Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 26 September 2009

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Israel Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2006—April 2009)

quote

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

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

Heyo Nableezy,

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Cheers, Jaakobou 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Zero's personal opinion or Misplaced Pages rules?

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

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To the IP

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

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

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

Thanks for the input Jeppiz,

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Celebrating Hamas victory

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

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed descriptives

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Warm regards, Jaakobou 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

References

1. Bibi's Blunders The New Republic, 24 December 2008
3. עשר דילמות של עיתונות בימי טרור by פרופ' גבי וימן
   Translation:
   "Criticism of Gideon Levy and Amira Hass is based on that they come out of an anti-Israeli base of perspective that shows preference to the Palestinian side over the side of their own people." (Amnon Dankner, "Maariv", 1.5.02)
   Original:
   "הביקורת על גדעון לוי ועמירה הס מתבססת על כך שהם יוצאים מבסיס השקפה אנטי-ישראלי שיש בו העדפה לצד הפלשתיני על פני הצד של בני עמם." (אמנון דנקנר, "מעריב", 1.5.02)
4. Problems at Israel's Haaretz: A Newspaper Without a Country

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles