Talk:Uri Avnery

message: Plagiarization is not good, especially from a POV website. The original site is http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html . Danny 01:29 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
I'm confused.  Which is the POV website?  The one you link to?  If that's what you're claiming it's ridiculous.  That site which you call POV is the personal website of the person featured in this article.  It expresses his views.  Do you want his views in the article or not??
And if you're saying something diff. & I misunderstood you I apologize...but it is a little hard to follow what your claim is.--Richard 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Look, guys, Avnery joined the Irgun when he was 15, as it is very easy to read in his biography which is linked from this very article, there's really no need for serious research to realize this. Though I do not consider myself an expert on his life, to my best knowledge he was never a member of Lehi. One would expect him to at least mention it in the biography on his website, or in his resume in the Knesset website, or anywhere else for that matter. The only "evidence" I've seen for his alleged membership in Lehi was in the link provided by User:Guy Montag. This is an interview with Avnery by Israeli journalist Ari Shavit about Arafat following his death, and in the background notes Shavit says that Avnery was a Lehi member when he was young. This is undoubtedly a mistake (which seems common, given User:Danny's and User:Guy Montag's insistance), and is not written by Avnery or a quote of Avnery at any rate. So stop reverting to Lehi unless you can come up with a source for this groundless claim.--Doron 13:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irgun or Lehi? 

message: I noticed on the mediawatch site that Uri Avnery mentions in an article, http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/35741 that he refers to himself as a Jewish Atheist
"As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to..."
I'll tag his page as atheist as he is notable and he is also very much for the separation of religion from state matters. (I am one too so thought so best to at least mention this for the record). Ttiotsw 07:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to Category:Atheists 

message: Some articles I read suggested he is a proponent of a binational solution.  Is this truly the case?  If one can determine that he is for sure, one could apply this new category :Category:Binational solution proponents to the article.  For now, I do not want to apply it on secondary sources (another Wikipedia article).  This article should really be expanded to describe his views in more detail considering how widely cited Uri is in some leftist circles.  --Deodar 13:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Deodar, UA definitely qualifies as an advocate of bi-nationalism. More to the point though, he is quite fond of pointing out that he advocated this position long before it became a consensus view. Indeed, he was one of the first public figures to express this view and has written several times describing his efforts to convince the Israeli leadership to enact this vision immediately after the 1967 war. In conclusion - it would be very appropriate to include UA in this category. Regards --Philopedia 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Philopedia is mistaken here. Avnery has long been a proponebnt of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is in fact the reverse of a binational position, which holds that both national communities can live in one state. Avnery's position is that each community needs its "own" state. If necessary, I will provide citations to back my interpretation of Avnery's views; I would be very interested to read any citations Philopedia can provide to back his interpretation. RolandR 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roland is right. Avnery has supported a two-state solution, not a binational or "single state" solution. But if he did support a bi-national state, he would hardly be "one of the first public figures to express this view" — the idea goes back at least to the 1920s, when Avnery was born. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proponent of binationalism? 

message: In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Uri Avnery as a post-Zionist.  There was no source listed.  There is now a category for post zionists here :Category:Post-Zionists.  If someone finds a source for this, can you please add the category and describe him as such in the body of the article?  Thanks.  --Deodar 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Uri Avnery self-identify as a [[post-Zionist]]? 

message: User:TRFA persists in renaming the section in the article on Death Threats against Avnery as "Trivia". This is extremely offensive and definitely not NPOV. In addition, s/he has several times removed a sourced report of the 1975 assassination attempot against Avnery, falsely claiming that this is not sourced. S/he has made several other POV edits, including deliberately misspelling Avnery's name. If this POV vanddalism persists, I shall ask for the article to be protected. RolandR 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Threats 

message: i'm not sure on how reliable this source is, however, they do give out enough details that this can be checked.
allegedly, avneri's mother denied him of all inheritance due to his lack of concern for her, and that instead of taking care of her he went to visit "Arafat the murderer" (quote on his mother).
source: http://rotter.net/forum/gil/5405.shtml
-- Jaakobou 07:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inheritance denial 

message: *Baruch Marzel didn't threaten to kill Avnery, so it's wrong to call his statement a "death threat."  In 1975 someone actually tried to kill him, which is also not a death threat.  I don't know why you'd group together these two things that happened thirty years apart under a heading that applies to neither of them, breaking up the natural chronological organization that a biographical article should have.
*Similarly I don't know why three things that happened in the 2000s should have their own section at the end of the article rather than just coming at the end of the biography section, or why they should be in bullet points rather than normal prose.71.182.211.165 (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  two changes