Talk:Gideon Levy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

strange edit

edit summary by Zero0000 02:58, 26 January 2010:

(→Criticism: delete 8 year old information; no evidence it is still true)

This is a very strange reason for editing, and I call for it being reverted. Information remains true until proven otherwise, and there is no expiry date on the truth.

Setreset (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone claimed 8 years ago that he didn't speak Arabic. Since 8 years is more than enough time to learn a language, this cannot be used to claim that he doesn't speak Arabic now. Under BLP rules, we are obliged to remove critical content for which no reliable source is given. Zero^talk 15:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that "we have a source for claim A. A could change, therefore we remove it". I am saying that "claim A is true until proven otherwise". Furthermore, we have a source for claim A, and we do not have a source that denies it. Please show me some guideline that says something similar to your opinion. Setreset (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic we could write in the article that he is 10 years old and give a 1963 reference for it. Zero^talk 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Setreset, restored paragraph and added info about the date of the claim. It isn't probably optimal as it is worded now, but it is a start. To Zero: see WP:WELLKNOWN. --Cyclopia^talk 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Even the source implies this is trivial ("maybe this also does not have to be noted"). This is useless drivel that serves no purpose. nableezy - 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000, you revert again without proper discussion against two differing opinions. The "maybe this also does not have to be noted" part could have another meaning which you did not take into account: that it is obvious in the writer's opinion. Contrary to what you say, the cite is relevant criticism on the methodology of the journalist, by a notable source, and corroborated by the subject (Levi) himself. This quote has been added and removed several times before, and discussed in the archive under "Ha'Aretz articles", a discussion which ended without agreement. One of the problems before was a poor translation. I have corrected that. Please provide a reason to remove this sourced information. Setreset (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero did not revert again, I did, and two users have given their reasons for why this material is inappropriate in a BLP. 1, it is outdated; 2, even the source acknowledges that this is not a real issue. nableezy - 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, why does Irit Linur, "one of the first female Israeli writers to consciously and unabashedly write lightweight, romantic fiction", deserve such an amount of space in this article? Zero^talk 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To the point: 1. The information is not outdated, it is well known for the past 8 years. The truth does not expire. 2. Irit Linur is a notable journalist. Please do not cloud the issue of notability by quoting from the middle of her wikipedia article.

Not to the point: indeed I didn't notice it was you (nableezy) who made the second revert. However you were both wrong in reverting without agreement on the talk page. Setreset (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How in the world can you say "the truth does not expire"? To repeat what Zero wrote above, would a sourced statement from a 1963 reference be acceptable to say that today Levy is 10 years old? nableezy - 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue of this "criticism" representing a single persons opinion on what is or is not "amateur journalism". Seriously, why does Irit Linor's opinion get so much space in this article? nableezy - 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would a generic statement like "The actual knowledge of Arabic by Levy has been disputed in the past" be agreeable? --Cyclopia^talk 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like the criticism as it is. It shows how mindless and shallow are his critics. I mean, the New York Times foreign correspondence staff (Jane Perlez, Dexter Filkins and Mark Mazzetti) just won the Pulitzer prize for their reporting on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and none of them speaks Afghani or Pakistani. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's actually a better reason for deleting it unless we can add that context somehow (I guess just finding some RS making the same point you are?). Because without that context it actually appears as though it might be a legitimate criticism. -- Irn (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, do you see that you are in the minority here? Please be careful about going against consensus based on your speculation. If you have evidence that would dispel the criticism, please provide it immediately.--Shuki (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure that I am in the minority here? How do you see consensus for including the information? nableezy - 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again, the classic Nableezy GAME. Take a strong personal stand, and then don't allow any other edit while adding endless non-productive banter to tire the others out until they lose interest.

FWIW, the information was already there, there is no consensus to remove it and your interpretation of BLP has certainly not been accepted. Don't remove the material again until a clear consensus is reached. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You say something that is patently false (only one editor has objected to the material) and then say I am GAMEing by calling you out for that falsehood. Good luck with that; I dont feel like dealing with your nonsense right now, so fare thee well. nableezy - 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The original form of the text had no citation, and there is no consensus for replacement. So it is out until consensus is reached. Zero^talk 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

notability of criticism

As per argument of Ravpapa, who made a good point but referred to it emotionally: this criticism may be shallow in your opinion, and it may contrast with other reporters being commended while having the same fault, it is still notable and valid criticism. Find a notable source that says this is not a problem and put it in the article as well. Setreset (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

There are some editors involved in a contentious edit on this page, and I would like to try to help. First, the allegation sounds like a very serious charge that could harm this individual, and so it must have a really good source. Second, in my opinion, I am unable to give credence to any source for a serious charge like this that is not in ENGLISH here on this ENGLISH WP. Finally, I will tell you that if this edit warring continues, this article is likely to get some administrative attention that will benefit no one. If getting this harmful charge into this BLP is so important, I suggest that you use your time finding a better source rather than edit warring here.--Jarhed (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issue here. The claim is not at all a "very serious charge", though Levy's opponents would like to make it appear so. It is, as a number of editors have pointed out, not really significant at all, and does not reflect on Levy's professionalism or credibility. It is being presented here, without context, as a scandal, which is why it should be removed.

The question of language, however, is irrelevant. If the statement is appropriate, but the only available source is not English, then that can certainly be used. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page, as appropriate. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedians." There are Hebrew-speaking editors on "both sides" of this content dispute, so the accuracy of translation is not at issue here. RolandR (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source of the fact that Gideon Levy does not speak Arabic is his own admission in an interview from 8 years ago. Zero0000 and Nableezy claim it is out of date. What is disputed is whether to include it here, and whether to include criticism of Irit Linur which is based on this fact. Setreset (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you refer to this as an "admission", as though this is a crime, or something to be ashamed of? The very language you use betrays your unfavourable interpretation of this. Nableezy, Ravpapa and I all argue that, regardless of the current truth or otherwise of this statement, it is actually of little relevance. Why do you insist that it is relevant? RolandR (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This is not an interpretation. Citing Levy: Interview with Gideon Levy (in Hebrew),(2002-2-26) :

"אתה מדבר ערבית?

לגבי השפה הערבית, לבושתי הגדולה לא, זה המחדל הגדול שלי. היה לי מורה פרטי ובמשך שנה הצלחתי לקלוט רק מילה אחת, שהיא תודה. (שגם ידעתי אותה לפני כן). "

Translation:

"Do you speak Arabic?

As regards the Arabic language, to my big shame no, it is my big (omission, failure; neglect מחדל). I had a private teacher and during one year I managed to learn one word, which is thank you. (which I already knew)"

As regards POV: I have not edited the whole article. I only put in one sourced notable contribution which was deleted for the wrong reasons. Why do I think that it is important? because, in contrast to other arguments which attack his POV in the conflict, this is a factual criticism of his methodology. It is true. It is sourced. It is notable. Why was it deleted? Please check the reasons given above for the deletion by Zero0000 and Nableezy.

