Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gideon Levy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RolandR (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 9 February 2010 (→Misquotes and mistranslations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:22, 9 February 2010 by RolandR (talk | contribs) (→Misquotes and mistranslations)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis 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 the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources: "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, 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 and this attracted criticism". I think this is factual and accurate, and does not imply that now the subject hasn't possibly improved his knowledge. --Cyclopia 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 12:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
a, which source? the Linur source says no such thing, at least the translation does not. b, the same reason it was removed in the past, it does not merit a section heading. c, no. nableezy - 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well,
(a) There is another source for the criticism and another in which Levy attests that he could not learn any Arabic despite having a totur for a year. Overall 3 sources to support this phrase (see Gideon_Levy#Criticism). The source where there is criticism towards the partizan nature of his translators is 2- at the current version. (b) As for the subscription cancellations, it is obviously not a generic crit but a noteworthy occorrance of a wave of cancellations forllowing an open letter by Irit Linur and the section holds both the cancellations as well as the response by publisher Amos Shoken. There's no merit in keeping it within the other criticism structure since it doesn't fit. (c) How would you describe it then? Do we really need to open an RfC over this one?
Regards, Jaakobou 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Which source supports "interpreters with an agenda"? And I would describe "most radical" as "most radical". Der Spiegel in no way criticizes Levy and to pretend that he does is at best an oversight and at worst outright dishonesty. Seeing as you have done this multiple times, even after agreeing to separate it from the criticism, makes me believe that is is not an oversight. nableezy - 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy,
Its in העין השביעית, currently marked as 2- see Gideon_Levy#Criticism). I request that you delete your personal attack above (per "worst outright dishonesty"). I noted that der-spiegel/la monde descriptives fit well as an opener for the 'often raises criticism' issue since it clarifies notability and is a form of criticque. There's no surprise that we see things differntly but it doesn't mean that neither of us should call the other dishonest.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"Interests" != "agenda". And since you raised that source, I wonder why you neglect to include the part about the "other side" who argue that his work "faithfully reflects the harsh reality of the Palestinians"? nableezy - 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy,
I translated the text faithfully and indeed added the other side's argument. Its in the same paragraph and cited to part of the same source. Give it a look :)
Agenda/Other side: Now, I understand that 'interests' is slightly different than 'agenda', but both are faithful translations of the text. One (interests) is more literal and the other conveys the meaning more accurately for the English reader. The argument here seems to revolve around the language barrier for you and Hebrew. If you have other suggestions, I'm open to hear them, but there really wasn't any oversight (or other) with the use of the source.
Der Spiegel/Le Monde: As for the use of Der Spiegel/Le Monde issue, we seem to disagree on policy. There's the opener to the criticism secion which starts by noting that Levy often "raises controversy". Repeating myself a bit, I note that to support the notability of this there are two international, non-Israeli, magazines which noticed. It matters not if they criticize him in order to make note that they noticed and though English is not my first language, I don't believe it comes off as though they are the ones raising the criticism as much as they are noticing it and naming it. Before we move on to dispute resolution over this, I'd like you to try and give a look to whichever policy you think is fitting as your argument to avoid inclusion and we'll try and resolve this amongst ourselves through concensus building.
Subs-cancellations section: The process of biulding the article includes breaking off sections that are more 'occurance' than a continuous event. You haven't really responded to this and I tend to think you haven't changed your mind. Still, I request you review the way the article was with the addition of the section. It seems like a clear improvement and my only suggestion at this point (unless you're willing to reconisider) is dispute resolution.
p.s. I'd still appreciate it if you remove the WP:NPA vio.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1, Ill ask somebody I trust for a translation. 2, if the source does not criticize him you cannot imply that it does. 3, I dont feel that merits its own section, but I dont particularly care. ps, there is no "NPA vio" so no. nableezy - 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that the phrase "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים." can or should be translated as "Interpreters with an agenda". It is properly "interpreters with an interest", or possibly "involved interpreters". To suggest that the writer intended "interpreters with an agenda" would surely be synthesis; it's not what is written. It's also worth noting that this text (from the Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the Israeli Media, presumably a neutral source) states: "בטור מביא לוי מדי שבוע סיפורים אישיים של פלסטינים שנפגעו מפעולות הצבא בגדה המערבית וברצועת עזה." "Each week, Levi presents in his column personal stories of Palestinians who have been harmed by army operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". No "what he describes as...", but a neutral and reliable source stating unequivocally what has been wrangled over in the lead paragraph. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
RolandR,
Translation: The source surely doesn't say that his sources are involved and while "with an interest" is indeed the literal translation, it certainly does mean, san-synthesis, that they have a political interest in the matter. i.e. they have an agenda.
IDF injured: I'm not sure why you're talking about Palestinian IDF related injury as though the are descriptives. Where did you get the impression that this is what I was referring to with the earlier argument (cite the diff please)? I actually added that section into the article "unequivocally" to the proper location.
Nableezy,
Der Spiegel/Le Monde: I'm not sure I'm following you. Where does the text "imply that " criticise him?
Levy's ideological work often raises controversy, and he was described by Le Monde as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and by Der Spiegel as " most radical commentator".
Before we move on to dispute resolution over this, I'd like you to try and give a look to whichever policy you think is fitting as your argument to avoid inclusion.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? I did not say it should not be included, I said it should not be included as criticism. Having it lead into other sources criticizing him makes it seem as though these sources are doing so as well. They are not. nableezy - 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I need an indication from you about my argument so I know what to do with this issue. Jaakobou 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It is "policy based", it is OR, specifically SYNTH, for you to use publications that do not criticize Levy and connect that to criticism of Levy. nableezy - 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And stop trying to force your edits in, at least two users have objected to your phrasing on multiple things. nableezy - 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy,
(a) Did you understand my explanation to RolandR?
(b) Did you understand my explanation about each sentense stating a different thing?
I'm certainly not imposing anything here and I'd be happy to explain if you're interested and also to take things to dispute resolution where it is unavoidable.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand it, I just think it is wrong. And about the Der Spiegel and Le Monde pieces. You have them opening the section entitled "criticism" and then pretend as though that it is not being presented as "criticism" when it directly leads into "criticism". These pieces do not criticize Levy, so to use these pieces to lead into the criticism is unacceptable. I dont think this is too difficult to understand. And you are "imposing", you have re-reverted to your favored version on a number of issues after multiple others have said why they feel those edits are inappropriate. I do not want to keep playing this game, so kindly stop. nableezy - 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well,
I went ahead and opened it for community opinions. Let's get back to the translation issue for now and wait to see how uninvolved editors see that one-liner.
Note my discussion above with RolandR that his literal translation was accurate but his suggestion of "involved" was quite wrong and even more suggestive for the translators being terrorists than the use of the word 'agenda'. The text does identify the translators as " intersts" so I'm open to suggestions but there's really no problem with the word 'agenda' to summerise this. Still, if you insist on 'involved' or are willing to suggest another replacement, I'm open to hear it.
Let me know, Jaakobou 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Why dont you just use "with interests"? nableezy - 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well,
The literal translation doesn't really capture the essense of the Hebrew in this case. That is why RolandR was looking for an expanded term as well. I'm assuming you would not prefer his 'involved' over 'agenda'. Anyways, we should find a way to caputre the basic meaning of the Hebrew text.
Note to self: there might be room to slightly rephrase the translation from Hebrew to clarify this issue.
Regards, Jaakobou 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer involved if that is what the Hebrew means. And given that another user has said that "interests" is the correct translation I expect that you will not change the translation to fit your favored narrative. nableezy - 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Heyo Nableezy,
(a) Make comments about content, not editors.
(b) There's no preferred narative. It is what the source is saying. The literal translation doesn't capture the essense of the Hebrew in this case. RolandR suggested "involved", I suggested "agenda". Do you want to decide on one of the two or maybe make another suggestion that does capture the meaning of the Hebrew? Another option is to obtain another translator.
Let me know, Jaakobou 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Changelist

