Talk:Gideon Levy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More on general edit

Setreset, I numbered your complaints so it would be easier to relate to them. Here is the status of the article as it now stands:

(1) Awaiting your reread of Le Monde and Der Spiegel articles to determine if statements were praise or not.

(2) Awaiting clarification on your part: Why is "anti-Israeli" not neutral?

(3) Style disagreement on whether direct quotes are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

(4) Done. Removed "ostensibly".

(5) Done. Removed comments by civil rights groups

(6) Awaiting your specific suggestion for rewording.

(7) Done.

(8) Awaiting clarification: Which cite, and how was translation changed?

(9) Done

(10) Done: original footnote with translation restored

(11) Done

--Ravpapa (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fashionably late, I am adding a response: I am content with the reception section as it stands. Impolite on my part to leave it like that for so long, I followed the article from time to time but didn't see this request for comment. Setreset (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" section unbalanced?

In the "Reception" section of the article, approximately three times more space is given to criticism, than to praise of Levy. Is this balanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether there's approximately three times more criticism than praise in reliable sources. I don't know whether that is the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Before choosing to leave the "Reception" section unbalanced, in terms of criticism v praise for Levy, Prehaps we should explore the validity of doing so (rather than complacently exposing the article to charges of bias)? 1/ Has a reliable study been performed into the relative amount of criticism v praise levy has received "in reliable sources"? The answer, of course, is almost certainly not, and probably never will be. Therefore we can't base the proportions of criticism v praise on the amount of raw material. 2/ Do we then just leave it to a Wiki POV war ie the ones who shout longest and loudest get the most space? My experience is that this leads to messy, sometimes unreadable articles, where balance gets trampled underfoot. In this instance I suggest that the way forward is for sensible editors to trim the "Reception" section to make it, readable informative and balanced. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, and as one who is pretty intimately familiar with the material (and who also had a hand in wresting this article from the clutches of the POV warriors), I would suggest that the article as it stands reflects pretty accurately the situation. You don't have to read carefully between the lines of this article to see that the criticisms of Levy are almost entirely politically motivated, very vociferous, and generally lacking in substance, while the praise is much sparser and much more substantive.

Of course, if you can find more documented material praising Levy's journalism, you are welcome to add it. It would, however, be improper and imflammatory to delete sourced criticisms, just to make the praise and criticism sections the same size.

Who was it, and in what context, did someone say, "It's not the size, it's how you use it"? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet, first draft. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Or Jenna Jameson, first scene. nableezy - 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Compared with other articles on controversial writers, this one is reasonably well balanced; credit to those who have worked on it. One thing that could be done would be to list the awards that Levy has won, rather than say "numerous other awards" - which a reader can't even look up in the source if they don't speak Hebrew. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

oPt or IoT?

Levy has written a few things about the Golan, but mostly that Israel should return the territory in exchange for peace with Syria. He hasnt, as far as I know, written about the actual occupation of the Golan as he has about the occupation of the Palestinian territories. So, should the text read a vociferous critic of Israel's policies in the Israeli-occupied territories or something like a vociferous critic of Israeli policies in its occupation of the Palestinian territories? I prefer the latter. nableezy - 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

or, perhaps, Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. (There were, after all, plenty of Palestinians who lived once in the Golan). --Ravpapa (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, I prefer "its occupation of" or "the Israeli occupation of". He isnt just criticizing certain policies in those territories, he criticizes the occupation itself. I think the sentence should be worded so that it reads that his criticism is directed against the occupation. nableezy - 14:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. "All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." (Khalil Ghibran). --Ravpapa (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But while we are feasting, what particular crumbs should we pick up? My point is that he writes about the occupation itself, not about the territories. So the line should be about his criticism of the occupation. nableezy - 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"left wing critic of Israel"

Wow, just wow. Jaak, could you please provide solid (BLP worthy) sources to support the factual assertion that Levis "is a prominent left-wing critic of Israel"? Or why you reinserted your favored phrasing of the first sentence that had been rejected in the past? nableezy - 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, why are you reopening disputes that were settled after a long and arduous negotiation? Read the talk page. There was extensive negotiation on the entire article with you and Setraset, which concluded with your acquiescence with the article as it is currently written. The agreement has held up for almost a year. Moreover, the article as it stands has garnered praise from a number of uninvolved editors. Your attempts to reopen disagreements which were settled is merely disruptive. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaak has again reverted to include his favored lead. The edit has been reverted by RolandR, but Jaak you are going well past what is acceptable editing behavior for a BLP. nableezy - 17:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro:
1) The sources in the article support both 'left wing' as well as 'critic of Israel'. This is factual as well and Levy himself wouldn't argue. What's the problem exactly???
2) Levy's opinions are just that and there's no need for the fluff. Please don't suggest I ever agreed to that fluff, that is false.
3) Would be nice to get a 'to the content' relevant response rather than a generic accusation that everything is bad!!!!!!!! without even looking at the sources and the phrasing.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I want you to supply sources for what you wrote. A hand wave to supposedly existing sources is not acceptable. I also want you to explain why material that has consensus on this talk page is routinely removed by you and replaced with material for which there is consensus against including. nableezy - 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

EI interview

A rare voice of courage: journalist Gideon Levy interviewed David Cronin, The Electronic Intifada, 31 March 2010. Might be useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass revert

Diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gideon_Levy&action=historysubmit&diff=394415452&oldid=394411458
a) are the changes to the bio agreeable? if not, why?
b) please explain "introduce POV assessment".
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) add diff 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A section was opened yesterday about your recent edit and why it is inappropriate. Instead of reinserting it you could have responded in that section. Bye. nableezy - 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind using that section to discuss the lead. I do expect RolandR to respond here to both my points. Hopefully with content related replies that suggest he's interested in the page and not just tag-teaming for you since you are under 1RR restrictions+. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, Im sure Roland and Ravpapa can speak for themselves. We all independently have problems with the hatchet job you have repeatedly attempted to insert into this BLP. Such editing behaviory is not acceptable and can lead to your being banned from Wikipedia. Matter of fact, please continue, it would be for the best if you made that edit again. Would make an AE case against you very easy. nableezy - 23:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New attempts at revising this article

As I noted above, and in my comments regarding Jaakobou's complaint against RolandR and Nableezy, Jaakobou has recently renewed attempts to restore language that was removed nine months ago. The current version of the article is the result of a long negotiation, in which Jaakobou was involved, which concluded with a consensus that has held up for nearly a year. That is not to say that the article cannot be revised and improved.

However, I think it proper to insist that any substantial edits be discussed on the talk page before editors go off and make changes that are necessarily contentious.

Thank you all for your cooperation, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with the above statement. Could you please show me where I, or anyone for that matter, was involved in a consensus building discussion that ended with everyone agreeing on the usage of the descriptives "vociferous" or "politically and emotionally charged"?[1] If this terminology strikes a few of you as neutral, I would beg to differ and am willing to either negotiate for better language or bring this to a wider community. Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you were involved, it is clear that today you do not consider "vociferous" and "politically and emotionally charged" to be neutral. What side do you think these terms support? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Vociferous" is an inappropriate descriptive to Levy's style of criticism and "politically and emotionally charged" is needlessly sentimental. Both are not neutral terminology without supporting anyone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you do not consider the terms non-neutral, but rather inappropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I disagree, but am willing to cede on the point.

Here are some alternatives to "vociferous": outspoken, vocal, vehement. We could also remove the adjective altogether. Tell me which you prefer.

As for "politically and emotionally charged", we could replace it with: "sensitive", "controversial"; or we could remove the description altogether.

I must say, as one who is familiar with your own views on these matters, that removing the modifiers from this paragraph would make Gideon Levy appear less controversial and more mainstream - something that, I believe, would be contrary to your own taste. But I leave the decision in your hands. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention on making him more controversial than he is. I do care that several editors have tried to portray him in different light than reality. If you've payed attantion, you'd have noticed that from the arguing parties, I'm the only one to insert actual biographical data. To the point of discussion: Would you mind reviewing my last version on the intro and suggesting where there might be objections and where you agree with my changes?

Current version

Suggested version

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי‎; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and editor for the Haaretz newspaper, and is a vociferous critic of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Levy's weekly column in Haaretz, "The Twilight Zone", deals with the politically and emotionally charged subject of the hardships of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and their conflicts with the Israeli military and Jewish settlers. He has been called everything from a "propagandist for the Hamas"[1] to a "heroic journalist"[2]. He has won awards for defending human rights, and has been called a possible security risk by a former cabinet minister. In addition to his work at Haaretz, Levy has published a book, hosted a television show, and edited or written documentaries and other programs.

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי‎; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and editorial board member for the Haaretz newspaper. Levy is a prominent left-wing critic of Israel and Jewish Settlers, to whom he attributes "the hard reality on the Palestinian side".[1][2]-[b] Levy publishes on the weekly column "Twilight Zone" of Haaretz since 1988 and is a regular participant and a representative of the left-wing in a television panel on the TV show, "Moetzet Ha'Hahamim" (Trans. 'The Committee of the Wise'). Levy has also published a book, hosted a television show, and edited or written documentaries and other programs. Levy was awarded the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award in 1996 for his promotion of Palestinian rights and received an Israeli journalism award in 1997.[3][4][2] Due to his criticism towards Israel, Levy has been called everything from a "propagandist for the Hamas"[5] to a "heroic journalist"[6].

Let me know what works for you and what doesn't.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are my criticisms of your version of the lead:

• "Left-wing" - You are very enamoured of this expression, but it is unquestionably out of place in this context. In Israeli politics, "left-wing" generally is synonymous with "opposed to the occupation". In that sense it is accurate, but unnecessary - the lead already states pretty clearly that Levy is opposed to the occupation, so the addition of "left-wing" adds nothing. However, in other countries, left-wing implies a whole package of opinions, including, primarily, an economic agenda.

Levy's views, as extreme as they may seem to Israelis, are quite mainstream in most European countries, and not particularly left-wing in America, either. On other matters identified as "left-wing" throughout the world, Levy has expressed no particular opinion. So it is misleading and even wrong to call Levy "left-wing".

(You could, I suppose, make this clearer by describing him as a representative of "the Israeli left-wing", which might make it clear to cogniscenti that we aren't talking about economic or social policy, but, as I say, it adds nothing.)

• "critic of Israel" - there are many things to criticize about Israel: its economic policies, its foreign policy, its policies on international law, environment, governance and on and on. Levy criticizes one aspect of Israel - its policy toward Arabs within Israel and in the occupied territories. I see no logic in replacing a lead that states specifically what Levy criticizes with a vague statement that he criticizes "Israel".

• 'Levy is a prominent left-wing critic of Israel and Jewish Settlers, to whom he attributes "the hard reality on the Palestinian side".' This is bad English. The sentence is convoluted and unclear.

• Moreover, the sentence suggests that Levy's attribution of Palestinian suffering is essentially an editorial comment. To anyone who has read his articles (I assume you have), this is clearly not the case. Levy reports on events about which there is no factual dispute - for example, the uprooting of olive trees by Palestinian settlers, the demolition of water reservoirs by the military, the expulsion of Palestinian residents from their homes by the Military Government. You may argue, and perhaps correctly, that these acts were justified - that the reservoirs were built without permit, that the residents were squatters, that the olive trees constituted a security risk - but there is not dispute about the basic facts. The suffering of the Palestinians, whether justified or not, was caused by the settlers and by the military. So the implication that cause of the suffering is an editorial interpretation of Levy's is inaccurate and misleading.

Note that the lead as it currently is written does not attribute blame to one side or the other, as you are so eager to do; on the contrary, it says that Levy describes "the hardships of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and their conflicts with the Israeli military and Jewish settlers." This, I think, is an accurate way of describing the content of Levy's column.

• "Left-wing" - there it is again. Why is this term so important to you? It is misleading in almost every context where you have used it.

• "Due to his criticisms of Israel" - here it is again, the vague preferred over the specific. The phrase adds nothing but obfuscation.

Now that I have told you specifically what I feel is wrong with your version of the lead, please tell me what you think is wrong with the current version. That is, aside from the words "vociferous" and "politically and emotionally charged" which I have agreed to revise. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well,

1) Israeli left wing: I'm not enamoured with the term "Left-wing". The term is mentioned about Levy just about everywhere so your concerns that it has different meaning in Israel than in other places is the only one that we should take into account. The term on its own, being that it is prevalent without being considered a pejorative, should be used. The most logical solution I can think of to your concerns here would be to link the term with Israeli left-wing politics. Does this work?

2) Critic of Israel: English is not my first language but the phrasing is pretty clear IMHO - "critic of Israel and Jewish Settlers, to whom he attributes...[Palestinian hardships]". Would you like to consult an external English expert so we can find a perfectly grammatical phrasing? In general, Levy also attacks Israel on just about anything but that's besides the point. I think your concern here is over-protective and that the text is pretty accurate. If you find the grammar to be the concern, I'm certainly open to asking a grammar nut to help sort this one out. Is that acceptable?

3) Hard reality on the Palestinian side: You're very wrong assuming that "Levy reports on events about which there is no factual dispute". He was attacked on multiple platforms and by multiple people for inaccuracies and false information.Sample: Jump to number 3. In general, I'm not here to argue whether Palestinians have a hard time or not but rather, the article is meant to present Levy's perspective in a fair manner without propaganda in either direction. I'm open to external review on this matter but I do feel that my suggested rephrase is far more encyclopaedic than "[his coloumn] deals with the politically and emotionally charged subject of the hardships of Palestinians". That sentence lacks Levy's perpetual context of Settlers and Israel as his perceived culprits and is inflated with 'emotions'. Like his perspective or not is really not the issue - the accuracy of our report on the subject is the issue. Can you see my point here?

4) "propagandist for the Hamas"[5] to a "heroic journalist"[6]: I'm not really following why you call the explanation on these descriptives "obfuscation". Perhaps you can explain this further because I really don't follow how you'd like these terms explained. If you feel that the earlier phrasing is better, I'm willing to cede on this suggestion and maintain the earlier one - though I do think this one is clearer. Let me know.

5) I'm glad we're making progress. but please don't make assumptions about the Israeli general perspectives or about mine -- you don't see me suggesting you think that x and y is ok/good/bad/etc. Lets stick to our subject please.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC) +c 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to see as little description by WP editors as possible. Let's let the sources do the work. Another thing I'd see as cleaning up is to cut down the amount of Hebrew in the article. I appreciate that someone who speaks Hebrew better than English could be frustrated by an English translation that will inevitably lose a little bit of nuance - on the other hand there is Hebrew Wikipedia to refer to. I'm going to make a sweep through the article, making changes that aren't intended to introduce any bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The only place with Hebrew on the page is the 'References' section. Original quotes are provided for the translations so that they can be easily validated for contentious materials. Please do not remove this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take the quotes out of the references section. I know that there is policy to include the original of quotes. It is a bit confusing though, because there is more than one quote in the references. I just took out the name of the school and one other thing. See what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm happy with the two Hebrew terms you took out. No one will be able to know what documentary is mentioned or what school he went to without the Hebrew clarifications. I did not review the other changes yet -- but the Hebrew issue, even if I disagree here, is not something I'm thinking to fuss over.

p.s. would be great if you can help us resolve the intro issues - I'm quite unhappy with the current lead - eventhe after your changes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

With the documentary, could the Hebrew name perhaps go in as a footnote? One thing to consider is: if someone wants to follow up or know more about the documentary what help can we give them? Is it notable enough for a Wikipedia article - only a few documentaries are? Or could we perhaps give some more details of when it was shown so that someone could look it up on a website. As for the school, is it a notable school? It's probably a good idea to give the name of a school when it is known, but many biographies do without. Is the crucial thing that it was a local school? Isn't it more of a priority to say when he went to university and got his degree(s) - it's in the infobox but not mentioned inline. I don't have very strong views over these things either, so do what you feel. Also for the intro, would you like to rewrite? I'm just thinking of the general principle in writing that you do the intro last, which is also important in Wikipedia because the intro must summarise the article. In controversial articles it may be best to make the intro as short as possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the documentary name being in a footnote. The school is somewhat famous and I figure the name should be inline. As for the intro - look a little above to see the 'Current version' and the 'Suggested version' -- there were a few points of concern raised by Ravpapa and I replied to them trying to get a little closer to a consensus -- waiting on his response to see where we stand.

p.s. I noticed that a lot of biographical material was somehow removed since my older edits and I would like to reinsert at least some of it -- I can't recall if it included mention of his university studies, but they did include material on his experience as an aid to Shimon Peres.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC) +c 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing discussion about the lead

Jaakobou, that English is not your first language is painfully apparent in all of your edits. As for your suggestion that we refer the issue to an expert in the English language, I have a possible candidate: worked for 10 years for Associated Press, has published a number of books and edited numerous others, and works today as a freelance journalist and editor. That's me. I don't feel I need external help to correct my English.