Setreset (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue can find a compromise. I have no reason to think that the translation above is not reliable, and there is no policy/guideline whatsoever that forces us to English sources (and by all means we shouldn't be forced to use sources in one language only). That said, to say or imply that the subject currently does not speak the language based on a 8-y.o. interview is WP:OR, even if there were no BLP concerns. But it should be enough to say "In 2002, Levy in an interview admitted that at the time he didn't speak Arabic[source] and this attracted criticism[source]". I think this is factual and accurate, and does not imply that now the subject hasn't possibly improved his knowledge. --Cyclopia^talk 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal. Setreset (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't; the word "admitted" makes this sound like a crime, and should be replaced by a neutral word. RolandR (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"said" is also ok for me. Setreset (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think that it's not really notable, but I could accept that formulation. RolandR (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to be bold and try an edit based on consensus above -let me know. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please insert in the cites the original text and translation, of irit linur as appears in my previous edit and of his interview above? (I re-copy here from my edit)

<ref name="IritLetter">Translation:"Furthermore, and maybe this also does not have to be noted, his whole carrer is touched with unseriousness, since he is one of the few journalists for Arab matters in the world who does not speak Arabic, does not understand Arabic and does not read Arabic. He gets a simultaneous translation, and that's enough. For me, that is amateur journalism." <br>''{{rtl-para|he|"כמו כן, ואולי גם את זה לא צריך לציין, כל הקריירה שלו נגועה בחלטוריזם, מכיוון שהוא אחד הכתבים היחידים בעולם לעניינים ערביים, שלא יודע ערבית, לא מבין ערבית ולא קורא ערבית. מתרגמים לו סימולטנית, וזה מספיק. לטעמי, זו עיתונות חובבנית."}}</ref>

The real problem

This argument over what languages Gideon Levy speaks or doesn't speak is so marginal to the real problem with this article as to be almost risible. Because the real problem is with the lead: "...what he describes as Palestinian hardships and suffering in the West Bank, which he attributes to the actions of Israel and to Jewish Settlers." This sentence strongly suggests that the Palestinian hardships and suffering he describes, and the attribution of this suffering to actions of Israelis, is somehow a broad interpretation of his own, and not a factual recital of the situation.

For example, take the article from November 27, 2009: "Mourning uprooted olive trees in West Bank villages". This is an article about a village in the West Bank where Israeli settlers have demolished homes, destroyed olive fields, torched crops. The suffering is real, not his invention; nor is the culpability of the settlers a matter of his attribution. The lead is written in a way that casts aspersions on the accuracy of his reporting, and that presents his column as essentially unbased editorial.

I am not suggesting that Gideon Levy does not have a clear bias, and that he does not pick his cases and causes to support a clear (and unpopular) political agenda. But to suggest that his reporting is simply a matter of "description" and "attribution" is clearly an attempt to malign.

I would suggest something like, "where he reports on cases of Palestinian hardships in the West Bank and Gaza." And leave it at that.

Respectfully, and hoping not to stir up too much of a hornet's nest, I am --Ravpapa (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if it is "the" real problem, but it is "a" real problem. nableezy - 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your concern is half-true. "What he describes as" is problematic for sure. "Attributes" make sense IMHO: there are several POVs on the subject (while I can broadly agree personally with you that it is a fact, it is a much complex issue) and it seems to me the most neutral way to describe his reporting. --Cyclopia^talk 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

translations in the reference section

Why do we need these translations filling up the reference section? no one ever goes down there reading, anyway we have our content that is an interpretation of the citation and if anyone is bothered they can use google translate and have a look them elves, sometimes less is more, imo it just messes up the reference section enlarges the page with such small text that the majority of people even if they ever found the text, would never be able to read it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The translations are needed, see WP:NONENG. And google translate is absolute crap for languages like Hebrew or Arabic. nableezy - 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No they are not needed at all, we write our version of the content and cite and thats it, it is not our job to translate anything. Looks like that bit of policy has been rewritten recently, personally I would follow obey no rules or whatever its called, as I said no one ever gets down there and it also stops people reaching the external links section, and its too small to read, trim it out imo. I'll have a chat on the policy talkpage, when I have time to see if it is mandatory or what. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not modify your comment after it has been responded to, but that "bit of policy" has said essentially the same thing for at least a year. nableezy - 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are, this is the English Wikipedia and if we are using non-English sources we need to be able to provide English translations of those sources. WP:NONENG, part of the policy on verifiability, specifically says that translations of non-English sources should be provided. nableezy - 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

no one ever goes down there reading - Is this a joke? I, for one, go down there reading, and translations are essential to make the quotes in the refs useful. WP:NONENG is pretty clear on the subject, and for a reason. There is no reason whatsoever to refuse to provide an English translation. --Cyclopia^talk 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the translations are needed. However, what the translations do not convey is the reliability of the source. It is almost impossible for someone like me who does not read Hebrew or Arabic to make a judgement on that. So, in the context of this contentious edit, I urge all editors to focus on getting consensus on the reliability of the source. Once that is done, it should be easy to agree on an NPOV edit that uses the source. And as I said in an earlier section, if this data can be found in an English publication, you could get a lot more assistance from editors such as I.Jarhed (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have reached consensus (see above) that the source - Irit Linur - is notable enough to use in this context. You can judge for yourself by reading her WP article. Usually that is the case with sources even if they are not in english, they are notable enough to have an article. The first source which states that Levy does not speak Arabic is Levy himself on an Israeli respected newspaper, also in hebrew - Ynet. Levy writes in hebrew and therefore most of the material concerning him is in hebrew too. Setreset (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to intrude on a consensus, but surely you can see that the RS standard is not the actual reporter but the media source that the reporter works for. The vetting of reporting through a newsroom process is an important part of RS, and that is why the media source, not the individual reporter, is important.Jarhed (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am starting a rewrite process for this section (started a couple days ago) and am going to add a lot of content to the biography section and the rest of the article in general. While cleaning up the structure and ref-use on the criticism section I expect some concerns to be raised. I am keeping the PMW (extremely notable translating service) as well as the note by mainstream, even though right wing, religious zionism newspaper of inn since their opinion is notable - for now. I am adding their right-wing political affiliation though. Keep an eye out for the changes and raise your concenrs on talk please - we can solve them all through proper discussion and dispute resolution but let's not keep this article in its sub-par state. Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes... will resume the work in a few hours. Note your concerns on talk please without disrupting the rebuilding process. Numerous sources were added. I need to restructure the citations sturctre as well to fit more like the structure SlimV introduced to the al-Durrah article. Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

last edit

Jaak, you reintroduced a number of problems that had been dealt with in the past, such as Der Speigel used to criticize Levy when the source does no such thing, also readding the "what he describes as" in the lead in reference to Palestinian suffering despite there being a section still visible on this talk page that shows a consensus for changing that. Too many other issues to list now, but as I get to them (and fix them) I will. nableezy - 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Would be better if you raise your concerns on the talk page but your edit was mostly agreeable with me.

I did see that you removed "what he describes as" from Levy's heart rending descriptions but also that you added it to Irit Linur for describing his "amateur journalism". Lets decide to keep the word 'describe' for both for NPOV?

I accept the change on the Der Speigel being moved to the sub cancellations. Its not a huge change and if it removes your concerns with the 'not criticism', I'm fine with it.

I hope to continue adding material a bit later today. There's quite disruptive conduct on article space and I've already clarified that the article is going to undergo an overhaul of sorts.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What Linur calls "amateur journalism" is her own opinion, it is an objective statement that what Levy writes about is Palestinian suffering. We discussed this up in #The real problem. And your "major overhaul" is largely reinstating your favored version on a number of issues, I just dont have the patience to go through it right now. And dont expect people to idly sit by as this BLP gets turned into a hatchet job. nableezy - 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's put this in proper perspective, Nableezy. Settlers and Palestinians commit violent attacks on each others. To report on the retribnutions of one side on the other and call it hardships is not entirely an absolute truth. What you consider to be an "objective statement" not objective at all. Certainly, there's quite a number of Israeli critics who say this out loud about his supposed objectiveness and not just Linur -- note that the otehr source mentions this issue as well. Now, instead of playing what is an objective statement (him being described as a hack because he doesn't speak Arabic and only uses politically motivated Palestinian sources or his descriptives of choise) let us agree to be neutral about both perspectives. I'd suggest using 'describes as' for both regardless of the validity of either perspective.

p.s. I am trying to break down the criticism section and also working more details into the rest of the article. If you note, I'm not citing any criticism as an "objective perspective" and that is just one of the issues we're trying to work through here.