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


Controversy/Criticism - lead sentense and SYNTH/OR

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

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

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

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

Would appreciate some external perspective here. Jaakobou 02:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issue, it specifically says "Levy's ideological work often raises controversy". It would be even better if it said "... and his work was described by..." rather than "... and he was described by..." But I don't see any real SYNTH issue, this is showing the controversy of his work. The criticism about him specifically is mentioned after this sentence.  fetchcomms☛ 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that the source, Der Speigel, is not at all criticizing Levy, yet the line on his being "the most radical" is being used to bolster others criticism. How can you lead the section on "criticism" with a source that does not criticize him at all. That line is not a "criticism" of Levy but it is being used to set up other people's opinions about his work. There is no connection between what Der Sperigel wrote and what it is being connected to in the text. nableezy - 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree, but with the way the article currently is do you have any thoughts on whether a quote from Der Speiigel which not criticizing Levy should be used to lead the criticism section? nableezy - 08:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right that the author of this section has tried to pass of Der Spiegel's commentary as a criticism, when it is not. But the Der Spiegel quote does make it clear why Levy is criticized: because the government and its supporters don't like him.
By the same token, is '...showing a "particular attitude towards the State of Israel" ' a criticism? Doesn't sound like one to me. Is there any writer about Israel that does not have a particular attitude on the subject? It is simply a stupid thing to say. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
(Oops, sorry, I meant the LeMonde quote. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC))
Well,
We seem to have some consensus on the first sentense pointing out the notability.
Ravpapa,
I agree with you about context and order. I created a restructure but there were some reverts by Nableezy due to policy misunderstandings. I merged some of the critique and made note of notables within two paragraphs, each dealing with one topic. One, general criticism, the other with accusations that he's helping/promoting/being hailed by muqawama organizations.(static link)
Anyways, if you think someone not notable was given too much credit, let me know and I'd be happy to try and address it - let's do this on a separate section intended for this though.
p.s. Ravpapa, comment on content please.
Regards, Jaakobou 12:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) clarification and added request. Jaakobou 12:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is this consensus that you speak of? And I thought you were asked to not use the word muqawama. nableezy - 16:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess one uninvovled editor and another involved editor agreeing that it shows notability is not enough of a consensus in your opinion. I'm not in an extreme rush. I'll wait for one/two more perspectives on this.
p.s. Hamas translates to Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah. I'm not sure it is better to start calling them either terrorist or freedom fighters and I'm still thinking of the best way of handling cases where I'm addressing such groups and the associated ideology. In general, I am trying to avoid the use of the word, more-so, when Tiamut is involved. Do you have any suggestions for me on usage in the current context?
Warm regards, Jaakobou 12:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The field of external links...

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

I suggest
Yes

Maybe

No

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

I'll review those policies and try to understand how they work in order to fix up your concern about this issue. Jaakobou 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
One agreement: the two sources: (#Articles on Iran: 'Days of darkness' by Gideon Levy) (#Author: Gideon Levy (voltairenet.org)) are the same, I would remove the first one since it is a copy of the second.
However, I think you are mostly wrong. The references are not very good, but they are what we currently have. Removing any of them at this point would only narrow the point of view of this article. About WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, I suggest you explicitly quote a rule after linking to a guideline, since we cannot really understand from your list why you reject a source. Try one link which is the worst in your opinion and write why. Note that the links currently summarize a wide view of Levy's work and criticism, so if you remove one you should be careful to keep the article balanced.
The best thing is to find notable secondary sources, that usually show a wider perspective of everything. The problem is that we don't have any. Neither does the article in Hebrew. Setreset (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You can read WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE yourself. They are very short. :) If a link doesn't meet the yes or maybe criteria it's in the no set. Gideon Levy's Official Lecturer Page get a yes simply because it's his official page. The Selection of articles by Levy gets a maybe because it's the closest thing we have to a decent selection of the material he writes via one link. The pbs.org got a maybe because I was just being nice. I personally think it's neither a yes or a maybe. The open letter exchange got a maybe because I wanted to add something for NPOV compliance but then I had to add Levy's response. All of the others got a no because they weren't yes or maybe. We shouldn't link to individual articles by Levy. It's not an archive of his work and if we include them we would need to balance them. It would end up being like giant ext link farms you often see in I-P related articles. The Le Monde article is behind a paywall and I have no reason to believe that it complies with "..neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." There should just be small number of high quality links. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
..and in the meantime I have removed the links to improve WP:EL compliance. They are not references by the way, they don't currently summarize a wide view of Levy's work and criticism (it would be great if we had links that did that but we don't) and I'm not 'mostly wrong'. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Misquotes and mistranslations