You have argued with the points I raised, yet you refuse to respond to my question: what are your criticisms of the lead as it currently stands? I see that Itsmejudith has removed "vociferous" and "politically and emotionally charged" which were your only two documented objections. So what remains? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that at this point in time all 5 points in my above comment (diff) have not yet been resolved and it seems only natural to address them and achieve some minimal progress/agreement rather than open up more issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am cross-posting a message Jaakobou left on my talk page. Since it is germane to the discussion here, I feel that all the participants in this discussion should read it:

"You can't honestly expect me to participate after that personal assault.[2] I request that you remove the offensive content and work with me on this in a collegiate [sic] manner. I take my time to make carefully phrased rewrites and explain why I consider x or y to be important without insulting you. It seems only natural that you will be able to reciprocate."

It is unclear to me what part of my previous post was insulting to Jaakobou. Whatever it was, I am sorry that he feels he can no longer participate in this discussion.

In any case, it appears from his latest comment that he finds nothing wrong with the lead as it is. Under the circumstances, it is unclear why he wants to rewrite it. If he decides to rejoin the discussion, and finds some fault with the lead as it currently stands, I am sure everyone involved in this discussion will be glad to consider his concerns. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting fresh

Current version

Suggested version

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי‎; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and editor for the Haaretz newspaper, known as a critic of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Levy's weekly column in Haaretz, "The Twilight Zone", deals with the hardships of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and their conflicts with the Israeli military and Jewish settlers. In addition to his work at Haaretz, Levy has published a book, hosted a television show, and edited or written documentaries and other programs. Levy has been called everything from a "propagandist for the Hamas"[1] to a "heroic journalist"[2]. He has won awards for his journalism, and has been called a possible security risk by a former Israeli cabinet minister.

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי‎; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and editorial board member for the Haaretz newspaper. Levy is a prominent left-wing critic of Israel and Jewish settlers, to whom he attributes "the hard reality on the Palestinian side".[1][2]-[b] Levy publishes on the weekly column "Twilight Zone" of Haaretz since 1988 and is a regular participant and a representative of the left-wing in a television panel on the TV show, "Moetzet Ha'Hahamim" (Trans. 'The Committee of the Wise'). Levy has also published a book, hosted a television show, and edited or written documentaries and other programs. Levy was awarded the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award in 1996 for his promotion of Palestinian rights and received an Israeli journalism award in 1997.[3][4][2] Due to his criticism towards Israel, Levy has been called everything from a "propagandist for the Hamas"[5] to a "heroic journalist"[6].

Rephrasing the discussion points of concern:

1) Israeli left wing: The term "left-wing" is mentioned about Levy just about everywhere. I suggest we link the term with Israeli left-wing politics to differentiate from the generic term 'left-wing'. Does this work?

2) Critic of Israel: "[Levy is a] critic of Israel and Jewish settlers, to whom he attributes...[Palestinian hardships]" is proper English and (a) more accurate representation of Levy, (b) sourced. Current phrasing: "known as a critic of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories." presents him as dealing with one issue only, when he more often than not, attacks other issues as well -- e.g. [3][4][5]. I've already received one external opinion who stated that the suggested phrasing seemed reasonable but if there's still a grammar concern, please explain where it comes from.

3) Hard reality on the Palestinian side: Levy's reports are often attacked as "publicist" content. i.e. opinion writing, rather than journalism. His accuracy has been attacked by respectable journalists.Sample: Jump to number 3. The article should present his views, but without taking or giving them extra credit. Current phrasing is "[Levy's column], deals with the hardships of Palestinians..." -- is, (a) inaccurate - see examples, (b) phrased to assert the stories he tells. My suggested phrasing, among others, deals with this issue. I am open to other rephrase suggestions but am against the current phrasing.

4) "propagandist for the Hamas"[5] to a "heroic journalist"[6]: I'm not really following why Ravapapa called the explanation on these descriptives "obfuscation". An explanation to the terms is in order.

5) Security risk: For starters, the current phrasing -- "won awards...and has been called a possible security risk" -- is a bad mashup. Personally, I don't feel the security risk suggestion is notable enough for the lead -- it is a one time event and not a summary of a consistent issue - unlike the descriptives in (4).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am glad you relented and decided to rejoin the discussion. As for your specific comments:

1. "Left wing": I'll make you a deal - you can call Levy left-wing, if I can call Ben-Dror Yemini right-wing.

2. "Critic of Israel": It is true that Gideon Levy has written on topics other than on Palestinian sufferings at the hands of the Israeli government and individual Israelis. Recently, for example, he wrote a column about his attendance at a reunion of reporters for the Israeli Army Radio station, where he started his career. Nonetheless, he is known pretty much as a one-issue writer. The examples you offer only reinforce my statement. The first - an article about efforts by the security forces to discourage Israelis from visiting Arab countries - could possibly be construed as a criticism outside the realm of Israeli-Palestinian relations, though its relationship to that is pretty clearcut. The second article is about the war in Gaza - are you suggesting that that war had nothing to do with Israeli Palestinian relations? The third was about the possibly unjustified arrest of two Palestinians against whom no charges (at the time of the writing) had been brought - something which he relates quite explicitly to the problem of Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians.

If you can point me to a body of articles that deals with criticisms of other aspects of Israeli policy or life, then this will definitely change my understanding of the breadth of Levy's work; we will then have to add references to other areas of criticism in the body of the article, before we can revise the lead as you recommend.

3. "hard reality of the Palestinian side". I don't know why you are so enamored of this particular phrase. It is awkward English, it is vague, and it doesn't say what I think you want to say. As for criticisms of Levy, I certainly would be willing to replace the existing criticism in the lead with Yemini's "baron of the lie factory" - that's a lot catchier than "propagandist for the Hamas". Before we do that, though, we have to include a reference to Yemini's article, as well as Levy's rebuttal, in the "Reception" section. If you agree, I will do that, but not today, as I am pretty busy today. As for "extra credit", I don't know what you are referring to. Can you give a specific example?

4. The "descriptive" I was referring to was your intended addition of "Due to his criticisms toward Israel". Aside from the fact that this is rather bizarre syntax ("criticisms of Israel" would have been much better), it is inaccurate. Levy was not lauded as "this heroic journalist" for his criticisms of Israel, but for his defense of the rights of Palestinians. Many Israeli journalists have offered criticisms of Israeli policies at least as scathing as Levy's - Yemini comes to mind here - but have not been lauded as heroic journalists. Your addition adds nothing, is bad English, and is fundamentally inaccurate.

5. As for your suggestion that we remove the security risk remark, I agree. It is poorly sourced as it is (the only source being the Democracy website - I looked for a newspaper reference but couldn't find one). The objective of the sentence is to show the range of reactions to Levy's writing (what you call a "bad mashup"), so the "this heroic journalist" quote should be balanced against a drastic criticism. Perhaps the propagandist for Hamas quote could go there instead.

Tell me how you want to proceed. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Is Ben-Dror Yemini notable as being on a certain side of the political spectrum? Levy is but I'm not aware that Ben-Dror Yemini is as well.

2) I was using the source for describing him. He is known as a critic of Israel and Jewish settlers -- no matter the context of the article. Why them? "to whom he attributes...". It seems that you're coming around on this issue to agree if not with the rephrase suggestion, then at least with the idea that its not only criticism of the occupation but that there many are other topics -- mostly Israel and Jewish settlers. I'm open to other phrasings that engulf the matter, but I did put effort into my phrasing so that it fits the subject -- certainly better than the current phrasing.

3) I'm not enamoured with that phrase but I felt it explained how Levy sees things without asserting them one way or another (unlike the current phrasing). I have another suggestion in mind, in the general form of "[Levy's column] often tells stories of hardship from the Palestinian side".

3.1) Baron of the lie factory: I dunno. As catchy as it is, it seems like a BLP vio that the average person who agrees with his perspectives would consider removing from the page. I'm looking for a good long term phrasing that people won't want to delete on sight. Also, I'm not sure that he's been accused of lying often enough, unlike the accusation that his articles are repeating/useful-for Hamas propaganda. There was a calmer phrasing in the 7th-eye on how the public sees him, which might be better writing than the current "villain/hero" phrasing. What do you think?

4) You raise a valid point of concern which I gave some thought to already before coming up with my suggestion -- i.e. is the cause for the nicknames, his critique of Israel or his support for Palestinians. To be frank, the source we have (7th-eye) says that it is because of his criticism of Israel (and this is also the popular belief for why he's attacked) and I've already mentioned that "Human Rights Award... [for] Palestinian rights" on the same 2 sentence paragraph. I'm open for other suggestions but we should probably stick to what the source says--which is also the reality of things. People don't like him (the nicknames issue), not because he promotes Palestinian rights, but because he attacks Israel all the time, no matter the context and issue (see examples).

5) Closed: I'm glad we closed this issue -- security risk -- out of lead.

Always good to make progress, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of Ravpapa's specific rebuttals of Jaakobou's proposed text. But I don't agree that we should label Levy as "left-wing", irrespective of any description of Yemini. Israelis may live in a bubble, where the national/security situation is the only political issue, and everyone who stands outside the consensus is automatically defined as left-wing; but this means little elsewhere. For most people, and most readers of Wikipedia, the term "left-wing" would signify a position on economic issues, rather than on the iniquities (or benefits) of Israel's occupation. So labelling Levy as left-wing would ascribe to him political positions which he may not hold, and which are certainly not described in the article. It would not be in any way helpful. Levy is known because he opposes Israel's occupation, and vividly describes its impact on its Palestinian subjects. I suspect that his enemies (not referring to any Wikipedia editors) describe him as left-wing in an attempt to smear him; though for many of us, of course, the tag would have the opposite effect. Whatever the motivation, this is an unhelpful, and possible misleading, description. We can state that others so describe him; but we should not do so in Wikipedia's own voice. RolandR (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Enemies"? The Israeli left-wing is the camp which promotes concessions for peace and Levy associates himself wilfully with that camp. Just because "left" may mean something else in Israel doesn't mean that we should censor the term that is often used in reference to Gideon Levy. On that same note, Ehud Barak is also part of the Israeli left-wing. Levy is described as "recognized with the Israeli left" in the Hebrew wikipedia. Censorship of mainstream, notable opinion is not part of the Wikipedia project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it is very hard to conduct a rational discussion with you, because you consistently ignore or misread things that I write, and your posts are often unintelligible.

"I was using the source for describing him." What source? What are you talking about?

"It seems that you're coming around on this issue" of calling him a critic of Israel. Did you read what I wrote? I am not coming around. I wrote (I thought pretty clearly) that Levy is mostly a one-issue writer, and that the examples you brought ostensibly to show that he writes on many issues do not show that; on the contrary, they reinforce my contention. No, "critic of Israel" is vague, inaccurate, and not acceptable.

"...without asserting them one way or another (unlike the current phrasing)": Please explain which way or other the current phrasing asserts. I have no idea what you are talking about.

"... the source we have (7th-eye) says that..." Jaakobou, there is agreement that Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. Please read this.

Please reread the discussion from beginning to end, try again to understand it, and then state your reservations about the current lead clearly and cogently. Then we can discuss them. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the suggested version "to whom he attributes 'the hard reality on the Palestinian side'" isn't intelligible English. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not Gibberish. I've already received a 3rd opinion that it is a reasonable phrasing, grammatically speaking. Anyways, I've suggested another alternative. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I apologize if something was lost in translation,

2.1) The source I was referring to is marked as [2]-[b]: i.e. "7th-eye", ^-[b] Translation: On the otherhand it was argued that his work reflects with loyalty the hard reality on the Palestinian side, and that the harsh responses he is receiving derive from the portrait that is reflected from the mirror he places in front of the Israeli public.

2.2) You have a point, I may have assumed something into your writing (wishful thinking?). From your notes: "The first...[possibly] criticism outside [Israeli-Palestinian relations]", "The second...war in Gaza...Israeli Palestinian relations", "The third...[relates to] Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians."
All 3 articles are not about the Israeli-Occupation (current version). The first, about travel alerts, the second, Israeli society "thirst for blood", the 3rd, Israeli Arabs. The articles are not about the occupation, and I believe only the 3rd uses the term occupation and only in reference to Arabs in Israel wanting to marry Arabs from occupied territories. Basically, all 3 go to show that the current phrasing misrepresents his wide range of topics to attack Israel with. If you want, I have no objection to a rephrase that uses the term "Israeli-Palestinian relations" since at least the latter 2 fit this -- the current phrasing is not good though. Agreed?

3) When we take for granted that there are hardships on the Palestinian side (pretty obvious_, we also might take for granted that his column "deals with the hardships of Palestinians" (current version). But Levy's column doesn't deal with them, it repeats stories, narratives with little to no fact checking -- another sample. I am suggesting a rephrase that will not give complete credence to his storytelling but will still explain his perspective. I gave 2 suggestions for rephrasings.

4) You're a little confused. the 7th-eye is not remotely connected with Arutz Sheva. It is a completely mainstream industry related magazine.

Sorry about the confusion, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you suggest an alternative phrasing. Do you know what the phrase "hard reality" means in English? It means reality, which is always with us. Everyone has "hard reality" if we want to look for it. So it cannot be that settlers are responsible for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What Jaakobou apparently refuses to acknowledge, despite the comments of several English-speaking editors, is that the text he is proposing to insert is simply not written in good, or even intelligible, English. It may be a literal, word-for-word, translation of the Hebrew original; but that does not turn it into acceptable English prose. It was clearly written by someone for whom English is a second language; or by a machine. It does not say what he intends it to say, and would not be understood by most English speakers.

On another point, Jaakobou is correct about the Seventh Eye. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Arutz Sheva. It is a publication of the Israel Democracy Institute,a clearly mainstream/liberal organisation, and I believe it to be a reliable source. I have not yet tried to verify that it says what is attributed to it; but I see no reason not to use this source. RolandR (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

Thanks for the support on the 7th eye source. I hope this is intelligible enough. WP:DICK.

Itsmejudith,

Regardless if I agree/disagree on the assertion that "hard reality"=="reality", the issue of concern is that Levy does not always report on reality but rather tells a story as it was conveyed to him -- I've attached a few sample sources that talk about this issue. For this, the phrasing should be changed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of the WP:DICK comment above. If it is directed at me (as a superfluous comment on my talk page suggested), then I request that you strike it out. Otherwise, please explain what you mean by this. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're behaving poorly and against the purpose of the wikipedia project. I hope that's clear enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to these personal remarks, which are entirely baseless and play no part in moving this article forwards. I request that you strike them, and withdraw your claim that I am "behaving poorly". RolandR (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are behaving extremely poorly. To be frank, you're not alone here at this, but definitely an active participant in this "[un]intelligible" game. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have any genuine objections to my behaviour, you should raise them at the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, kindly desist from your baseless personal attacks. RolandR (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're making as much sense as a child who sticks out his tongue close to his brother and says "I'm not touching you". Making personal attacks and then complaining that someone else calling you on it is a personal attack is just dumbfounding. I hope I'm being intelligible enough here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of having made any personal attacks. You have repeatedly made this accusation, without the slightest evidence. Please either provide a link to these supposed attacks, or withdraw your false allegation. RolandR (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another fresh start

In spite of the difficulty I have in understanding what Jaakobou is trying to say, I think he has a point when he says that Levy's writing is not only about the occupation. I therefore suggest another version of the lead:

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and senior editor for the Haaretz newspaper, and a leading critic of Israeli policies and attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs. Levy's weekly column in Haaretz, "The Twilight Zone", documents incidents of violence and discrimination against Palestinians, and attributes these to a "brainwashing machine... [that] makes people so full of ignorance and cruelty." His articles have led to many attacks on his politics and his veracity, including a scathing critique by Maariv editorial director Ben-Dror Yemini, who called him "the baron of the lying Industry"

This version describes much more accurately, in Levy's own words, his editorial position. It should satisfy Jaakobou's expressed concern that the description of Levy as a critic of the occupation is too limiting. It also puts the main criticism of Levy into the first paragraph of the lead, which should also provide the balance that Jaakobou seems to be looking for. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an improvement, only that I feel you've included two extremes that I am uncomfortable with, i.e. "documents incidents" (which gives too much credence to his storytelling) and "lying Industry", which alleges everything he reports on is a Pallywood lie. I thank you, btw, for making an effort to both understand my concerns as well as making a rewrite attempt. I'll try to make minor changes to your version and see if that helps us come to a wide consensus (of 2) on what he hope to be a long term version. Btw, just now, was an article on ynet which goes to illustrate my point that Levy is widely notable as being considered part of the Israeli left wing -- [6]. I believe there is room to include the term somewhere but I do understand the concern raised about this term. If you have any ideas on this outside my above suggestion (of using Israeli left-wing), that would be great. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick question, for Jaakobou et al. Jaak, you said somewhere above "The sources in the article support both 'left wing' as well as 'critic of Israel'. This is factual as well and Levy himself wouldn't argue." Has Levy described himself as part of the Israeli left wing or something similar somewhere ? Left wing is kind of ambiguous by itself as has been noted but if it is a term that Levy himself wouldn't argue about I wonder how he phrased it or what terms he used to characterise his position. I favour leaving it out as it's ambiguous and I'm not a huge fan of assigning contentious static labels that link to contentious non-static articles written by wiki editors i.e. the label remains the same but the linked article's contents can change/say anything. However, I was curious whether he used the term himself. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I already checked his interviews with EI and the Independent to see whether he self describes as 'left' somewhere. He doesn't, so no need to check those. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy does not consider himself to be part of the Israeli "left". On the contrary, he has written scathing criticisms of the left. See this. So there is no question that calling Levy left-wing would be offensive to him. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're going about it the wrong way as if one cannot criticise the camp which they are identified with. Levy, is identified everywhere as a notable figure from the Israeli-left wing. To be frank, he's considered an extremist in that camp[7] but I've no interest in pushing words like "extremist" as a factual descriptive in the lead. On point: There's already a few sources to him being of Israeli left-wing perspectives so the attempt to fight this seems strange. What exactly is wrong with being part of the Israeli left-wing that you're objecting this?? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) +c 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Ravpapa, I haven't seen a response to my concern that your rephrase is pushing the lead into extremes (e.g. "brainwashing machine"). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your last post said that you were going to make "minor changes", so I was waiting for that. However, since you ask, I find your comments confusing and contradictory. As for your wish to avoid "pushing the lead to extremes": These are two direct quotes, which accurately reflect the opinions of Levy and his chief detractor. This is what they said, not what I said. Do you want to distort their opinions to make them seem less vehement than they actually are? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Levy doesn't consider himself to be part of the "Israeli-left wing", who is it that considers him to be a member of that set ? "Right wing" commentators in Israel, the British press, the Chinese foreign ministry ? That is my concern with labels. If you want to label someone and they don't use that label themselves then you better say who does so that readers have an idea who is doing the labeling, it's scope or lack thereof etc. It's pretty easy to find some sources that label people but it doesn't mean the labels get into the articles. Here's one, the BBC. Profile: Benjamin Netanyahu "Netanyahu is one of the most right-wing and controversial leaders in Israel's history". I don't think he is described as right wing in the article. I'm not sure he would consider himself part of the "right wing" in Israel. Also, information/labels are transformed by sources. Your source says "In fact, Grossman said that both extreme-left journalist Gideon Levy and right-wing politician Effie Eitam had commented: “This is my book.”" The actual interview says "Gideon Levy [from the Left] and Effie Eitan [from the Right] both read the book and told me, "this is my book." They're opposites politically." Labels are inherently problematic unless you know who is assigning them. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

More than this: since Levy himself does not refer to himself as left wing, and is actually critical of the left wing, to call him left wing would be a violation of BLP, and potentially actionable. Therefore, without a reference to Levy referring to himself as left-wing, you cannot use the label. I thus consider the debate on "left-wing" to be closed. Move on to other things. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Small point to ponder.. where does Levy say that he's not in the Israeli left? (hint: he doesn't). We'll review this issue at a later time since there's other issues where we might be able to get some quick agreement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the same place that he says that he isn't an elephant or a table. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I started writing up the following points, which are valid irregardless of the source I just found -- which seals the deal (link at the end).

Here are the logical points:

(a) He is described just about everywhere either as an extreme left winger or just a left winger -- also on the television show called 'moetzet hakhahamim', where he sits opposite right-winger Tsipi Hutbuli (now Knesset member for right wing Likud). We also have an article where he states himself as a one state solution advocate -- which defines him as (an extreme) part of the Israeli-left.

(b) He does not deny anywhere of being a left-winger.

(c) criticism of factions inside your camp or the camp as a whole (irregardless of the Levy issue) does not have a logical effect to whether or not you belong to the camp -- moreso when you are notable as being on the extreme of the camp -- violent people who disagree with what their leaders are doing (irregardless of the Levy issue) belong to either camp as well.

Ask anyone about logical fallacies or about logical assumptions and you'll see that I am right at least on the logical standing point. This is not a case of someone being called a bad name, btw -- it is his identifier.

Irregardless of the logical arguments about how people perceive him, here he states in his own words:

Translation: In the defense of Barnea it shall be said that he is probably aware of it which possibly denies him from serenity. How could you tell? That is the only way to explain his relentless attack on left journalists, the undersigned (e.g. the writer) included (7th-eye, issue no. 29). Barnea probably finds it hard to write without inserting a world view and is twice as hard for hit to accept the existence of fellow colleagues who consider their world view like a candle at their feet.

Original: לזכותו של ברנע ייאמר שהוא כנראה מודע לכך, אולי זה אפילו לא נותן לו מנוח. איך אפשר לדעת? כי כך, רק כך אפשר להסביר את השתלחותו חסרת הרסן בעיתונאי השמאל, הח"מ ביניהם ("העין השביעית", גיליון מס' 29). לברנע קשה כנראה לכתוב בלי השקפת עולם וקשה לו שבעתיים להכיר בקיומם של עמיתים למקצוע שהשקפת עולמם היא נר לעבודתם.

I figure that much is a case closed on the logical fallacy that because he criticised the left, he's supposedly not part of it.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent changes

Jaakobou, your assertion that there is agreement on the changes you made is nothing less than astonishing. We have been arguing over whether it is correct to say that Levy is a "critic of Israel" with everyone except you arguing that that is an incorrect characterization of Levy's positions. Now you have made precisely that change, and contended that this is to "rephrase what he criticizes per agreement."

There is no such agreement. Please self-revert your edits immediately. Thank you. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment seemed to agree that he criticises more than just the Israeli occupation (per "Levy's writing is not only about the occupation."[8]). Your version was a bit whimsy (per "brainwashing machine" and "baron of the lying Industry") but at least there was an agreement on the main point. I know Nableezy wants the words Occupation and Illegal inserted into the first paragraph of every article related to Israel but please don't tell me that you've decided to align yourself with him. I thought you were a more mature editor based on our discussions and your ability to accept facts when they are presented with clarity. Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There was very obviously no agreement and somebody with a 4 year old's understanding of English can see that. Not one person but you has said that it is acceptable to label this living person a "critic of Israel" in the lead of the article. Please stop gaming. nableezy - 01:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Other opinions

I would be interested in hearing the opinion of editors, other than Jaakobou, on the changes I propose to the lead of the article. If everyone agrees, and Jaakobou brings no substantive objections to it (other than "Your version was a bit whimsy"), I suggest we go ahead and make the change. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Later: In the meantime, Gilabrand has taken matters in hand, and has done a fine job. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have several issues with the suggestion Ravpapa. You've put focus on a more extreme phrasing as well as on issues that are not focal, such as mentioning Ben-Dror Yemini by name. Current version, btw is an improvement, though it still avoids the issue that we came to some agreement on -- that is, that Levy is a critic of Israel and Jewish settlers -- not necessarily of the occupation alone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick review and thoughts:

(a) on the face of it, looks like very nice work.

