Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 1 November 2010 (→"left wing critic of Israel": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Biography 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel 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 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 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 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. Palestine 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Changelist 2

1) Awards to awards section - merge the content from bio into this section. 2) Remove OR about how often he gets published. Sorry it is OR. Can't say "see example here and here" to support the made statement. He gets published on Iranian press as well, and it would be a BLP vio to say the same without a secondary source. 3) Move praise by one foreign paper after more notable public criticism in Israel. 4) rephrase the bulldozer thing, there's no discussion in the source about a connection to Hamas. 5) reinstate omedia, we now have an admission that the original was seen there. 6) Add Fisk into the praise and The independent in general. Add a quote to him, but leave out his standard "war crimes" tantrums as it is not conservative writing. 7) Return translation to "accordance to his world view". I don't know if this is perfect grammar of if 'their' would be better fitting but the original was refering the opinion to the person rather than just referring to the opinion. 8) Not sure why the Arabic issue was removed (I returned it) - it is one of the most notable criticisms. 9) Add Avoda days input into the bio. Used the source I noted of in the 1st changelist. I kind of liked the idea behind some of the made changes but the awards were superimposed and the Independent was made out to have more notability than all the others put together and the Arabic thing is notable for a reporter on Arab issues. I figure the criticism needs the rewrite to be more flowing and less 'direct quote' style... just that some of the changes wern't great IMHO and I'd like to maybe see some of the changes proposed on the talk or maybe just to see them made without removal of content (if that is possible). Apologies Rav, fair attampt indeed. Jaakobou 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jaakobu, for reverting an attempt to impose a modicum of order, objectivity and correct English on a section that is appallingly written, full of grammatical and spelling errors, and pathetically one-sided. Here is a point by point to your comments:

1. Awards to awards section: The entire "Receptions" section is five paragraphs long. There is no justification for chopping it up into three subsections. It is simply poor composition.
2. How often he gets published: If you do a Google search for Gideon Levy on the New York Times website, you will get dozens of hits in the last couple of years. Likewise for other leading newspapers. The fact is that he is frequently quoted in the international press. To disallow this on the grounds of OR is an extremely strict constructionist interpretation of the rule, and the result is clearly ideologically-inspired exclusion of a demonstrably true statement that is eminently germaine to Levy's standing as a journalist.
3. "Move praise by one foreign paper after more notable public criticism in Israel." I am wondering how you decided that one of Britain's leading papers and France's leading paper are less notable than a third-rate Israeli novelist (quoted three times in your version), the mouthpiece of the Israeli settler movement (quoted three times in your version), and a number of statements that are so vague as to be criticisms only in the eyes of readers with preconceptions ("particular attitude towards the State of Israel" - what on earth does that mean???).
4. Rephrase the bulldozer thing: Okay, nice call about taking out Hamas. Changing "two" to "2" is contrary to accepted English style, but in this version you are the arbiter in these matters.
5. Reinstate omedia. This is Roland's fight. Beat it out with him.
6. Fisk: Leave out what standard war times rant? I didn't include any wartime rant from Fisk?
7. Translation: "accordance to" is not English. But keep it if that is what you prefer. It is only one of many grammatical and composition errors you have made in this revert.
8. Arabic issue: the Arabic issue was not removed. It was included in the discussion of Irit Linur's letter. Putting it at the beginning destroys any sort of logical order in the presentation of Linur's criticisms, and it also gives undue weight to a completely frivolous criticism. But if you think that that is the most important problem with Levy's writing, by all means put it first.
9. Add Avoda days: I have no idea what this is referring to.

Jaakobu, I don't want to make assumptions about your motivations. But the section as it is currently written reads like a subtle but incompetent attempt to smear Levy. Statements that are not criticisms are presented as though they are. Criticisms that are frivolous are presented as if they were serious. Praise has been buried to give it secondary importance. Moreover, the section uses paraphrases instead of direct quotes: this gives the appearance of seriousness and objectivity, when in fact it weakens the import of the original author's criticisms.

