another guy using big words genocide and holocaust and basically repeats the same ideas with similar words (e.g. 'appartheid', 'intentional ethnic cleansing' and all that jazz). Hamas use his articles in their front page (on the website) to justidy their attacks on Israeli civillians. Several notable figures have noticed enough to actually write about this in reliable sources (*big shock*). To make mention of this in a conservative way is not a BLP vio. The argument would work if, for example, it wasn't the editor in chief of the second largest newspaper in Israel among the people who called him anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. As of now, I fail to see where the "polemics" argument comes into action with the deleted text.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you get a reliable secondary source, not an editorial, that actually says these things then fine. But dont bring defamatory editorials in a BLP. nableezy - 07:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources is a secondary source and there's nothing wrong with 1st account sources if they are published on wiki-reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, we dont use personal opinions by themselves in BLPs. nableezy - 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is what WP:RS has to say about the issue: News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. (emphasis in original) nableezy - 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Nableezy, you said it yourself. As long as it is attributed in-text, the opinion piece referred to out here can be used. I don't see it as a WP:BLP issue. This looks sufficient to me: criticized for what commentators and critics described as. What more would you suggest? ƒ(Δ)² 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that any "criticism" be cited to multiple secondary sources. Not opinion pieces. WP:BLP says Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth. None of these criticisms are corroborated by "multiple, highly reliable sources". nableezy - 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And let me get this straight, you think an editorial calling a living person an "anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian propagandist" is acceptable in a BLP? nableezy - 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 4 sources being cited here. If you doubt the reliability of these sources, that's a separate issue. (from my understanding, the sources are reliable news sources, or similar) As long as it's clearly specified that his critics call him "pro-left" "anti-Israeli" and "pro-Palestine" and reliably sourced, that's fine. ƒ(Δ)² 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are 4 sources, each used in an incorrect manner, and I have explained the issue with each of them. The Omedia piece is simply an editorial containing defamatory nonsense. The New Republic piece does not criticize Levy in any way. The Maariv editorial is also filled with defamatory nonsense and does not belong in a BLP. If a secondary source actually says that these are criticisms of Levy fine, but cherry picking from defamatory opinion pieces in a BLP is not acceptable. nableezy - 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, we'll take this step by step. In your opinion, is Omedia a reliable source (in general)? And what about Maariv? ƒ(Δ)² 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For what they report as news yes. For what they report as opinion they are reliable for their opinion. But for a BLP the standards for using derogatory opinions is higher than in other articles. They are primary sources as used here. That is not acceptable for a BLP which requires such information be sourced to "multiple highly reliable sources" nableezy - 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that are reliable for their opinion here who are commenting with fairly conservative language ("pro-Palestinian"/"anti-Israeli") for Israel's most prominent critic and these comments are not at all potentially damaging information as they were published on Israel's second largest newspaper and on Der Spiegel. Its not like they are calling him a terrorist or pedophile or some such defamatory titles. Also, one of the sources is a secondary source so even that issue is taken cared of. This is simply not a BLP violation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. They are calling him "anti-Israel" which is defamatory, they call him a propagandist, which is defamatory. These are not reliable secondary sources with the exception of the Der Spiegel source. And Der Spiegel absolutely does not call him "anti-Israel" or the much more odious "anti-Israeli". nableezy - 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, again)If the source is considered reliable for news, then it's perfectly all right to refer to the opinion pieces criticizing Levy as his critics. Your BLP argument would be valid if (and only if) the text which Jaakobou put up did not attribute the criticism, and treated it as fact. There's a difference between saying "He is anti-Israeli" and "His critics have termed him anti-Israeli (+source)". Your statement that we should find a news source that criticizes him is absurd. Criticism and opinions are never written in news articles. Also, nableezy you're approaching dangerously close to 3RR. (Note- WP:BLP reads Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. So BLP is not an issue here, stop playing the BLP card.) ƒ(Δ)² 05:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a card and BLP vios are explicitly exempt from the 3RR. If you want to say "his critics have termed anti-Israel" you should get a reliable secondary source for that. And in your haste to revert what a good faith editor has called a BLP vio without even suggesting taking it to the BLP noticeboard you did not notice that the Der Spiegel line is now there twice. A reliable secondary source, not a primary source from a critic, saying that critics have called him anti-Israeli is what is being asked for. That is what BLP requires. nableezy - 06:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And in your revert you did not address any of the issues, for example the New Republic source not criticizing Levy at all being thrown in. Or the editorials not even being attributed. nableezy - 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You may take it to WP:BLPN if you wish, to get more eyes here. ƒ(Δ)² 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, and I plan on doing so. nableezy - 06:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you still haven't done it, I have. ƒ(Δ)² 10:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, please refer to the reply at BLPN. ƒ(Δ)² 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for people to come here, what is there to reply to? You want me to write why I think this is a BLP vio there? I would have if you had waited until I woke up to make the noticeboard thread. Is that what you want me to do? nableezy - 15:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you'd actually read the reply by Steve at my BLPN post you would understand. No, I don't need you to write why this is a BLP vio out there. I've linked to this talk page. And no, I don't need you to make a notice board thread, though I appreciate the gesture. I've already made it (as you've probably noticed). ƒ(Δ)² 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, and you've already replied there. Your previous comment (above mine) doesn't make sense now, and consequently nor does my reply. ƒ(Δ)² 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that I had not noticed a reply there, the original note you left at BLPN gave me the impression that you were asking people to reply here. nableezy - 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, I would like to find a reasonable phrasing that summarizes the arguments against Levy rather than list down each and every person raising a complaint. There's really no need to mention the Omedia source by name if Maariv said, basically the same thing. I also don't see a reason to add in the word propagandist if we can settle on 'criticism for XXX opinions' which is far more conservative and encyclopedic. At this point, I figure the first paragraph of the criticism section should summarize the general reasons for criticism - i.e. the way people who criticize him perceive his work. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time I would like to ensure that any defamatory comments sourced to an editorial remain explicitly cited to that editorial. If a secondary source is provided that actually says that critics have called him that can be used, but if you insist on using the primary source you should keep the explicit attribution. nableezy - 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, I come here from WP:3O. My feeling is that Jaakobou is mostly right. Simply, neutrally citing the existence of polemic opinions on the subject (provided WP:UNDUE is respected, and citing that there are also positive opinions, if it exists indeed) makes absolutely sense and it is in no way against the spirit of BLP. Of course the wording must be careful and the extension of its citing must be proportional to what happened. In this respect, the Jaakobou edit looks mostly right. Hope it helps. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are fine with citing primary sources that defame a living person and not even explicitly attributing such defamatory opinions to the source? nableezy - 18:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Jaakobou paragraph it seems to me that the "defamatory"(is being far left defamatory?) opinions are correctly attributed to the sources. It says that "commentators and critics described..." , "Der Spiegel, which cited him..." and "dubbed by the magazine...".If you disagree, you can reword the paragraph more objectively and show your version here. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"anti-Israeli" is the issue, not "far-left" and the "far-left" source does not criticize Levy at all, just says he is far-left. Both sources for "anti-Israeli" are op-eds that Jaak did not attribute in the text. nableezy - 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The text is "criticized for what critics and commentators described as". Do you honestly see your recently inserted version (i.e. An editorial in Omedia called Levy an "anti-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" propagandist.) as more encyclopedic and less defamatory than the text you removed?[9] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, it makes clear that Wikipedia is not engaging in such defamation and that an editorial in Omedia did. Get a source criticizing him for being "far-left" and use that as the source, but the source cited did not support the sentence in that section, and it is now being used in a more proper, if undue, place where it is not presented as criticism. nableezy - 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They look more or less the same to me. But Nableezy has a point in that explicitly citing the name of the sources can help get rid of any ambiguity. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor of Maariv is a notable figure, much like Ben Dror Yemini (both have wikipedia articles). Omedia's editor isn't really notable and he says the same thing as Maariv's editor, only in harsher words. Other people say pretty much the same as well, only without giving a name to the style of his opinions, which they relate with anti-zionism and far-left opinions. The current structure, recently inserted by Nableezy, giving more weight to the word 'propaganda' that only appears on one critique's opinion is unbalanced. Also, the quote of Maariv's editor has been stripped of its content.

• [10] - An editorial in Maariv said that Levy "comes out of an anti-Israeli base".

Would be preferable to merge the two overlapping opinions with, possibly, citing the name of Dankner who is a notable figure.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the Omedia editorial "used to support the text" in a way not accomplished by the other two citations? If you wish to use this opinion piece you should explicitly cite it. nableezy - 22:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the editorial is in Hebrew, which very few readers of English Wikipedia will understand. Unless the relevant text is cited and translated, they will have to take it on trust, and won't be able to check for themselves. If you think that this is relevant, please give an explicit translated quote. Until you do, this has no place in the article. RolandR 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo RolandR

(Copied from User talk:RolandR)

I'm just a little confused with the sudden drop in English language profficiency around me at Gideon Levy. We have 2 blocked users removing content, one who evokes BLP without understanding the policy, and now - people are missing the word 'commentators' and remove content on the claim that a source does not criticize the subject of the article. Will you explain this to me?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. The source states " As the far-left Israeli columnist Gideon Levy has written..."; in the article, this became "Gideon Levy's views have been criticized for what commentators and criticts described as 'far left'"(sic). The comment was misspelled, syntactically incomplete, and misrepresented the source. You can't describe someone as "criticising" levy when -- at least in the source cited -- he does no such thing. RolandR 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but its basic English so I can't understand where it wouldbe difficult to misunderstand. "criticized for what commentators and criticts described as" is a prelude to the entire criticism section and he was indeed described by a commentator as far-left. Do we really need to open a linguistics RfC here to prove this point or would be so kind as to rephrase the material to a structure of your liking?

p.s. I'm personally unhappy with the overly "grocery list" way that Nableezy entered into the text and would prefer it to be generic.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your problem appears to be basic logic, not basic English. This was included as a source for criticism of Levy for alleged "far-left" views. The source did indeed ascribe far-left views to him; but it did not criticise him. So it cannot be used to validate the statement that he is criticised for such views, only to show that one commentator believes that he has such views. RolandR 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RolandR, you're really just mucking about irrelevant notes. Yes, the source does not criticize him, but merely commentates on things and describes him as far-left. However, this is the first paragraph of a criticism section so I hope you have some other suggestion on how to prelude that he has been commentated upon as a far-left journalist (an issue for which he's received a lot of criticism). Do you prefer the current BS opening inserted by Nableezy? I don't see how that one is going to last long term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, unlike you, I do not regard the term "far left" as a criticism. It is bring added to the article by opponents of Levy, in an attempt to smear him and poison the well. I think it is misplaced, because I don't think Levy is at all far left. I don't think he is a socialist, and I am sure that he does not call for a socialist revolution and the overthrow of capitalist economic and power relations. He is a consistent anti-occupation polemicist, and a supporter of Palestinian rights; but even in this, he does not seem "extreme"; as far as I am aware, he supports an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, and not an anti-Zionist position. It is only in a society such as Israel that Levy's consistent liberal views would be considered "far-left". It is certainly a fact that he has been described as "far left"; I think this tells us more about the person using this term than it does about Levy. RolandR 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're rejecting an attempt to write a somewhat encyclopedic first paragraph for that section because of WP:IDONDLIKEIT reasons? Beacause you disagree with the commentary, made by a reliable source, that he is far left? Do you want me to prove to you that Levy himself agrees that he is far left? Would that help? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am opposing the attempt to pass off a neutral description as a criticism. I am glad ro see that this description has now been moved from the criticism section. I think there are still WP:UNDUE problems with the way this is used, but we can deal with these.RolandR 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, regarding my "BS" formulations (and you saying that made me laugh out loud), if you want to use op-eds to defame a living person you need to at the least explicitly cite it to the op-ed. I am sure you would rather keep it "generic" as that inflates these views to something substantial. But these are op-eds, reliable only for their opinion and in my view should not be used at all. But if they are used the text needs to make clear where these defamatory phrases like "anti-Israeli" come from. nableezy - 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

The discussion above is of relevance and potential interest to all editors of this page, not only to those who stumble across it on my talk page. Please desist from removing it. RolandR 10:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)