Talk:Gideon Levy

strange edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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revert again, I did, and two users have given their reasons for why this material is inappropriate in a BLP. 1, it is outdated; 2, even the source acknowledges that this is not a real issue.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notability of criticism

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

BLP violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

"אתה מדבר ערבית?

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

Translation:

"Do you speak Arabic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

translations in the reference section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

last edit

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

Heyo Nableezy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nableezy,

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

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

Nableezy,

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

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

Nableezy,

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

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

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

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

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

Changelist

1) change lead with source "hard reality" and rephrase 'modest mission' back into quote form. 2) der-spiegel/la monde descriptives for 'often raises criticism' -- clarifies notability and is a form of criticque. 3) Vice-editor/IDF/Section B - bio stuff 4) Readdmitting partizan translators thing - it's in the source. 5) PMW analysis - we've been through this numerous times. If you disagree, bring it up on talkpage please and we'll see what solution we can come up with. 6) Reintroduce Criticism by 4th Top news site in Israel (Arutz Sheva News[2]). 7) Add about book and communism doco and weekly talkshow/interview show. Will continue at another time. Feel free to raise your concerns - please use the talkpage. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)