Anyways, would you be willing to accept that we should not assert the opinions themselves?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) fix leftover. 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually did cite it as an objective fact, reinstating "describes" for "Palestinian hardships" and just saying "He was criticized for "amateur journalism" for not speaking Arabic and depending on interpreters with an agenda." for the Linur statement, not even attributing this "criticism". You also added "with an agenda" to that line without saying where you got that from. And Levy does report on "Palestinian hardships", full stop. That he ignores supposed "settler hardships" is not relevant to what he does report on. The Linur wording has already been discussed above with a consensus to remove "describes". If you wish to re-add them please get consensus to do so. nableezy - 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with nableezy. There is no '"describes" for "Palestinian hardships"' currently. Interpreters with agenda is not in Linur's letter, and the source currently is unnamed "critics" in ref 13: לקסיקון אנציקלופדי לתקשורת ועיתונות - גדעון לוי. But the rest of the quote of Linur's statement is factual. Setreset (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In review I partially agree as well. The phrasing for the "amateur journalism" was somewhat partial due to the use of the ""s. Still, anyone reading it would most probably understand that it is an opinion -- still the point stands and I accept this concern. Suggesting a phrasings where both are given the same level of credence. Either by paraphrasing Levy's interpretation of retribution attacks as 'hardships' as well as the quality of journalism in the way that the journalism was phrased before or by adding 'described as' prior to each. I'm thinking that the first option is the one that will be more long lasting. Both sources, btw, criticised his quality as journalist. Anyways, is this agreeable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and stop calling them "retribution attacks". nableezy - 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

WP:NPOV is a core policy and I'm feeling that you're not allowing other perspectives to be properly represented. I wish that you make a better effort in this department.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

There's numerous ways of describing the attacks by either of the sides on their opponent. Whether its a Palestinian entering Itzhar and stabbing a 9 year old[1] or a settler uprooting Palestinian trees. Levy calls it "hard reality on the Palestinian" per our sources. I figure that one is the most accurate and its sourced. I'm a bit tired of this standstill and that now you're removing cited text (read the translation please). I'll introduced my suggested compromise and move on to make some further changes. If this doesn't work out, we'll enter dispute resolution. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what "core policy" is and I know that I have little respect for your understanding of it. Nowhere in the translation of the Linur letter is translators "having an agenda". And Linur's opinion must be attributed. I changed that back. And Der Speigel did not criticize him, so I am taking that out of the criticism section again. Stop trying to force in your changes and stop with the offensive comparisons. We both know that Levy writes about more than "uprooting Palestinian trees" and if you continue to make light of the numerous crimes directed against the Palestinians in the occupied territories we are going to have a problem. nableezy - 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

We have a source so this discussion over calling it "crimes" or "retribution" and which one is more offensive to what side seems redundant. I have a couple notes for now that are germane to your recent edit:

(a) The cited source saying that critics believe he's using translatiors with a political agenda. As such, you should not change their critique.

(b) Would you mind explaining why you removed the subsection of the sub cancellation?

(c) Do you believe that calling someone the most radical does not fall under criticism?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

a, which source? the Linur source says no such thing, at least the translation does not. b, the same reason it was removed in the past, it does not merit a section heading. c, no. nableezy - 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

(a) There is another source for the criticism and another in which Levy attests that he could not learn any Arabic despite having a totur for a year. Overall 3 sources to support this phrase (see Gideon_Levy#Criticism). The source where there is criticism towards the partizan nature of his translators is 2-[a] at the current version. (b) As for the subscription cancellations, it is obviously not a generic crit but a noteworthy occorrance of a wave of cancellations forllowing an open letter by Irit Linur and the section holds both the cancellations as well as the response by publisher Amos Shoken. There's no merit in keeping it within the other criticism structure since it doesn't fit. (c) How would you describe it then? Do we really need to open an RfC over this one?

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which source supports "interpreters with an agenda"? And I would describe "most radical" as "most radical". Der Spiegel in no way criticizes Levy and to pretend that he does is at best an oversight and at worst outright dishonesty. Seeing as you have done this multiple times, even after agreeing to separate it from the criticism, makes me believe that is is not an oversight. nableezy - 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

Its in העין השביעית, currently marked as 2-[a] see Gideon_Levy#Criticism). I request that you delete your personal attack above (per "worst outright dishonesty"). I noted that der-spiegel/la monde descriptives fit well as an opener for the 'often raises criticism' issue since it clarifies notability and is a form of criticque. There's no surprise that we see things differntly but it doesn't mean that neither of us should call the other dishonest.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Interests" != "agenda". And since you raised that source, I wonder why you neglect to include the part about the "other side" who argue that his work "faithfully reflects the harsh reality of the Palestinians"? nableezy - 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

I translated the text faithfully and indeed added the other side's argument. Its in the same paragraph and cited to part [b] of the same source. Give it a look :)

Agenda/Other side: Now, I understand that 'interests' is slightly different than 'agenda', but both are faithful translations of the text. One (interests) is more literal and the other conveys the meaning more accurately for the English reader. The argument here seems to revolve around the language barrier for you and Hebrew. If you have other suggestions, I'm open to hear them, but there really wasn't any oversight (or other) with the use of the source.

Der Spiegel/Le Monde: As for the use of Der Spiegel/Le Monde issue, we seem to disagree on policy. There's the opener to the criticism secion which starts by noting that Levy often "raises controversy". Repeating myself a bit, I note that to support the notability of this there are two international, non-Israeli, magazines which noticed. It matters not if they criticize him in order to make note that they noticed and though English is not my first language, I don't believe it comes off as though they are the ones raising the criticism as much as they are noticing it and naming it. Before we move on to dispute resolution over this, I'd like you to try and give a look to whichever policy you think is fitting as your argument to avoid inclusion and we'll try and resolve this amongst ourselves through concensus building.

Subs-cancellations section: The process of biulding the article includes breaking off sections that are more 'occurance' than a continuous event. You haven't really responded to this and I tend to think you haven't changed your mind. Still, I request you review the way the article was with the addition of the section. It seems like a clear improvement and my only suggestion at this point (unless you're willing to reconisider) is dispute resolution.

p.s. I'd still appreciate it if you remove the WP:NPA vio.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1, Ill ask somebody I trust for a translation. 2, if the source does not criticize him you cannot imply that it does. 3, I dont feel that merits its own section, but I dont particularly care. ps, there is no "NPA vio" so no. nableezy - 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the phrase "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים." can or should be translated as "Interpreters with an agenda". It is properly "interpreters with an interest", or possibly "involved interpreters". To suggest that the writer intended "interpreters with an agenda" would surely be synthesis; it's not what is written. It's also worth noting that this text (from the Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the Israeli Media, presumably a neutral source) states: "בטור מביא לוי מדי שבוע סיפורים אישיים של פלסטינים שנפגעו מפעולות הצבא בגדה המערבית וברצועת עזה." "Each week, Levi presents in his column personal stories of Palestinians who have been harmed by army operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". No "what he describes as...", but a neutral and reliable source stating unequivocally what has been wrangled over in the lead paragraph. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

Translation: The source surely doesn't say that his sources are involved and while "with an interest" is indeed the literal translation, it certainly does mean, san-synthesis, that they have a political interest in the matter. i.e. they have an agenda.

IDF injured: I'm not sure why you're talking about Palestinian IDF related injury as though the are descriptives. Where did you get the impression that this is what I was referring to with the earlier argument (cite the diff please)? I actually added that section into the article "unequivocally" to the proper location.

Nableezy,

Der Spiegel/Le Monde: I'm not sure I'm following you. Where does the text "imply that [the sources]" criticise him?

Levy's ideological work often raises controversy, and he was described by Le Monde as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and by Der Spiegel as "[Israel's] most radical commentator".

Before we move on to dispute resolution over this, I'd like you to try and give a look to whichever policy you think is fitting as your argument to avoid inclusion.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? I did not say it should not be included, I said it should not be included as criticism. Having it lead into other sources criticizing him makes it seem as though these sources are doing so as well. They are not. nableezy - 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
Well,
The 3 sources cited for the first line don't criticise him and the sentense doesn't criticse him either. They pose as an indication for the "controversy". I undestand your concern but it is not policy based. Most readers would be able to differentiate the two sentences. Are you seeing my point about context of each sentense?
Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I need an indication from you about my argument so I know what to do with this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is "policy based", it is OR, specifically SYNTH, for you to use publications that do not criticize Levy and connect that to criticism of Levy. nableezy - 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And stop trying to force your edits in, at least two users have objected to your phrasing on multiple things. nableezy - 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

(a) Did you understand my explanation to RolandR?

(b) Did you understand my explanation about each sentense stating a different thing?

I'm certainly not imposing anything here and I'd be happy to explain if you're interested and also to take things to dispute resolution where it is unavoidable.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand it, I just think it is wrong. And about the Der Spiegel and Le Monde pieces. You have them opening the section entitled "criticism" and then pretend as though that it is not being presented as "criticism" when it directly leads into "criticism". These pieces do not criticize Levy, so to use these pieces to lead into the criticism is unacceptable. I dont think this is too difficult to understand. And you are "imposing", you have re-reverted to your favored version on a number of issues after multiple others have said why they feel those edits are inappropriate. I do not want to keep playing this game, so kindly stop. nableezy - 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

I went ahead and opened it for community opinions. Let's get back to the translation issue for now and wait to see how uninvolved editors see that one-liner.

Note my discussion above with RolandR that his literal translation was accurate but his suggestion of "involved" was quite wrong and even more suggestive for the translators being terrorists than the use of the word 'agenda'. The text does identify the translators as "[having] intersts" so I'm open to suggestions but there's really no problem with the word 'agenda' to summerise this. Still, if you insist on 'involved' or are willing to suggest another replacement, I'm open to hear it.

Let me know, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why dont you just use "with interests"? nableezy - 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

The literal translation doesn't really capture the essense of the Hebrew in this case. That is why RolandR was looking for an expanded term as well. I'm assuming you would not prefer his 'involved' over 'agenda'. Anyways, we should find a way to caputre the basic meaning of the Hebrew text.

Note to self: there might be room to slightly rephrase the translation from Hebrew to clarify this issue.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer involved if that is what the Hebrew means. And given that another user has said that "interests" is the correct translation I expect that you will not change the translation to fit your favored narrative. nableezy - 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

(a) Make comments about content, not editors.

(b) There's no preferred narative. It is what the source is saying. The literal translation doesn't capture the essense of the Hebrew in this case. RolandR suggested "involved", I suggested "agenda". Do you want to decide on one of the two or maybe make another suggestion that does capture the meaning of the Hebrew? Another option is to obtain another translator.

Let me know, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Changelist

1) change lead with source "hard reality" and rephrase 'modest mission' back into quote form. 2) der-spiegel/la monde descriptives for 'often raises criticism' -- clarifies notability and is a form of criticque. 3) Vice-editor/IDF/Section B - bio stuff 4) Readdmitting partizan translators thing - it's in the source. 5) PMW analysis - we've been through this numerous times. If you disagree, bring it up on talkpage please and we'll see what solution we can come up with. 6) Reintroduce Criticism by 4th Top news site in Israel (Arutz Sheva News[2]). 7) Add about book and communism doco and weekly talkshow/interview show. Will continue at another time. Feel free to raise your concerns - please use the talkpage. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Next up - "מעולם לא נכנסתי כך לבית שהיה ביתי השני, בית הספר הגבוה שלי לפוליטיקה ולחברה הישראלית." and work from there. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1045813 -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy/Criticism - lead sentense and SYNTH/OR

I've phrased the first paragraph of criticism towards a quite controversial journalist with 3 sources that note his articles to often raise controversy.

Levy's ideological work often raises controversy, and he was described by Le Monde as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and by Der Spiegel as "[Israel's] most radical commentator".^-[a] He was criticized for "amateur journalism" for not speaking Arabic and depending on interpreters with an agenda.^-[a] (Static link to criticism section)

Nableezy, believes that putting the Der-Spiegel source into this line for the criticism section "is OR, specifically SYNTH, for you to use publications that do not criticize Levy and connect that to criticism of Levy."[3]

The text above shows notability of controversy. Other sources and comentators are used for actual "He has been criticized by..." criticism.

Would appreciate some external perspective here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issue, it specifically says "Levy's ideological work often raises controversy". It would be even better if it said "... and his work was described by..." rather than "... and he was described by..." But I don't see any real SYNTH issue, this is showing the controversy of his work. The criticism about him specifically is mentioned after this sentence.  fetchcomms☛ 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the source, Der Speigel, is not at all criticizing Levy, yet the line on his being "the most radical" is being used to bolster others criticism. How can you lead the section on "criticism" with a source that does not criticize him at all. That line is not a "criticism" of Levy but it is being used to set up other people's opinions about his work. There is no connection between what Der Sperigel wrote and what it is being connected to in the text. nableezy - 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These arguments over the Criticisms section are all focusing on minute details, in a subtle maneuvering to make Levy look more or less bad. In fact, though, the whole section is very weak. It gives no sense of the true picture: that Levy is a leading representative and chronicler on one side of a broad political spectrum, in a country where political divisions are magma-deep. By collecting a bunch of essentially random and often trivial and repetitive comments from critics whose place in the political spectrum is never identified, you give no real sense of the depth of the controversy.

If I were writing this section, I would trim out most of the criticisms, and try to put those that remain into their correct political context. I would attempt this myself, but I know how touchy everyone is, so without some agreement on the principle, I will remain hands-off. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but with the way the article currently is do you have any thoughts on whether a quote from Der Speiigel which not criticizing Levy should be used to lead the criticism section? nableezy - 08:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the author of this section has tried to pass of Der Spiegel's commentary as a criticism, when it is not. But the Der Spiegel quote does make it clear why Levy is criticized: because the government and its supporters don't like him.

By the same token, is '...showing a "particular attitude towards the State of Israel" ' a criticism? Doesn't sound like one to me. Is there any writer about Israel that does not have a particular attitude on the subject? It is simply a stupid thing to say. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(Oops, sorry, I meant the LeMonde quote. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Well,

We seem to have some consensus on the first sentense pointing out the notability.

Ravpapa,

I agree with you about context and order. I created a restructure but there were some reverts by Nableezy due to policy misunderstandings. I merged some of the critique and made note of notables within two paragraphs, each dealing with one topic. One, general criticism, the other with accusations that he's helping/promoting/being hailed by muqawama organizations.(static link)

Anyways, if you think someone not notable was given too much credit, let me know and I'd be happy to try and address it - let's do this on a separate section intended for this though.

p.s. Ravpapa, comment on content please.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) clarification and added request. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is this consensus that you speak of? And I thought you were asked to not use the word muqawama. nableezy - 16:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess one uninvovled editor and another involved editor agreeing that it shows notability is not enough of a consensus in your opinion. I'm not in an extreme rush. I'll wait for one/two more perspectives on this.

p.s. Hamas translates to Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah. I'm not sure it is better to start calling them either terrorist or freedom fighters and I'm still thinking of the best way of handling cases where I'm addressing such groups and the associated ideology. In general, I am trying to avoid the use of the word, more-so, when Tiamut is involved. Do you have any suggestions for me on usage in the current context?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You could use the English translation, "resistance", or if you mean Hamas just say Hamas. Or Palestinian militants, or any number of things you could use. I dont care tho. nableezy - 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Hamas as an example. Anyways, this is really not the place to discuss why your suggestion doesn't work as the discussion was about Der-Spiegel/Le Monde. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of a full blown consensus vs. a soft one, we've retitled the section to 'reception' so this discussion is pretty much over.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The field of external links...

