Talk:Gideon Levy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Israel Portal
Gideon Levy is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1], 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)

[edit] 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. --Zerotalk 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)


[edit] 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.
-- JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

another:

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

- JaakobouChalk Talk 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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"[2] 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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"[3] - 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.
-- JaakobouChalk 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

[edit] Jaakobou-Nishidani suggested edits

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)