Overall, it is biased, misleading, and generally bad. I assume it is that way because that is how you prefer it. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. For those interested in reading my rewrite, it is here. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "admission" that the original smear on Levy was ever seen in Omedia; stop distorting my words, Jaakobou. I agree that it may have been reprinted there, but that is a different thing. At present, we have two verifiable sources that state that this was written by blogger Uri Heitner; and absolutely none to back the assertion by Jaakobou that it was written by Omedia editor Ran Farhi. Consequently, we cannot include this assertion in the article. RolandR (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, if there is no acceptance than how do you explain saying "I accept that the text was previously on Omedia"? You also haven't explained the other issue. Jaakobou 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa,
If I understand correctly, you're referring to the "thorn" quote? I can't read the French original but, in general, I don't object to it being lumped together with the praise somehow. Still, that quote seems like a good opener for the "raises controversy" first line that doesn't neccesarily deal with praise or criticism. I don't mind if there is a desire to break that line from the rest of the paragraph and also I don't object to using le monde twice. One time with the thorn quote and later by noting praise. I'm not sure there is a pattern of praise though. Would be good if we saw more than one article on this matter to get a better feel if Le Monde is a fan of Haaretz like Independent or that this waws a one time occurance. Anyways, there was a good notion in your edit and I tried to incorporate it. However, The Independent loving Haaretz correspondants is not on the same level as the mass criticism he garnishes. I did kind of liked how your version kept the section in 2 sections but notability is the issue here. Can't give an anti-Israeli newspaper the same notability as all the others put together. I fully accept that the text needs refinement in the more conservative direction though just that the 'often cited' part was ORish. It was a good idea actually, just that on the same sources which were used, another editor could write that he's often cited in Iranian publications. I'm actually hoping we can find a secondary source saying the same thing you added so that it could be returned into the article for better showing of his reception in foreign press. We just need to find the proper sources... the ones from the Independent were a good start and there's more to be found. Just that we can't make a generic claim that someone is often used in a magazine if there is only one link to an article of his that was published in the afordmentioned magazine.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will type slowly, so you may understand. The disagreement is over the word "original". The text may have been on Omedia; if so, it was copied from the original blog entry by Uri Heitner. I repeat, for the nth time -- there are two verifiable sources that this was originally a blog entry by Heitner, and none at all for anything else. There is absolutely no justification for repeatedly restoring this to the article, with an unverifiable citation, when the text can be found elsewhere. And, as a blog entry by a hostile commentator, this has no place in the article. RolandR (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Roland, do we really need to tell our readers about Levy's prizes three times? Currently, it is in the lead, in the "Reception" section, and in its own subsection. I am going to delete the "Awards" subsection, which adds nothing substantive. Pending your response. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added it while restoring Zero's edit, which was "collateral damage" of reverting Jaakobou's POV edit. You are right, it does not need to be there three times. I would be inclined to retain the awards section, and remove the mention in the reception section, but do not have strong feelings either way, so long as rthge information is retained. RolandR (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Ravpapa (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

I hope you'll continue to work on this article while being honestly interested in improving the biography of this journalist.

With respect, Jaakobou 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

General edit

I have made a pretty thorough edit of this article. I took out some really extraneous stuff (what street did he live on in Tel Aviv as a child), and trimmed some of the section on his political views, which I thought was pretty excessive. On the other hand, I added some material on how his current views developed.

I expect ricochets. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a look and merge proper content once I have some real time on my hands. I'd hate to edit while under time constraints and not be able to discuss matters in the best way to create consensus. I hope you at least addressed some of the issues I've raised in the above section. Certainly, all were dont with considerable consideration to how we do things around here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ravpapa, you ignored some of the points on which agreement was reached. Your edit made the Reception section very descriptive and not factual. You removed some of the references and generally mixed them up. Please correct your edits. Setreset (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Vague. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. What agreements do you refer to? What facts have I omitted from the Reception section? Which references were removed, and what is mixed up? Hard to correct things when you don't say what needs correction. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The section was completely rewritten, simply ignoring all of the points which were agreed upon.

Specifically, a partial list:

• Le Monde praised him as a 'thorn in Israel's flank' and Der Spiegel characterized him as " most radical commentator".-
  • (1) praise is not neutral.

I am not sure what you mean by "praise is not neutral". Of course praise is not neutral. Otherwise it would not be praise. It was Jaakobou who raised the idea of moving the Le Monde comment to the praise part of the Reception section. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. If it is easier for you to explain in Hebrew, please do so, I understand the language mighty well.

Later: Ah, I see what you are driving at - you think that Le Monde's and Der Spiegel's comments were not intended as praise. Well, I suggest you read the original articles in their entirety. Both the Le Monde and the Der Spiegel articles were praising Levy. They were not merely reporting on him.

• On the other hand, his opponents have criticized him for being anti-Israeli
  • (2) not neutral as being anti israeli may be considered not criticism

Again I am confused by this comment. All the criticisms in this section - except for Linur's offhand comment about not speaking Arabic - are that he is anti-Israeli and a promoter of the Hamas. Do you want to remove all these criticisms as being not neutral?

• and for supporting Palestinian radicalism. "Is it wrong to ask of reporters in a country that is in the midst of a difficult war to show a little more empathy for their people and their country?" asks Amnon Dankner of the moderate Maariv newspaper.

• • (3) not encyclopedic.

This quote was already included in the article, in a footnote. It was paraphrased in the text. Instead of using the paraphrase, I used the actual quote. No one on this talk page raised the possibility that the quote is not encyclopedic, so I don't understand where you thought there was agreement on this topic. But even so, if you could explain why the quote is not encyclopedic I would be enlightened.

• ostensibly to justify two rampages by Palestinians driving bulldozers in Jerusalem in 2008.
  • (4) ostensibly is not neutral

Again, there is no agreement about this. But if you wish I will remove the word ostensibly.

• Gideon Ezra, a member of Parliament from the Kadima party, and former deputy Minister of Internal Security in Israel, even suggested in 2006 that the General Security Services should monitor Levy as a borderline security risk — a suggestion that drew angry responses from Israeli civil rights groups.
  • (5) not neutral, not balanced

Yes, I see what you mean. The source for this is the Israel Democracy Institute, which cited the incident as an example of Aleihum on Israeli journalists who don't tow the line. To present the statement without any qualification would be, to the thinking of most ordinary people, a gross violation of neutrality. But again, if you like, I could remove it.

• Israeli novelist Irit Linur set off a wave of subscription cancellations to Haaretz when she wrote an open letter to the paper cancelling her own subscription. "It is a person's right to be a radical leftist, and publish a newspaper in accordance with his world view... However Haaretz has reached the point where its anti-Zionism has become stupid and evil," she wrote.". She also accused Levy of amateurism because he does not speak Arabic.
  • (6) The sentence had a wording agreed upon
  • (7) The cite is unconnected to the claims
  • (8) The former cite was translated and agreed upon
  • (9) The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed
  • (10) using interpreters with interests was removed after being agreed upon

Wow, you have a lot of complaints here. I will try to address them one by one:

• "The sentence had a wording agreed upon". There was never any agreement on this talk page as to the wording. As it was, the wording was a paraphrase, that did not convey the precise import of Linur's criticism. Instead, I have included the actual quote. Don't you think that's better than Jaakobou's grammatically incorrect paraphrase?

• "The cite is unconnected to the claims." Not sure exactly what you mean. The quote says pretty precisely why Linur cancelled her subscription. I read the letter, and this is the most concise statement of her complaint, in my opinion. However, if you think there is a quote from the letter that better sums up her criticism, by all means suggest it.

Later: Ah, now I see what you meant. I have fixed it. tnx for the catch.

• "The former cite was translated and agreed upon". I am not sure how this complaint differs from the first. The cite did not previously appear in the text, so it is hard for me to understand how it could have been agreed upon.

• "The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed." Did you actually read the article? I quote: "She also accused Levy of amateurism because he does not speak Arabic."

• "using interpreters with interests was removed after being agreed upon". No, there was never any agreement on this quote. The majority of editors on this talk page agree that this whole complaint about not speaking Arabic is frivolous and irrelevant. The vast majority of foreign correspondents who cover events in other countries or regions do not speak the native language, and many of them receive Pulitzer prizes (see above for ref to NYT foreign desk staff). A minority of editors - aka you and Jaakobou - thought this criticism was extremely notable. In spite of the fact that most of us here think this criticism is ridiculous, I have included it, albeit without the huge emphasis it had in Jaakobou's version.

Later: Ah, I see that the original Hebrew quote in the footnoe was hidden because an error in wiki tags. I have fixed the tags so the original footnote appears.

• Other public figures followed suit in canceling their subscriptions,
  • (11) followed suit needs to be changed

Would you prefer "also canceled their subscriptions"? no problem.

• Levy himself joked that there is a thick file of anti-Levy cancellations in the Haaretz newsroom
  • (13) not encyclopedic
  • changed wording unnecessarily

I changed the wording because the original had poor syntax and was ungrammatical. I think that is a good enough reason to change it. If you think it is unencyclopedic, it should be removed, not reworded. I fail to see what is unencyclopedic about this, but it is not essential to the article, so I will remove it if you insist.

• removed Yehoshua's letter and reply of levy which is very notable (in old edits, not connected to Ravpapa).

Please point me to the version where this letter appears, and I will try to reinstate it.

Setreset (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I find your list rather astonishing. I find nothing in your list about which there was agreement, and many of the things you mention were not even discussed on this talk page. I have responded in more detail in-line above. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where I wrote "cite" I meant the quote from the source with the translation. removing the specific quote from the references and its translation is almost like removing the source since the readers probably cannot read hebrew. Where I wrote "not encyclopedic" it was usually to indicate a quote put in the text. Quotes should be left in the references, and the article should summarize them as accurately and as neutrally as possible, since quoting in the article puts it out of context and is not natural.

"The cite for the fact that he does not speak arabic was removed" - the source is not irit linur but levy's own statement in an interview. It was exhaustively discussed above. Setreset (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that it is improper to include direct quotes in the text of an encyclopedia article? This is a complete misconception. I am surmising that you are not a native English speaker, and also that you do not spend a lot of time reading encyclopedias. So I suggest you open any encyclopedia to any article. Chances are good that you will find direct quotes in the text of the article, and only very rarely in a footnote.

If you really believe that direct quotes are inappropriate in an encyclopedia, I suggest you raise the issue at the help desk or the style forum, and see what they say.

In the case of this article, the paraphrases of the previous version were almost universally written poorly, often with grammatical and spelling mistakes, and often inaccurately representing the author's original words. So I see absolutely no justification for restoring them.

As for the "cite" from Levy that he did not speak Arabic - fine, if you feel it is so important, I will add it back in.

--Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

More on general edit

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

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

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

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

(4) Done. Removed "ostensibly".

(5) Done. Removed comments by civil rights groups

(6) Awaiting your specific suggestion for rewording.

(7) Done.

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

(9) Done

(10) Done: original footnote with translation restored

(11) Done

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

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

"Reception" section unbalanced?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oPt or IoT?

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

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

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

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

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

"left wing critic of Israel"

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

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• 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