...needs to be attacked by a group of angry editors applying policy to limit them to those that comply with WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE.

I suggest
Yes

• Gideon Levy's Official Lecturer Page...I suppose.

Maybe

• Selection of articles by Levy...but it doesn't include recent articles. Recent articles could be supplemented by this from israeli-occupation.org but I appreciate that some people may not think it's appropriate to potentially drive readers to these sites (..although I think israeli-occupation.org is a great site in terms of doing what it sets out to do). It would be better if the Haaretz site would allow you to get a list of articles but that doesn't seem possible.
• Interview with Levy on PBS (2003)
• An open letter to Gideon Levy By A.B. Yehoshua, Haaretz 16/01/2009
• An open response to A.B. Yehoshua By Gideon Levy

No

• Twilight Zone 'We saw death a thousand times'
• Gideon Levy, ‘One swift kick’, Haaretz 6/6/2008
• Gideon Levy, 'The neighborhood bully strikes again ', Haaretz 12/28/2008
• Articles on Iran: 'Days of darkness' by Gideon Levy
• Author: Gideon Levy (voltairenet.org)
• Article about Levy in the French daily Le Monde September 2006

Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll review those policies and try to understand how they work in order to fix up your concern about this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One agreement: the two sources: (#Articles on Iran: 'Days of darkness' by Gideon Levy) (#Author: Gideon Levy (voltairenet.org)) are the same, I would remove the first one since it is a copy of the second.

However, I think you are mostly wrong. The references are not very good, but they are what we currently have. Removing any of them at this point would only narrow the point of view of this article. About WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, I suggest you explicitly quote a rule after linking to a guideline, since we cannot really understand from your list why you reject a source. Try one link which is the worst in your opinion and write why. Note that the links currently summarize a wide view of Levy's work and criticism, so if you remove one you should be careful to keep the article balanced.

The best thing is to find notable secondary sources, that usually show a wider perspective of everything. The problem is that we don't have any. Neither does the article in Hebrew. Setreset (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can read WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE yourself. They are very short. :) If a link doesn't meet the yes or maybe criteria it's in the no set. Gideon Levy's Official Lecturer Page get a yes simply because it's his official page. The Selection of articles by Levy gets a maybe because it's the closest thing we have to a decent selection of the material he writes via one link. The pbs.org got a maybe because I was just being nice. I personally think it's neither a yes or a maybe. The open letter exchange got a maybe because I wanted to add something for NPOV compliance but then I had to add Levy's response. All of the others got a no because they weren't yes or maybe. We shouldn't link to individual articles by Levy. It's not an archive of his work and if we include them we would need to balance them. It would end up being like giant ext link farms you often see in I-P related articles. The Le Monde article is behind a paywall and I have no reason to believe that it complies with "..neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." There should just be small number of high quality links. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

..and in the meantime I have removed the links to improve WP:EL compliance. They are not references by the way, they don't currently summarize a wide view of Levy's work and criticism (it would be great if we had links that did that but we don't) and I'm not 'mostly wrong'. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Misquotes and mistranslations

Jaakobou earlier made an edit/reversion, with the edit summary "RolandR, I believe, accepted translation response ("agenda")" What I wrote above was: I do not believe that the phrase "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים." can or should be translated as "Interpreters with an agenda".If Jaakobou reads this as agreeing with his tendentious translation, then I suggest that his understanding of the English language is so poor as to disqualify him from editing on English Wikipedia. And to make this even more unambiguous, the Hebrew does not mean, and cannot reasonably be translated to mean, "Translators with an agenda". RolandR (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed a smear on Levy, consisting of an appalling translation by Levy of a blog entry, for some reason sourced to a news aggregator, rather than to the original source (israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=272685&blogcode=110007650, deliberately not linked here). RolandR (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello RolandR, please do not insult other users. As for your comment: "Agenda", as in political agenda is not far from the actual meaning of "אינטרסים". Arguably, "Interests" as in National interest might be a better candidate for translation since it is the origin of the word "אינטרסים". Note that the two terms are quite similar, and "agenda" may be considered better since it is more used in similar contexts. Setreset (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is merely your interpretation of what the writer may have meant. It is not what he wrote. And it is certainly not what I agreed that he wrote, to claim this is to completely distort the meaning of what I wrote. RolandR (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a blog why was it being used in a BLP ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2 different things. nableezy - 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is right; we are talking about two different sources. The "interpreters with interests/agenda" is sourced to the "Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the Israeli Media", which I believe is a neutral source -- though I will check. I removed an entirely separate smear, taken indirectly from a blog but sourced to a news aggregator. But all of the translations are poor, there is too much badly sourced criticism, and the whole article reads too much like "Gideon Levy the Israel-hater and his apologists". I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch, and if I had the time I would do so.RolandR (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating on nableezy's Zen Koan. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, RolandR, the hebrew "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים" says exactly what I wrote: either "interpreters with interests" (more literally) or "interpreters with agenda" (more commonly used). It is a plain translation. Setreset (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight, Setreset. It seems that we agree 'agenda' is quite a legitimate translation and the one more commonly used.

p.s. I've no idea where RolandR gets the idea that anything was brought to this article from a blog. Last time I checked, I didn't see anything related to a blog.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou has restored the Uri Heitner blog comment. I have again removed it, and raised the reliability and acceptability of this source at the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gideon Levy. RolandR (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR/Nableezy,
I'm not in the interest of imposing a soft consensus (Jaakobou and Setreset vs. RolandR) on the best way to translate the Hebrew into this issue of translators. There is a need, though, to explain what the Hebrew is saying if the literal translation of "with interests" doesn't convey it. I'm open to suggestions if you have anything besides "with an agenda" that conveys the meaning of the Hebrew.
Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I simply do not accept that "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים" can validly be translated as "translators with an agenda". The Hebrew means that they are interested parties, somehow involved with the issue; the term "agenda" suggests that they have an intentional purpose. It is not what the text says. It could be a possible meaning of the text; but it is not a necessary or exclusive meaning, and using the word "agenda" in English gives a clear meaning which is not in the Hebrew original. RolandR (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,You did not comment on "interests". Setreset (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clumsy, but I suggest that the closest English equivalent is "translators who are interested parties"; the English word "interest" has several meanings, not all of which are conveyed by the Hebrew "אינטרס", so simply writing "interested translators" could mean that they are not bored. This is not a possible translkation of the Hebrew usage. RolandR (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Setreset (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as well. Glad to see we can come to a full consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism or Opposition

I suggest that we change the title of the section from "Criticism" to "Opposition". Almost nothing in the section is really a criticism. Claiming that Levy is "proPalestinian" or "antiIsraeli" is a criticism only in the eyes of those who are antiPalestinian or proIsraeli. Saying that he is a thorn in the side of the government, or that he is Israel's most radical columnist, are only criticisms in the eyes of government supporters or those opposed to deviant opinions.

Linur's charge of amateurism is a real criticism, but, as I have said before, is so unbased as to be almost childish. And Gideon Ezra's suggestion to sic the Shin-Bet on Levy is not a criticism, it is a threat.

So I suggest that, short of a complete rewrite (or deletion) of this section, we at least rename it to more accurately reflect its (pretty marginal) content. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is that the section contains "criticism and opposition". Therefore, that is how it should be named. That or "opposition and criticism". Setreset (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what he said. Also the recommendations are at WP:CRIT. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, how about "Controversy"? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is devouted to critique. I sub-cancellations is a controversy of sorts, but best to give the informative title. CJCurrie or Nableezy have yet to give a proper reason to delete the heading. In general, I figure 'Controversy' is not the best choice in the long term and 'criticism' works better. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What, to your way of thinking, is a criticism in this section (aside from Linur's complaint about Arabic)? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism that his words are glorified by Palestinian groups seems to fall under the category. Also the critique that he has (according to the ones criticising) an anti-Israeli perspective on journalism. Its really not about a single controversy. Under that category we have the sub-cancellations wave (after Linur's letter) as the only notable one that I can think of. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that Palestinian groups are paying him a compliment by quoting him ("glorifying" seems an interpretation on your part). By the same token, being anti-Israeli is a criticism only in the eyes of pro-Israelis. That was precisely my point above. These things are, as you quite correctly point out, controversies. They are not criticisms. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, a criticism is a statement that he does something badly: that he is inaccurate, or careless, or has bad spelling. To say that he supports one position or another is not a criticism. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It does fall under criticism, because a journalist has to report the truth.

His opponents say that his views are the basis of his work:

"הביקורת על גדעון לוי ועמירה הס מתבססת על כך שהם יוצאים מבסיס השקפה אנטי-ישראלי שיש בו העדפה לצד הפלשתיני על פני הצד של בני עמם."

His supporters say that his work reflects the reality:

"מנגד נטען כי עבודתו משקפת בנאמנות את המציאות הקשה בצד הפלסטיני"

Therefore it is criticism which is also countered as such. Setreset (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the WP:Criticism which Sean.hoyland pointed to, it seems that the preferred term in wikipedia is "reception", even for complete criticism sections. I would suggest simply following the guideline.Setreset (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

interesting suggestion. We'd still need to separate praise from criticism. No? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We write the facts and opinions as faithfully as we can, sticking to the sources, and the reader decides whether that is praise or criticism. Setreset (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Might create a situation of imbalance where criticism/praise is inserted by editors who are more interested in pushing a perspective than in building the bio to quality levels. When it were Criticism, it was clear on how to construct. Now it's a little less clear. I'm assuming we should insert a sub-section of 'awards' into this reception area. Not sure its the best choice, but I'm not yet an expert on MOS and don't have exceedingly stgonr feelings either way about the main heading (crit/recep). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I always think it's a bit like putting a sign that says "Women only" over a door. You're only encouraging woman to use the door (although it's a bit more complicated where I live). We shouldn't just be aiming for criticism or steering people away from NPOV compliance. There should be a representative spectrum of opinions from notable commentators and we need to try to show all of the colors or else we won't make neutral white light. The section has to comply with NPOV. That means it's not an option to just have negative views in this (or any other) article assuming of course that not everyone has a negative opinion. It isn't an option because "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Editors can't just add a piece of criticism or praise and walk away expecting someone else to fix any NPOV compliance issues that result from their edit just because it's sourced and complies with WP:V. They have no choice but to balance the material they add if it dramatically disturbs the balance or simply not add it at all in order to comply with a core policy. Edits have to maximise NPOV compliance which is a measurable thing. That can mean that under some circumstances removing criticism or praise increases compliance with a core policy if there is no sign that anyone is going to bother to balance it. Unbalanced material can't be left languishing in an article. That's my interpretation of the policies anyway, not that it matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

<- ..and on that note, here are some positive views from some fellow journalists

Johann Hari in The Independent

• "the heroic Israeli journalist"
• "Israel has given us great novelists like Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, great film-makers like Joseph Cedar, great scientific research into Alzheimer's, and great dissident journalists like Amira Hass, Tom Segev and Gideon Levy to expose her own crimes.

Robert Fisk The Independent - "why is it that Haaretz's top correspondents – Amira Hass and Gideon Levy – write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do?"

Phil Reeves in The Independent - "Gideon Levy, a respected left-wing columnist" Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good find. The independent supports him. Don't give them more weight than they deserve though. Fisk promotes a borderline personality/antisemitic cartooninst and the magazine has yet to retract their uranium bombs claims from 2006 even after a Lebanese team determined it to be without basis. In short, they are notable enough but not quite on the reliable side of things when Israel is in question. This source is probably on the "mainstream" of supporters where ther are more moderate ones and more extereme ones. Its a good find to start with IMHO. Anyways, I'd like to resolve the recent Omedia thing in a collegiate atmosphere and I haven't really found some acceptance that the source is indeed from Omedia rather than an unrelated blog. That would be a good step forward IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's not from Omedia. The only two places where this text can be found agree that it was written by settler blogger Uri Heitner, not by Omedia editor Ran Farhi. Until you can cite a verifiable source for your claim, it cannot be used.RolandR (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call Johann Hari a borderline personality just because he's gay and Scottish. Oh right, you weren't talking about him. My mistake. I'm not aware of Fisk promoting any cartoonists and I'm not sure who you mean (although I assume it's someone like Latuff). Anyway, here isn't the place to participate in what Fisk himself once described quite nicely as being vilified for telling the truth, although I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care much. I wasn't really suggesting we include this material at this point or verbatim. It was more like the start of an effort to find some other notable commentators to give us a bit of a broader perspective that we could summarise. I was really looking for some in depth pieces about Levy by people outside of the conflict zone but I haven't had time yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant it when I said it was a good find, Sean. On the other issue, I am happy, that at the very least we've reached an agreement that it was indeed an article on Omedia rather than something that originated in a blog. I'm making a quick review of recent changes, not all of them fall within proper paragraph/topical construction and also, they don't work with a clear chronological order. We need to get this solved and I wouldn't want to mass revert things and build anymosity needlessly when I do agree that the content is fitting for the article. Just the structuring needs to be thought of.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see "agreement" that this was "an article on Omedia rather than something that originated in a blog"? nableezy - 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you've seen the Omedia original as well. Please stop acting disruptively; you've just been released from a 2 month extention to a 2 month ban. Enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats just silly. Answer the question, where do you see "agreement" that this was "an article on Omedia rather than something that originated in a blog"? As far as I can tell you are the only person to say that this is from Omedia. Roland has said he has found it elsewhere and cannot find any trace to it being on Omedia. I took it on good faith that the reference in the article was real and the translation accurate. But given another user has said that a. the translation is bad, and b. the piece can be found only on a blog, I have no reason to continue to assume that the ref was genuine. Dont make these stupid accusations about acting disruptively. nableezy - 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on Omedia, I don't have one. I haven't seen it so I'm staying out of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont see where you made a position, in fact the only positions I see made are by Jaakobou and Roland. So the idea that there is an "admission" (as Jaak wrote above) or an "agreement" that this is from Omedia is puzzling. nableezy - 03:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Ezra's comment

The reference for the claim that Gideon Ezra wanted Levy tailed by the Shin Bet takes me to the homepage of the Israel Democracy Institute. I can't find the article referred to. Can someone fix the reference (or provide another)? tnx --Ravpapa (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The url in the footnote defaults to the IDI homepage. I have searched the site, in both English and Hebrew, but cannot find the source for this claim. I suspect that it is true, and the original source is hidden somewhere; perhaps someone can help find it.

The IDI also has a page[4] (in Hebrew only) from where you can access the complete electoral lists of all parties in all of Israel's elections. This would have been very useful in a previous semi-dispute at Ilan Pappé, and I note it here for the benefit of other editors. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I found here a different source without the exact quote. Still, there's a very similar insinuation to the one made on the other source that is difficult to access. Also found this one that basically repeats the original quote's core idea only without the mincing of words:

• "סגן השר גדעון עזרא, סגן ראש השב"כ לשעבר, העז להמליץ לשב"כ לחקור חלק מהעיתונאים בישראל ורמז כי העיתונאים גדעון לוי ועמירה הס מ"הארץ" אשמים בבגידה."

I'm open to suggestions on how to handle this issue.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This column by Nahum Barnea - here - is actually quite interesting and I wouldn't mind bringing some of its contents into the page somehow. Suggestions would be welcome. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So please update the reference. Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Changelist 2

1) Awards to awards section - merge the content from bio into this section. 2) Remove OR about how often he gets published. Sorry it is OR. Can't say "see example here and here" to support the made statement. He gets published on Iranian press as well, and it would be a BLP vio to say the same without a secondary source. 3) Move praise by one foreign paper after more notable public criticism in Israel. 4) rephrase the bulldozer thing, there's no discussion in the source about a connection to Hamas. 5) reinstate omedia, we now have an admission that the original was seen there. 6) Add Fisk into the praise and The independent in general. Add a quote to him, but leave out his standard "war crimes" tantrums as it is not conservative writing. 7) Return translation to "accordance to his world view". I don't know if this is perfect grammar of if 'their' would be better fitting but the original was refering the opinion to the person rather than just referring to the opinion. 8) Not sure why the Arabic issue was removed (I returned it) - it is one of the most notable criticisms. 9) Add Avoda days input into the bio. Used the source I noted of in the 1st changelist. I kind of liked the idea behind some of the made changes but the awards were superimposed and the Independent was made out to have more notability than all the others put together and the Arabic thing is notable for a reporter on Arab issues. I figure the criticism needs the rewrite to be more flowing and less 'direct quote' style... just that some of the changes wern't great IMHO and I'd like to maybe see some of the changes proposed on the talk or maybe just to see them made without removal of content (if that is possible). Apologies Rav, fair attampt indeed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jaakobu, for reverting an attempt to impose a modicum of order, objectivity and correct English on a section that is appallingly written, full of grammatical and spelling errors, and pathetically one-sided. Here is a point by point to your comments:

1. Awards to awards section: The entire "Receptions" section is five paragraphs long. There is no justification for chopping it up into three subsections. It is simply poor composition.
2. How often he gets published: If you do a Google search for Gideon Levy on the New York Times website, you will get dozens of hits in the last couple of years. Likewise for other leading newspapers. The fact is that he is frequently quoted in the international press. To disallow this on the grounds of OR is an extremely strict constructionist interpretation of the rule, and the result is clearly ideologically-inspired exclusion of a demonstrably true statement that is eminently germaine to Levy's standing as a journalist.
3. "Move praise by one foreign paper after more notable public criticism in Israel." I am wondering how you decided that one of Britain's leading papers and France's leading paper are less notable than a third-rate Israeli novelist (quoted three times in your version), the mouthpiece of the Israeli settler movement (quoted three times in your version), and a number of statements that are so vague as to be criticisms only in the eyes of readers with preconceptions ("particular attitude towards the State of Israel" - what on earth does that mean???).
4. Rephrase the bulldozer thing: Okay, nice call about taking out Hamas. Changing "two" to "2" is contrary to accepted English style, but in this version you are the arbiter in these matters.
5. Reinstate omedia. This is Roland's fight. Beat it out with him.
6. Fisk: Leave out what standard war times rant? I didn't include any wartime rant from Fisk?
7. Translation: "accordance to" is not English. But keep it if that is what you prefer. It is only one of many grammatical and composition errors you have made in this revert.
8. Arabic issue: the Arabic issue was not removed. It was included in the discussion of Irit Linur's letter. Putting it at the beginning destroys any sort of logical order in the presentation of Linur's criticisms, and it also gives undue weight to a completely frivolous criticism. But if you think that that is the most important problem with Levy's writing, by all means put it first.
9. Add Avoda days: I have no idea what this is referring to.

Jaakobu, I don't want to make assumptions about your motivations. But the section as it is currently written reads like a subtle but incompetent attempt to smear Levy. Statements that are not criticisms are presented as though they are. Criticisms that are frivolous are presented as if they were serious. Praise has been buried to give it secondary importance. Moreover, the section uses paraphrases instead of direct quotes: this gives the appearance of seriousness and objectivity, when in fact it weakens the import of the original author's criticisms.

Overall, it is biased, misleading, and generally bad. I assume it is that way because that is how you prefer it. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. For those interested in reading my rewrite, it is here. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "admission" that the original smear on Levy was ever seen in Omedia; stop distorting my words, Jaakobou. I agree that it may have been reprinted there, but that is a different thing. At present, we have two verifiable sources that state that this was written by blogger Uri Heitner; and absolutely none to back the assertion by Jaakobou that it was written by Omedia editor Ran Farhi. Consequently, we cannot include this assertion in the article. RolandR (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, if there is no acceptance than how do you explain saying "I accept that the text was previously on Omedia"?[5] You also haven't explained the other issue.[6] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa,
If I understand correctly, you're referring to the "thorn" quote? I can't read the French original but, in general, I don't object to it being lumped together with the praise somehow. Still, that quote seems like a good opener for the "raises controversy" first line that doesn't neccesarily deal with praise or criticism. I don't mind if there is a desire to break that line from the rest of the paragraph and also I don't object to using le monde twice. One time with the thorn quote and later by noting praise. I'm not sure there is a pattern of praise though. Would be good if we saw more than one article on this matter to get a better feel if Le Monde is a fan of Haaretz like Independent or that this waws a one time occurance. Anyways, there was a good notion in your edit and I tried to incorporate it. However, The Independent loving Haaretz correspondants is not on the same level as the mass criticism he garnishes. I did kind of liked how your version kept the section in 2 sections but notability is the issue here. Can't give an anti-Israeli newspaper the same notability as all the others put together. I fully accept that the text needs refinement in the more conservative direction though just that the 'often cited' part was ORish. It was a good idea actually, just that on the same sources which were used, another editor could write that he's often cited in Iranian publications. I'm actually hoping we can find a secondary source saying the same thing you added so that it could be returned into the article for better showing of his reception in foreign press. We just need to find the proper sources... the ones from the Independent were a good start and there's more to be found. Just that we can't make a generic claim that someone is often used in a magazine if there is only one link to an article of his that was published in the afordmentioned magazine.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will type slowly, so you may understand. The disagreement is over the word "original". The text may have been on Omedia; if so, it was copied from the original blog entry by Uri Heitner. I repeat, for the nth time -- there are two verifiable sources that this was originally a blog entry by Heitner, and none at all for anything else. There is absolutely no justification for repeatedly restoring this to the article, with an unverifiable citation, when the text can be found elsewhere. And, as a blog entry by a hostile commentator, this has no place in the article. RolandR (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Roland, do we really need to tell our readers about Levy's prizes three times? Currently, it is in the lead, in the "Reception" section, and in its own subsection. I am going to delete the "Awards" subsection, which adds nothing substantive. Pending your response. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added it while restoring Zero's edit, which was "collateral damage" of reverting Jaakobou's POV edit. You are right, it does not need to be there three times. I would be inclined to retain the awards section, and remove the mention in the reception section, but do not have strong feelings either way, so long as rthge information is retained. RolandR (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Ravpapa (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

I hope you'll continue to work on this article while being honestly interested in improving the biography of this journalist.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

General edit

I have made a pretty thorough edit of this article. I took out some really extraneous stuff (what street did he live on in Tel Aviv as a child), and trimmed some of the section on his political views, which I thought was pretty excessive. On the other hand, I added some material on how his current views developed.

I expect ricochets. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a look and merge proper content once I have some real time on my hands. I'd hate to edit while under time constraints and not be able to discuss matters in the best way to create consensus. I hope you at least addressed some of the issues I've raised in the above section. Certainly, all were dont with considerable consideration to how we do things around here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ravpapa, you ignored some of the points on which agreement was reached. Your edit made the Reception section very descriptive and not factual. You removed some of the references and generally mixed them up. Please correct your edits. Setreset (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Vague. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. What agreements do you refer to? What facts have I omitted from the Reception section? Which references were removed, and what is mixed up? Hard to correct things when you don't say what needs correction. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The section was completely rewritten, simply ignoring all of the points which were agreed upon.

Specifically, a partial list:

• Le Monde praised him as a 'thorn in Israel's flank'[14] and Der Spiegel characterized him as "[Israel's] most radical commentator".[15][5]-[a]
  • (1) praise is not neutral.

I am not sure what you mean by "praise is not neutral". Of course praise is not neutral. Otherwise it would not be praise. It was Jaakobou who raised the idea of moving the Le Monde comment to the praise part of the Reception section. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. If it is easier for you to explain in Hebrew, please do so, I understand the language mighty well.

Later: Ah, I see what you are driving at - you think that Le Monde's and Der Spiegel's comments were not intended as praise. Well, I suggest you read the original articles in their entirety. Both the Le Monde and the Der Spiegel articles were praising Levy. They were not merely reporting on him.

• On the other hand, his opponents have criticized him for being anti-Israeli
  • (2) not neutral as being anti israeli may be considered not criticism

Again I am confused by this comment. All the criticisms in this section - except for Linur's offhand comment about not speaking Arabic - are that he is anti-Israeli and a promoter of the Hamas. Do you want to remove all these criticisms as being not neutral?

• and for supporting Palestinian radicalism. "Is it wrong to ask of reporters in a country that is in the midst of a difficult war to show a little more empathy for their people and their country?" asks Amnon Dankner of the moderate Maariv newspaper[16].

• • (3) not encyclopedic.

This quote was already included in the article, in a footnote. It was paraphrased in the text. Instead of using the paraphrase, I used the actual quote. No one on this talk page raised the possibility that the quote is not encyclopedic, so I don't understand where you thought there was agreement on this topic. But even so, if you could explain why the quote is not encyclopedic I would be enlightened.

• ostensibly to justify two rampages by Palestinians driving bulldozers in Jerusalem in 2008.[18]
  • (4) ostensibly is not neutral

Again, there is no agreement about this. But if you wish I will remove the word ostensibly.

• Gideon Ezra, a member of Parliament from the Kadima party, and former deputy Minister of Internal Security in Israel, even suggested in 2006 that the General Security Services should monitor Levy as a borderline security risk — a suggestion that drew angry responses from Israeli civil rights groups. [19]
  • (5) not neutral, not balanced

Yes, I see what you mean. The source for this is the Israel Democracy Institute, which cited the incident as an example of Aleihum on Israeli journalists who don't tow the line. To present the statement without any qualification would be, to the thinking of most ordinary people, a gross violation of neutrality. But again, if you like, I could remove it.

• Israeli novelist Irit Linur set off a wave of subscription cancellations to Haaretz when she wrote an open letter to the paper cancelling her own subscription.[20] "It is a person's right to be a radical leftist, and publish a newspaper in accordance with his world view... However Haaretz has reached the point where its anti-Zionism has become stupid and evil," she wrote.".[21] She also accused Levy of amateurism because he does not speak Arabic.[21]
  • (6) The sentence had a wording agreed upon
  • (7) The cite is unconnected to the claims
  • (8) The former cite was translated and agreed upon
  • (9) The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed
  • (10) using interpreters with interests was removed after being agreed upon

Wow, you have a lot of complaints here. I will try to address them one by one:

• "The sentence had a wording agreed upon". There was never any agreement on this talk page as to the wording. As it was, the wording was a paraphrase, that did not convey the precise import of Linur's criticism. Instead, I have included the actual quote. Don't you think that's better than Jaakobou's grammatically incorrect paraphrase?

• "The cite is unconnected to the claims." Not sure exactly what you mean. The quote says pretty precisely why Linur cancelled her subscription. I read the letter, and this is the most concise statement of her complaint, in my opinion. However, if you think there is a quote from the letter that better sums up her criticism, by all means suggest it.

Later: Ah, now I see what you meant. I have fixed it. tnx for the catch.

• "The former cite was translated and agreed upon". I am not sure how this complaint differs from the first. The cite did not previously appear in the text, so it is hard for me to understand how it could have been agreed upon.

• "The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed." Did you actually read the article? I quote: "She also accused Levy of amateurism because he does not speak Arabic.[21]"

• "using interpreters with interests was removed after being agreed upon". No, there was never any agreement on this quote. The majority of editors on this talk page agree that this whole complaint about not speaking Arabic is frivolous and irrelevant. The vast majority of foreign correspondents who cover events in other countries or regions do not speak the native language, and many of them receive Pulitzer prizes (see above for ref to NYT foreign desk staff). A minority of editors - aka you and Jaakobou - thought this criticism was extremely notable. In spite of the fact that most of us here think this criticism is ridiculous, I have included it, albeit without the huge emphasis it had in Jaakobou's version.

Later: Ah, I see that the original Hebrew quote in the footnoe was hidden because an error in wiki tags. I have fixed the tags so the original footnote appears.

• Other public figures followed suit in canceling their subscriptions,
  • (11) followed suit needs to be changed

Would you prefer "also canceled their subscriptions"? no problem.

• Levy himself joked that there is a thick file of anti-Levy cancellations in the Haaretz newsroom
  • (13) not encyclopedic
  • changed wording unnecessarily

I changed the wording because the original had poor syntax and was ungrammatical. I think that is a good enough reason to change it. If you think it is unencyclopedic, it should be removed, not reworded. I fail to see what is unencyclopedic about this, but it is not essential to the article, so I will remove it if you insist.

• removed Yehoshua's letter and reply of levy which is very notable (in old edits, not connected to Ravpapa).

Please point me to the version where this letter appears, and I will try to reinstate it.

Setreset (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I find your list rather astonishing. I find nothing in your list about which there was agreement, and many of the things you mention were not even discussed on this talk page. I have responded in more detail in-line above. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where I wrote "cite" I meant the quote from the source with the translation. removing the specific quote from the references and its translation is almost like removing the source since the readers probably cannot read hebrew. Where I wrote "not encyclopedic" it was usually to indicate a quote put in the text. Quotes should be left in the references, and the article should summarize them as accurately and as neutrally as possible, since quoting in the article puts it out of context and is not natural.

"The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed" - the source is not irit linur but levy's own statement in an interview. It was exhaustively discussed above. Setreset (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that it is improper to include direct quotes in the text of an encyclopedia article? This is a complete misconception. I am surmising that you are not a native English speaker, and also that you do not spend a lot of time reading encyclopedias. So I suggest you open any encyclopedia to any article. Chances are good that you will find direct quotes in the text of the article, and only very rarely in a footnote.

If you really believe that direct quotes are inappropriate in an encyclopedia, I suggest you raise the issue at the help desk or the style forum, and see what they say.

In the case of this article, the paraphrases of the previous version were almost universally written poorly, often with grammatical and spelling mistakes, and often inaccurately representing the author's original words. So I see absolutely no justification for restoring them.

As for the "cite" from Levy that he did not speak Arabic - fine, if you feel it is so important, I will add it back in.

--Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)