(b) the 'occupied territories' in the lead sentence doesn't quite capture the nature of his arguments. For examples I've provided above 3 articles on other issues (not about the occupation) -- the first[9] was an attack on the Israeli policy of tourism in Egypt -- i.e. putting out warnings when there is info about possible terrorist activity. The second,[10] was about so-called "Israeli blood-lust" for the war in the occupied-by-Hamas Gaza strip. And the third,[11] was about Arab-Israelis. Only the third article mentions the occupation and only in the context of Arab-Israelis wanting to marry Palestinians from occupied territory.

(c) I've added content on Levy's bio-details from his days in the Avoda a while back and hope to see it again as that segment of his life -- where he changed his world view -- is quite interesting. Names that should be mentioned in that context are Yossi Beilin (which shouldn't have been deleted) and Yosi Sarid.

(d) I'm not sure about the categories. Probably both 'Writers on Zionism' (what he thinks of himself) and 'Anti-Zionism' (what people think of him) fit.

(e) nice work.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gaza isnt occupied by Hamas, the UN and most of the world say it is still occupied by Israel. Congratulations, you found a few columns that dont focus on the occupation. Here is a whole book of columns that do. The vast majority of Levy's columns deal with the occupation. I realize that elements of the extreme right of the political spectrum in Israel have a hard time using the terminology that the entire world uses, but thankfully Israeli politicians of the far-right and their adherents do not hold veto power over the terminology that Wikipedia articles use. nableezy - 15:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy. Your link is not working.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, but the title of the book is The Punishment of Gaza. It is a collection of Levy's Haaretz columns about Gaza since the "disengagement". nableezy - 16:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Some notes:

(a) Three articles quickly sampled from Levy's Haaretz columns show that he is more than a critic of occupation only. I'm ok with a phrasing that mentions Israel as an occupying power but the criticism is general and not on a single issue.

(b) Current military sovereign power in Gaza == Hamas. The disengagement was in 2005. Don't let facts confuse you.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a single reliable source for your, uhh lets go with "unusual", view that Hamas is the "occupying power" in Gaza? If not, kindly refrain from making such easily disproved claims in the future (eg [12], [13] ...). Either that or not say the always silly "dont let facts confuse you". nableezy - 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the topic of this thread. I seek other comments on my suggested revision to the lead. Jaakobou has suggested above that Ben-Dror Yemini's name should be removed from the lead. He also wants less "extreme phrasing", though that seems to be a suggestion he should send to Yemini, not to those quoting him.

Anyone else have anything to say about this suggested lead? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is uncontested that Levy's work is mostly focused on the occupation so I think that should be explicitly included. I also dont think we need to have quotes from others in the lead. There are too many articles that have a supposed "Palestinian POV" with an "Israeli POV" placed together as though they need to provide balance. I dont think that is a proper way to write a biography, I would rather stick to facts in the lead. We dont need to say in the lead that he has been called the "baron of the lying industry". I also dont think we need the quote from Levy on the "brainwashing machine". My preferred version would just say he writes about X and that his columns have drawn criticism and praise from Y and Z sectors. nableezy - 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Ravapapa,

I apologize that I haven't given you enough props for making an effort in writing up a suggested phrasing. While I feel that the current version is a tad better, I do appreciate the effort and hope others will give in some reasoned perspective/input on it. For what its worth, I'm willing to mesh the two versions -- yours and the current -- into a collaborative suggestion, if you're interested.

General note:

I've suggested a phrasing that mentions [criticism of] Israel as an occupying power rather than "Israeli occupation". I believe the suggestion is more encapsulating and attends to Nableezy's hopes of tagging Israel with occupation.

Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

focuses on the Israeli occupation

Nableezy, I'm sure you mean well when you keep reinserting the words occupation and illegal to articles but you're forgetting the context and are ignoring references. In the spirit of collaboration, I suggest we list the non opinion-pieces that mention his topics of discussion so we can get a wider perspective on this issue. Please add sources to the list below (no opinion articles please). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, if you continue edit-warring over this line I will be asking that you be topic banned. Self-revert the change you made for which you know there is no consensus. You also know full well that sourcing to a Hebrew source requires that you quote and translate the relevant text. nableezy - 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down and join the discussion. I made a rephrase to my previous suggestion to one that is closer to the only non opinion source we currently have listed hoping we'd get closer to a final version. If you insist on opening complaints left and right because you can't discuss anything, that is not my fault -- you can already see that most of my desired changes have been resolved and you're the only one fighting for this "occupation"/"illegal" issue. Anyways, you are invited to add sources and work in a collaborative spirit in hopes of finding the best NPOV source-based phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats just funny. You get reverted once by Roland and once by me and you run to AE and you are going to say that I "insist on opening complaints left and right because you can't discuss anything". The hilarity in that cannot adequately be measured. Again, you are required to quote and provide translations when using a non-English source. Again, either self-revert your edit or we may have to see how much edit-warring in a BLP by a user who has a history of poor editing in BLPs is acceptable to the admins patrolling AE. nableezy - 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in anything other than personal conflicts on this website? I've opened this section so that we can promote a long term consensus -- I did not open it for filibustering. Do you have any non opinion-piece sources to add? I'm also open to compromise suggestions that tone down the "occupation"/"illegal" rhetoric and add into the context the general topics which Levy writes about. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• [14]: Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda.
• [15]: Gideon Levy is a rare voice of courage in an Israeli media generally supine towards the political establishment. Since 1988, he has written the "Twilight Zone" column for the Israeli daily Haaretz, documenting unflinchingly the myriad cruelties inflicted on the Palestinian people under occupation.
• [16]: Gideon Levy is a prominent Israeli journalist. For over twenty years he has covered the Israel- Palestine conflict, in particular the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in his column Twilight Zone.

Anything else? nableezy - 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation Nableezy. I'm afraid Electronic Intifada and an opinion piece don't exactly count for our purposes. I tend to also reject the Columbia link as it's just a blurb Levy's publicist gave to Columbia for the book promotion. Do you have any other, non-promotional and non-opinion sources to add? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Joining the conversation??? The Independent article is not "an opinion piece". nableezy - 18:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But just for fun, a few more:

• Alice Rothchild (2007). Broken promises, broken dreams: stories of Jewish and Palestinian trauma and resilience. Pluto Press.; p. 231: Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, two Israeli journalists, have long reported on the brutal consequences and contradictions of the Israeli occupation.
• Samy Cohen, ed. (2008). Democracies at war against terrorism: a comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.; p. 150: journalists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass from Haaretz also voice criticism of the army and have attempted to draw public attention to the hardships endured by the Palestinians due to Israeli occupation.

Anything else? nableezy - 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right and you are right. On the one hand, Jaakobou is right: Levy's worldview - that Israelis' policies and attitudes toward Palestinians are conditioned by a focused campaign of dehumanization - encompasses more than only the West Bank and Gaza; he writes also about dehumanization of Israel's Arabs (in Safad, in El Araqib) and the impact of this dehumanization on Israeli's attitudes toward its Arab neighbors. On the other hand, Nableezy is right that the main focus of his work is on the West Bank and Gaza, since that is where the most profound impact of dehumanization is felt.

All of which brings me back to the lead that I proposed above. Here is another shot, which might be an acceptable compromise:

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and senior editor for the Haaretz newspaper, and a leading critic of Israeli policies and attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs. Levy's weekly column in Haaretz, "The Twilight Zone", documents incidents of violence and discrimination against Palestinians, primarily in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, and attributes these to a "brainwashing machine... [that] makes people so full of ignorance and cruelty." His articles have led to many attacks on his politics and his veracity.

^{I'm tempted to say "But they can't both be right", just to see your response! RolandR (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}

This version also removes the quote by Yemini, which Jaakobou thought pushed the lead to extremes. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Im fine with that, though I would replace "the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza" with "the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories". Less wordy with same meaning. nableezy - 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He was on C-Span 2 yesterday - at least when I saw him. Very interesting talk. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Thank you for your new efforts here. Of the two recent ones, the first is an independent "radical" publishing of a book by a peace activist with no special expertise -- basically the same as an opinion article by someone with no special knowledge in the topic at hand who likes/hates Levy. I do feel that the second source fits for our purposes as it is from someone considered an expert on foreign policy.

Ravpapa,

I'm not sure on how to phrase myself in a way that will still feel as though I appreciate your efforts even if I disagree with your suggestion -- so I hope you take these comments in good spirit. There's a number of reasons I prefer the current phrasing. The first is that you've removed the NPOV to the "brainwashing machine" phrasing -- both are over the top, but to leave one without the other does not make for NPOV. Other issues include that you describe Levy's literary style as documentation of incidents when he merely documents Palestinian stories -- a number of them (such as the one accusing Israelis of killing a Palestinian and strapping him to a donkey) did not occur. Another issue is that there should be a mention of Israeli-left politics -- which is a notable issue in reference to Levy. As for Nableezy suggestion to rephrase a portion of your text, I do agree that less-wordy is the way to go here but I don't feel yet that we have a definitive review of what non-opinion sources say so that we can come to a long term wide agreement.

Nableezy,

I'd be happy to see more sources if you find them so that we can formulate a definitive version -- I hope you are coming around on the idea that Levy criticises more than just the occupation and that we should somehow document this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, your opinions on the quality of sources doesnt mean much to me. Recently you were arguing against every single person who made a comment at the RS/N about another source, claiming that they fabricated material, a claim that was later shown to be false. Your repeated characterization of reliable sources as "opinion pieces" and "radical" do not mean anything to me. nableezy - 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, your comments took a little while for me to figure out, but I think I understand them now. What you are saying is that you want to remove both quotes, not just the Yemini quote. What you want is something like this:

Gideon Levy (Hebrew: גדעון לוי; born 1953) is an Israeli journalist and senior editor for the Haaretz newspaper, and a leading critic of Israeli policies and attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs. Levy's weekly column in Haaretz, "The Twilight Zone", deals with incidents of violence and discrimination against Palestinians, primarily in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. His articles have led to many attacks on his politics and his veracity.

That is acceptable to me. I do think, however, that the Levy's Independent interview, Yemini's column, and Levy's response, deserve to be included in the article somewhere.

Also, your categorical statement that the incident of tying the Palestinian to the mule "did not occur" is not accurate. A more accurate statement would be that the Military investigation concluded that the event did not occur, but that the Palestinian had tied himself to the mule. How the Palestinian managed to tie both of his hands together to the mule is a source of some amazement to people familiar with the story. Many people in Israel and abroad do not consider a decision by military investigators not to prosecute an allegation of wrongdoing to be a proof that the wrongdoing did not occur.

The point being that you need to be a little more careful when you make these categorical statements, like "the incident did not occur" or "Givaat Ha'ai does not appear in the [Sasson] report." It greatly reduces your credibility when these and other things you write are shown to be falsehoods. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Later: I rechecked the story, and, indeed, there was a witness who said that the dead Palestinian was tied by only one hand to the mule. It was another Palestinian who said he was tied by both hands. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reapplying the writing topics

Ravpapa, would you be interested in looking up a few more sources so that we can both come to an agreement on the best description to summerise what he writes about?
p.s. I suggest we open a new section for other changes in discussion, I just noticed there's no longer a mention that he is an editorial board member (I can't recall any source saying he is currently a senior editor -- though he was for a few years the secondary editor (I forgot the terminology). Anyways, would be best to reopen this as I am requested to avoid commenting on the previous thread.
p.p.s. I hope you excuse the short breaks in discussions, I try to not let them get too long but sometimes it is something which cannot be avoided.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• 7th eye - "Levy brings stories of Palestinians [from the West Bank and Gaza]".
• Samy Cohen, ed (2008). Democracies at war against terrorism: a comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. ; p. 150: journalists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass from Haaretz also voice criticism of the army and have attempted to draw public attention to the hardships endured by the Palestinians due to Israeli occupation.

He was on CSpan2 recently. He is far more critical than pictured here. Get his latest books - I was surprised he was still able to live safely in Israel. One comment he made showed his total frustration with the Zionist( and he included the bulk of the population,particularly the young).."thi can only be said between Jews..AntiSemitism is hating a Jew slightly more than he desires", a good joke but pretty harsh.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When on Vermont government time[17] you run around from Holocaust-denialism to anti-Zionism you do very little to support the claim that its only the Zionists that anti-Zionists are against, but not Jews in general. Stop trolling all over Wikipedia, especially on government time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gideon is a Jew so I just assumed he was only antiZionist, me too on both counts. Gideon is convinced that most Israelis are/have become Zionists ( at least when the pressure mounts )so I guess antiZionist is almost antiIsraeli in his mind, me too. I have no sympathy for the cause, him neither.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

146.95.19.134 is right

RolandR, the edit by 146.95.19.134 which you reverted was correct. Gideon Levy does not live on land that was part of Sheikh Munis prior to 1948. The entirety of Sheikh Munis is now part of Tel Aviv University. Nobody lives there. Levy's home is in the residential section of Ramat Aviv, which was never part of Sheikh Munis.

Please restore his edit. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Levy writes in the article I cited: "At the top of the hill, a few dozen meters from where a house now stands, there used to be an irrigation pool for the village citrus groves. I swim every morning at the municipal swimming pool built on the ruins of the village irrigation pool. Palestinian Jaffa oranges grew in the now-vanished groves. My house stands there now. The land was "redeemed," as land acquisition was called in Zionist propaganda. In the case of Sheikh Munis, it was redeemed by force, and Tel Aviv's Ramat Aviv neighborhood was built there, including Tel Aviv University, a magnificent academic institution built on the ruins of a village whose 2,230 inhabitants were surrounded and threatened. They fled, never to return. All that remains of the large village is Habayit Hayarok (now a conference and party center) another house on Levanon Street and the cemetery, which sits neglected on the outskirts of the parking lot of an intimidating government facility - no outsiders allowed. Of course, there is neither a memorial nor a monument to the village that was wiped off the face of the earth - one of 418. Somewhere, perhaps in a refugee camp in terrible poverty, lives the family of the farmer who plowed the land where my house now stands. According to the Israeli judicial system, they have the right to get their land back immediately, destroy my house, return and grow Jaffa oranges for export on its ruins, and remove me by force if necessary. The Jerusalem District Court, which recently ruled that representatives of the Sephardi community committee had the right to take back the Hanun and Gawi families' apartments in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, has opened the 1948 file...My house stands on land stolen by force, and it is the obligation of Israel and the world to redress the injustice without creating injustice and new dislocation. My house stands on land that was stolen, but the whole world has recognized the Jews' right to establish their state there."[18] (my emphasis) This is strong support, in an eminently reliable source, from someone in a better position to know than than you, me or the IP. If Levy states that his home is on the lands of Sheikh Munis, and that the land was stolen, that should be good enough for us. RolandR (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was basing my statement on the fact that I used to live in Sheikh Munis, when there were still houses from the original village. The village was at the top of the hill, and Ramat Aviv is at the bottom of the hill. I didn't realize that the area below was agricultural land belonging to the village. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing anti-Zionism category

I am removing anti-Zionism category because nowhere in the article does it mention that Gideon Levy is an anti-Zionist. Idontknow610^TM 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"his columns are cited often in The New York Times"

This is classical WP:SYNTH there are no secondary source that says that only some examples that he used in the newspaper.So if there would be no WP:RS provided this should be deleted.--Shrike (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Even after RavPapa edits the synth issue didn't go away.--Shrike (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part do you see as SYNTH now specifically ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying that he is cited by New york times without WP:RS saying this is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH because we don't know if its really important to his biography. --Shrike (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

<-Do you regard the sentence 'Levy writes opinion pieces and a weekly column for the newspaper Haaretz' as SYNTH ? I'm asking these questions not because I necessarily disagree with you but because I'm interested in when things become SYNTH to people. It is an issue that I'm not clear on because writing inevitably involves summarizing things that are verifiably the case. So for example.

• Levy was cited by the NYT on date X.[1] => not synth
• Levy was cited by the NYT on date Y.[2] => not synth
• Levy was cited by the NYT on dates X and Y.[1][2] => not synth
• Levy has been cited by the NYT.[1][2] => not sure.

However, in all cases the statements are conclusions "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" but they are all verifiably true. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No because there are reliable source that says that he writes the articles in Haaretz.As I understand from the policy if its not cited by RS its a synth.The examples that you have used a really primary sources for statement that you brought and that raise the problem of WP:UNDUE.How its really important that he cited by NYT?(It doesn't really matter if its true or not)--Shrike (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For example if it will be found that he is cited on Anti-Semitic sites should we add this to the article even if its true?--Shrike (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But for a journalist, how many times they are cited by their peers matters. It's even part of our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. Would a reasonable Wikipedia editor (Yaakov Neeman isn't an editor here as far as I know), equate being cited by the New York Times, the paper with the most Pulitzer Prizes, with Anti-Semitic sites ? Seems unlikely. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Again if its important enough the secondary sources will mention this.--Shrike (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But is that consistent ? I'm not sure. If an event is reported by the NYT, do you think that a source is required that says that the NYT reported that event in order to establish that NYT reporting that event is important ? This is why I get confused by the way people handle these issues. It depends on the level they chose to look at the information, how they group it, and how they chose to test "importance". We can say things like "Levy was quoted as saying ... by the NYT on date X.[1]" because it is a secondary source. It is just like making a statement about an event reported by the NYT. It's important enough for the secondary source to mention it and so it can meet the inclusion criteria. But if we want to make a less detailed statement like "Levy was cited by the NYT", according to your view, we need another secondary source (tertiary) that reports that a secondary source quoted him to demonstrate that it is important enough to include. And yet we don't need a source that reports that the NYT reported an event in order for that event to meet the inclusion criteria. We just say "The NYT reported blah blah[nyt cite]". We don't say "The NYT reported[non-NYT cite] blah blah[nyt cite]". Sean.hoyland - talk 12:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I say that in this case NYT is primary source for their own actions.For example the NYT change the price.Does examples of two prices is a good source?Or do we need some secondary source(even the NYT himself) that prices are changed.If you don't agree with me I think we should take it to relevant board to get more uninvolved editors input.--Shrike (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm just interested in how you see it. To me, these issues, the rules and schema people use to think about/classify information in the sources/articles and the way people make decisions are fuzzy. They don't always make sense to me and they aren't applied systematically across articles. For example, see my edit to Gerald M. Steinberg. I didn't remove "Steinberg has been a long time critic of" as SYNTH because it is true and verifiably so by the many instances of him doing that in secondary sources. It is the kind of summary/meta-statement "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" that people routinely synthesize in leads and subsection summaries to summarize the "important" points of an article. To me, synthesis seems to be an inherent part of building Wikipedia, and whether someone sees something as a SYNTH policy violation is dependant of many factors, but it often seems to depend on the scale they chose to use when they examine the information e.g. by word, by sentence, by groups of sentences, by section, by article, by individual source, across multiple sources etc etc. Anyway, I was just interested to hear your view on these issues. I'll leave you to figure it out with Ravpapa. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, it seems that your complaint - as you stated above - is more one of WP:Undue than of WP:Synth. You are saying, who cares that he has been cited in the New York Times? Who says that being quoted in the New York Times (repeatedly - 12 times during 2011, to be exact) is in any way important or significant?

I think that is a reasonable argument. Of course, if we remove the fact that a major international newspaper routinely quotes Levy, we should also remove the fact that a third-rate Israeli novelist, completely unknown outside of Israel and little-known within Israel, cancelled her subscription to Haaretz. I would certainly say that that fact, which comprises a major part of the criticisms, is far less significant than Levy's appearances in the NYT. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Shoken answer and report by Haaretz made it significant. So it does reported by secondary sources Haaretz himself so there are no synth here.--Shrike (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also it was reported by other newspapers in Israel for example [19].--Shrike (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, your edit summary for your last edit "There is agreement on the talk page" was really remarkable. Three people have participated in this discussion: you (who think the NYT sentence should go), me (who thinks it should stay) and Sean, whose posts have been neutral, but with strong hints that your claim of WP:Synth is unjustified. How does that constitute agreement?

Unless, of course, you are also agreeing that Linur's subscription cancellation should also be removed. Is that the case? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You yourself said its a reasonable argument moreover Sean said he doesn't disagree with me too .Please explain how its not a synth?--Shrike (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Moreover you didn't responded two my last statement.--Shrike (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sean has stated as clearly as can be imagined the relevance of this sentence. "For a journalist, how many times they are cited by their peers matters. It's even part of our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria." There is nothing synthetic about saying that he has been quoted in the New York Times. On the contrary, it is an important indication of his respectability and reliability as a journalist.

Your last post suggested that you were going to wait for additional opinions on this talk page. That seemed to me to be a pretty reasonable approach, and I was waiting for those opinions. You were obviously not so patient. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is so important the WP:RS would say this anyhow I have opened a thread in WP:DRN board.--Shrike (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I said "I'm not saying I disagree with you" which is statement about what I'm not saying i.e. a null result. It is the case that the degree to which a journalist is cited by peers is an important attribute of a journalist and it is a metric used by Wikipedia to measure notability. It is perfectly reasonable and informative for the article to describe the degree to which Levy is cited by his peers. It is unclear how to do that in this case but it is clear that we should do it. The problem for me is that I see an inconsistency in the way the rules are being interpreted and applied to the information in this article and the sources and I don't know how to resolve it. The presence of information in an RS about a single instance of something is being used to include a lengthy quote from Irit Linur in the article, but the presence of, let's say, 10 pieces of information in an RS, the NYT, comprised of 10 instances where Levy is cited, can't be included, or so the argument goes, because there isn't a meta-statement in a separate RS that describes those 10 instances at the meta level. However, each of those 10 instances in the NYT qualifies individually for inclusion just like the one Irit Linur instance. We could describe each of the 10 cases individually and include all 10 because it is the NYT reporting what Levy said. But for reasons that don't make sense to me, it can be argued that we are not allowed to reduce those 10 cases to a single summarized meta statement like "his columns have been cited in The New York Times" because we are synthesizing a meta statement and failing to demonstrate that the 10 instances of something being reported in the NYT are important despite it very obviously being important 10x. I've replied here because it seems that the DR mechanism hasn't quite been decided yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What the relevance this quotes has to do with his biography?His quotes was about particular subject usually something about middle east politics so it would be relevant to include his quotes in appropriate section.--Shrike (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They are statements by Levy that an independent RS has decided are important enough to report. If what Irit Linur says about Levy in a letter is important enough to include in a biography then surely what an independant RS selects as statements by Levy about the world are also important enough to include in his biography. What people think about Levy and what Levy thinks about people and the world are both aspects of his biographical profile. My point however is to demonstrate that the information in both cases can be treated as being on the same level and that switching to a higher meta-level/summary treatment of information like this is an option not an obligation. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do in every biography articles of journalist we include quotes?The Linur matter was reported by WP:RS including haaretz itself so I don't understand what is the relevance of this to our discussion about synth.--Shrike (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't see how that is relevant given that the inclusion rules clearly permit it. Every biography is different but they are all built using the same basic set of rules no matter whether the person is a painter, a politician or anyone else talking about their work and views. If it informs the reader about the subject of the biography and the information has been selected by secondary RS it can, in principal, be included. The relevance to the synth discussion is to show that that there is, in my view, a basic flaw, an inconsistency, in the argument. If 10 things each individually qualify for inclusion then the notion that a single simple meta statement about them is synth and requires another source to demonstrate the importance of the 10 things is illogical. Let me ask you this via a reductio ad absurdum. The article includes the 2 books written by Levy. If I were to add a statement that said "Levy has written 2 books" somewhere in the article would you argue that it is synth, that I need a source that says "Levy has written 2 books" to avoid synth and to demonstrate that the easily verifiable fact that Levy has written 2 books is important enough to mention ? What if those 2 books were serialized and only published in the NYT ? Do the rules change if things are in the NYT ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Or: "(Such and so artist) has been in exhibits in major museums throughout Europe." Or "(This violinist) has performed with the leading symphony orchestras of the United States" or "(Such and so boxer) has defeated 20 opponents in the last year" or "(Such and so journalist) has been widely cited by leading newspapers." The argument that these statements are synth is simply absurd, and hardly worth the effort we have put into refuting it. But all this is history now. Because there is a secondary source that says it, better than I ever could have. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, without conceding that the sentence is synth, I have replaced it with a secondary source that says the same thing. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please update the reference with hebrew text per WP:NONENG as I couldn't find this in the source that you provided.--Shrike (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)-

Sorry, carelessly gave wrong source. Sean has given the Hebrew, and I added the English translation. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)