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

I have also removed a smear on Levy, consisting of an appalling translation by Levy of a blog entry, for some reason sourced to a news aggregator, rather than to the original source (israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=272685&blogcode=110007650, deliberately not linked here). RolandR (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello RolandR, please do not insult other users. As for your comment: "Agenda", as in political agenda is not far from the actual meaning of "אינטרסים". Arguably, "Interests" as in National interest might be a better candidate for translation since it is the origin of the word "אינטרסים". Note that the two terms are quite similar, and "agenda" may be considered better since it is more used in similar contexts. Setreset (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That is merely your interpretation of what the writer may have meant. It is not what he wrote. And it is certainly not what I agreed that he wrote, to claim this is to completely distort the meaning of what I wrote. RolandR (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's a blog why was it being used in a BLP ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2 different things. nableezy - 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy is right; we are talking about two different sources. The "interpreters with interests/agenda" is sourced to the "Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the Israeli Media", which I believe is a neutral source -- though I will check. I removed an entirely separate smear, taken indirectly from a blog but sourced to a news aggregator. But all of the translations are poor, there is too much badly sourced criticism, and the whole article reads too much like "Gideon Levy the Israel-hater and his apologists". I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch, and if I had the time I would do so.RolandR (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating on nableezy's Zen Koan. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, RolandR, the hebrew "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים" says exactly what I wrote: either "interpreters with interests" (more literally) or "interpreters with agenda" (more commonly used). It is a plain translation. Setreset (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for setting the record straight, Setreset. It seems that we agree 'agenda' is quite a legitimate translation and the one more commonly used.
p.s. I've no idea where RolandR gets the idea that anything was brought to this article from a blog. Last time I checked, I didn't see anything related to a blog.
Regards, Jaakobou 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, I simply do not accept that "מתורגמנים בעלי אינטרסים" can validly be translated as "translators with an agenda". The Hebrew means that they are interested parties, somehow involved with the issue; the term "agenda" suggests that they have an intentional purpose. It is not what the text says. It could be a possible meaning of the text; but it is not a necessary or exclusive meaning, and using the word "agenda" in English gives a clear meaning which is not in the Hebrew original. RolandR (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
RolandR,You did not comment on "interests". Setreset (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's clumsy, but I suggest that the closest English equivalent is "translators who are interested parties"; the English word "interest" has several meanings, not all of which are conveyed by the Hebrew "אינטרס", so simply writing "interested translators" could mean that they are not bored. This is not a possible translkation of the Hebrew usage. RolandR (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism or Opposition

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

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

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

What you say is that the section contains "criticism and opposition". Therefore, that is how it should be named. That or "opposition and criticism". Setreset (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what he said. Also the recommendations are at WP:CRIT. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Or, how about "Controversy"? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The section is devouted to critique. I sub-cancellations is a controversy of sorts, but best to give the informative title. CJCurrie or Nableezy have yet to give a proper reason to delete the heading. In general, I figure 'Controversy' is not the best choice in the long term and 'criticism' works better. Jaakobou 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

To clarify, a criticism is a statement that he does something badly: that he is inaccurate, or careless, or has bad spelling. To say that he supports one position or another is not a criticism. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It does fall under criticism, because a journalist has to report the truth.
His opponents say that his views are the basis of his work:
"הביקורת על גדעון לוי ועמירה הס מתבססת על כך שהם יוצאים מבסיס השקפה אנטי-ישראלי שיש בו העדפה לצד הפלשתיני על פני הצד של בני עמם."
His supporters say that his work reflects the reality:
"מנגד נטען כי עבודתו משקפת בנאמנות את המציאות הקשה בצד הפלסטיני"
Therefore it is criticism which is also countered as such. Setreset (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the WP:Criticism which Sean.hoyland pointed to, it seems that the preferred term in wikipedia is "reception", even for complete criticism sections. I would suggest simply following the guideline.Setreset (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Cite error: The named reference Le Monde was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Problems at Israel's Haaretz: A Newspaper Without a Country
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference 7th-eye was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Interview with Gideon Levy (in Hebrew),(2002-2-26)
    Translation:
    About the Arabic language, to my great shame no, that is my great failure. I had a private teacher and for a year I only managed to get one word, which is thank you (which I knew beforehand).
    Original:
    he
  5. 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.
    Original:
    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.
Categories: