Talk:Palestinian land laws/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent edit

I can't say I'm able to follow the reasoning behind the revert.[1] Please clarify, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You put a who tag where the text says who. You changed it from Israel established settlements to Israelis did (both are true but it was the state that allowed these violations to occur and just making this about individual citizens is misleading), you added Judea and Samaria without any reason to do so. And you changed it from "defying almost all legal advice" to "in contradiction with legal advice", which, again, while true is understating the consensus around that advice. Any other questions? nableezy - 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Brew, in your zeal to provide backup you did not address any of the other issue with the edit. I changed the part you took issue with in the edit summary but the rest is a problem and I reverted that. nableezy - 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Why are continually adding "considered to be Judea and Samaria"? What does that have to do with this article? How does that add to an "encyclopedic tone" as your edit summary says? Why are you adding "the BBC reports" to a statement of fact? The BBC is a reliable source and does not need to be explicitly cited. Why do you write "believed to include", the BBC wrote that as a FACT. nableezy - 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to re-revert the edit please provide some justification. I know it will be hard because there isnt one, but please do explain why we are saying "The BBC reported" and "believed to be" when a RS reports something as a fact. Also, please tell me why we are including "Judea and Samaria" here. I dont see anything in the naming conventions that allows for mentions of the West Bank to be qualified as believed to be Judea and Samaria by the Israelis. If you could point out that clause in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) that would be appreciated. nableezy - 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) guideline applies to using one term over the other, which does not apply in this case. Nobody is replacing "West Bane" with "J+S." The terms Judea and Samaria do not have to be erased throughout Wikipedia. They settled there because it was historically Judea and Samaria. Nobody argues with that fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That addresses half the edit, what about the rest? And if you wouldnt mind explaining why we should include the term J+S and how that is keeping with the naming convention clause on J/S cannot be used without qualification except in 4 specific cases that would also be appreciated. nableezy - 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: The guidelines do not forbid mention of the words Judea and Samaria throughout Wikipedia. They only concern using one term over the other, which is not germane to this case. Do you not agree that Jews settled there because they considered the land the ancient Judea and Samaria? If that's true, it should go in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the use is qualified. It says "historical territory of Judea and Samaria", per clause #1 of the guideline. This "Judea and Samaria" removal crusade is not helpful. As for the second part, BrewCrewer is also right. This is a WP:REDFLAG claim (among other reasons, because it's blatantly false) that requires an exceptional source, or several reliable sources. We should use the BBC only with qualification when there are no other sources to support such a wild claim. Moreover, it is not even clear what the BBC is referring to—the combined land area of the settlements (probably less than 10% of the West Bank), or the land they might cover if annexed to Israel (but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and even that wouldn't be 60% of the territories). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the source, now corrected. The 60% is referring to E. Jerusalem. The BBC is a high quality source and if you have a source that disputes it then by all means present it. What is not OK is to just say it is a red flag claim. This is coming from Allegra Pacheco of the United Nations (OCHA oPt) who said "Israeli settlers occupy 60% of the land there and they are scattered all over the places. This further fragments the territory and very much undermines the economy and prospects for improvement in the Palestinian situation". If you have a source that disputes it fine, but you cannot just say it is false or an exceptional claim. OCHA is an exceptional source. And there is no crusade to remove the terms, it is editing within the guidelines. What I see is a crusade to try and put the terms everywhere without any type of cause. That clause does not open up every mention of the West Bank to be qualified by "believed to be the Biblical land of Judea and Samaria". That clause is for discussing historical topics, not coaching in a favored term when discussing present day issues. nableezy - 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. A UN body is a reliable source? I think we're losing direction here. The UN is a political body, no different from the PNA or the Israeli government. It is not a reliable source. Nor are any of its subcommittees. As for red flag claims, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Any claim that is obvious contentious is an exceptional claim. More so if it's blatantly false. Your "misunderstanding of the source" completely proves my point—the source might actually have been correct, but the Wikipedia editor made the mistake. Therefore, it is the job of other Wikipedia editors to point out clearly implausible claims, and find good sources for them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OCHA is absolutely a reliable source for making factual statements, such as how many settlements and what portion of the land is used by those settlements, if you wish to challenge that WP:RS/N is thataway. And I fixed the article to conform to the source, it no longer says 60% of the West Bank. nableezy - 23:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Parallels" section

Jewish National Fund and Israeli law in comparison with Palestinian laws

See also: Jewish National Fund

Israeli Law since 1960 has stipulated that land owned by the government or by the Jewish National Fund (also JNF or Keren Kayemet Le'Ysrael (KKL)), a private charitable organization working since before the establishment of Israel, could not be sold but only leased.[11] The JNF, which owns approximately 14% of Israeli land, has under its charter the purpose of purchasing land for the settlement of Jews, and has interpreted this to mean that JNF owned lands should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews.[11] This has led several commentators to ascribe parallels between the Palestinian laws and those governing property in Israel.

Writing in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis stated:

As a practical matter, land used by Israeli Jews for home or business or farm is hardly ever sold to Arabs. So the idea of Palestinians wanting to keep what land they have is not unusual.[16]

In the Washington Post, Barton Gellman asserted that:

[The Palestinian law] is not without parallels, penalty aside, in Israel. Keren Kayemet [the Jewish National Fund], a cooperative that owned most of the Jewish land in the [20th] century's first decades, "by its regulations could not sell land at all, and could not rent land except to Jews," according to historian [Anita] Shapira. As recently as January ... one of Israel's two state-appointed chief rabbis, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, issued a ruling of religious law forbidding the sale or rental of any Jewish land to Arabs.[17]

The Israel Land Administration, which owns 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. When ILA land is "bought" in Israel it is actually leased to the "owner" for a period of 49 years. According to Article 19 of the ILA lease, foreign nationals are excluded from leasing ILA land, and in practice foreigners may just show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return. [18]

Pro-Israeli media analysis group CAMERA remarked towards assertions that portray Israel as rejecting land sales to Israeli Arabs as being "extremely misleading, since, ... such land is not sold to Israeli Jews either, but is instead leased out by the [Israel Land Administration] ILA and is equally available to all citizens of Israel." CAMERA adds that Arab access to Government-owned land in Israel includes half their farming lands being leased from the ILA and that, "sometimes Israeli Arabs receive more favorable terms from the ILA than do Israeli Jews."[11]

I'm removing the above section here for further discussion. The article is about Palestinian land laws, not Israeli land laws. The only way information on Israeli laws can be included in this article is if the sources discussing the Palestinian laws discuss the Israeli laws in the same context. If the reliable sources don't make the conection betweeen the two, per WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, they can't be included. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section. It's clearly relevant as the comments about the Israeli situation were made with reference to the Palestinian law. It cannot be argued therefore that this is an example of WP:SYNTH. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BC. This is not the topic of this article. Lovely day350 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Comment struck by Nableezy 23:, 7 January 2010[2]

Comment—If there are reliable sources that link certain Israeli laws to these, then the information should be in the article. If not, then it shouldn't; it's as simple as that. Having said that, the section was extremely large and therefore violated WP:UNDUE even assuming only such sources were used (which they weren't). Therefore, Brewcrewer was right to remove the section. Anyway, who has reliable sources directly linking Israeli laws with these ones should write a draft for a new shorter section. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I restored the section without the second last paragraph. Not sure I should really have done that but I guess that kind of detail could be left to another article. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass: I think you misunderstood Ynhockey. [3] From what I've understood, he is of the opinion that any content whose source doesn't make the connection to Palestinian Land Laws is essiantially wp:synth and should be removed. The one paragraph you removed from the section is not any better or worse in terms of wp:synth. The entire section is wp:synth. I'll removed the section per Ynhockey, unless he clarifies to the contrary. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey did not claim that "the entire section is wp:synth", he suggested the section be reduced per wp:undue to material from "reliable sources directly linking Israeli laws with these ones". While I'm inclined to disagree with him over the application of UNDUE to this case, I have nevertheless followed his suggestion and reduced the section strictly to material that makes the comparison, so that there can be no question of synth. Personally I think the section could bear a little more elucidation, but I'm not inclined to argue the point at this time. Gatoclass (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll just to have for Ynhockey to tell us what exactly he meant. The way I understood it, Ynhockey opposes, per WP:SYNTH, the inclusion of content that is not directly about Palestinian Land Laws or mentioned by a reliable source as a "parallel" to Palestinian Land Laws. That is my understanding of WP:SYNTH as well. Your latest revert did nothing to alleviate the WP:SYNTH failings of the content and is against the consensus here at this talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My previous comment seems to have generated some debate, so I will sum it up in 2 points:

1. Any information/comparison that comes from sources that don't directly compare between Israeli land laws and Palestinian land laws should be removed (synthesis).
2. Even if there is enough information from sources that do make this comparison, the section is too large (undue weight).

I hope that makes it clear. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether UNDUE would apply in this case, perhaps you hadn't noticed that I had already reduced the size of the section by 50%? One could hardly reduce it further without making it practically unintelligible. Secondly, the entirety of what remained directly dealt with the comparison. If you haven't actually looked at my last edit, I suggest you do so now in order to confirm it for yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with YN here, but to add that, of the material we have here, I don't find the comparison useable. 1) Out of context, from an OpEd and, even worse 2) quoted from a source that itself explicitly rejects the claims being made and finally 3) 1997? If there are parallels to be drawn which are notable and significant, can we not have them done by reputable scholars, writing in this century? IronDuke 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Op-eds are reliable sources for their authors' opinions, and the comparison being made here is obviously a matter of opinion. The sources being quoted in this particular case, moreover, are both highly distinguished journalists and Pulitzer Prize winners. 2) That is easily solved by sourcing to the original articles. 3) If you take the time to check the other sources in the article, I think you will find that most of them date to around 1997, when these laws first made headlines. Gatoclass (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure, but Op-Eds are not peer-reviewed works of scholarship in and of themselves, and I'm wondering if any such thing exists here, and if it's at all recent. Is what was happening in 1997 still hapenning today? And still, the quotes are taken out of context, too, aren't they? I don't think that's useful. And on further reflection, if you'll pardon a somewhat long-winded analogy, I don't see the specific relevance. Let us say there is a notable violinist from the US, Foo, known far and wide for his idiosyncratic playing style. Let us say that there is an unrelated violinist from Canada, Bar, who uses some of the same techniques as Foo, but not intentionally. A noted commentator remarks on the similarity. Does that mean that a discussion of Foo's methods belongs in Bar's article, or vice versa? I would say not. I don't think the P's are reacting the the I's policies when they forbid sales, nor do I think the I's are reacting to the P's policies of forbidding sales. So the linkage -- possibly outdated, out of context, disputed, and not really relevant -- seems tenuous and eminently skippable to me. IronDuke 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but the point here is that we have two distinguished journalists who plainly are of the opinion that the comparison is relevant. To take your other points one by one - the fact that an opinion is disputed is hardly a reason to exclude it, if we did that most wikipedia content would disappear. Apart from which, the opinion of the disputing party was also included. If their opinions are "outdated", the same can be said for two thirds of the article. Out of context - always a possibility with quotes of course, but I might remind you that the quotes are from the CAMERA article, and it's hardly likely that CAMERA would go cherry picking quotes to their own disadvantage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are from the NYTimes and WaPo, no? And CAMERA may have its own ideas about how and why to use quotes... or did you think they were incapable of slanting the truth? And being quoted out of context isn't just a "possibility," it's what happened. Isn't it? More or less passing mention in two Op-Eds was cobbled together to make it seem as though the two ideas are linked -- they aren't. IronDuke 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I made my earlier comments on purpose without actually reviewing the evidence in question, just to give my 2 cents on the general guideline we should follow (not entering any specific cases). What seems clear from a simple review however, is that there's very little material for the comparisons, and extreme effort was made to blow this up into as many bytes as possible. It should be summed up, not elaborated on, like so:

Some commentators ascribed parallels between the Palestinian laws regarding foreign ownership and those governing property in Israel. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times stated that in practice, land used by Israeli Jews was hardly ever sold to Arabs, while Barton Gellman of the Washington Post compared Palestinian land laws, penalty aside, to the policies of the Jewish National Fund.

I will add as a side note that both of these comparisons are incorrect for reasons already stated in the article, but will agree to leave a short summary (like the above) in place, assuming that someone can shortly come up with an update to the information—is it relevant today? This is important because numerous land reforms took place in Israel since 1997, even as recently as 2009. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I could live with this, if there's some kind of up-to-date, scholarly source that finds the two ideas are usefully linked. IronDuke 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we need be as minimalist as all that. In any case, my last edit was hardly more than a paragraph itself and it had the virtue of quoting the sources directly. I also see no reason to eliminate the CAMERA rebuttal. The datedness concern may have some validity, and I agree the statements should be clearly dated in the text. Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Racial segregation category

Billposer has recently added a "Racial segregation" category to this article, on the grounds that "Forbidding the sale of land to a specific ethnic group is certainly a type of racial segregation". Bill, you can't add material to an article based on your own opinion. To add such a category to this article, you would need to find reliable sources which describe these laws as an example of racial segregation, and given that this is an exceptional claim, those sources would need to be very good. If you do manage to find some sources, then we can discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to include this category. Until then, I am going to remove it. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the edit concerning international law, an agreement was recently reached in regards to appropriate wording for this issue. You can read the confirmation here. Since your wording omits certain details contained in that wording, I have reverted it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA

There is simply no way that CAMERA can be accepted as a reliable source. It is a political advocacy organization, not a fact compiler. I don't have time at this moment, but this is a notice that everything sourced only to CAMERA is going to go, and soon. Zero^talk 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a fringe movement but a mainstream media watchdog with a strong track record for accuracy. It is not a newspaper or journal. Not all CAMERA articles are created equal. The one cited looks very comprehensive and the author cites explicit sources (AFP, Washington Post, AP, etc..) to support the information. If CAMERA really bugs you we can simply pull the sources the article lists for verification, but that seems unnecessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to mine CAMERA articles for sources that you check independently, that is fine provided you really do the checking (except that it will give you a biased sample of sources). Directly citing CAMERA for a fact is not fine, no matter what evidence they claim for something. Too much of their material is propagandistic and tendentious. Zero^talk 06:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA is as reliable as any watchdog organization. We cannot dismiss material simply because it is CAMERA. The article is very comprehensive and like I said includes explicit cites to back up statements. There is not a whole lot of discussion on the history of the Palestinian land laws. Could you provide an example of a statement supported by a CAMERA cite in this article that you see as unverifiable or "propagandistic?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that most single-purpose watchdog organizations should be treated as unreliable until proved otherwise. Such organizations exist only for the purpose of pushing a particular political/religious/whatever cause. As to your challenge, it is easy. Consider "After 1948 state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory Authorities, together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli government. Some of this land was sold by the government to the JNF, which had developed expertise in reclaiming and developing waste and barren lands and making them productive." Every word is true, but the overall impression is false. First, a large amount of this land was taken from the 75,000 "present absentees" who were not refugees at all, and almost all continuing Arab communities had a large fraction of their land taken away from them as well. Second, the implication of the last sentence that the "property abandoned by Arab refugees" was "waste and barren" is absolutely false; actually the land owned by the depopulated Arab villages was generally the best land. A second example is the use of "Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel". This is a quality book by Kretzmer that documents widespread discrimination against Israeli Arabs, but CAMERA cites it only for a few points supporting its own thesis. Zero^talk 09:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should be our reliable source Zero since you know so much. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I added most of the CAMERA stuff Zero, the article was a lot worse without it in my opinion, just go and have a look at one of the earlier versions. I agree that CAMERA is far from an ideal source but I think when it comes to basic facts and quotations they are probably reliable enough. It's their interpretation of the facts that is tendentious. That and, of course, the tendency to be selective about which facts they present. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New title

I have moved this article to a new and more specific title. The previous title was very vague and gave next to no idea what the article was about. The new title makes the article's contents much more obvious. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must take issue with this unilateral move. Your proposed title is misleading because the laws pertain to Jewish or Israeli ownership, not "foreign" ownership. The longstanding name is also supported by the inline citation in the lede. The new name appears to be OR. Please propose this move using the proper WP:RM procedure. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer that the stable title is preferable to Gatoclass's title. I would add, though, that the stable version is not ideal either. This article deals specifically with anti-Israeli and antisemitic land laws in the Palestinian Authority; presumably the PA has many other laws pertaining to land, which are outside the scope of this article. "Palestinian anti-Israeli and antisemitic land laws" would seem a natural choice, but it's kind of lengthy. I don't have any better ideas at the moment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. The current title does not describe what the article is about. Jalapenos suggestions are particularly POVish. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The Palestinian law article seems to focus on only law of the Palestinian property laws. The title should be changed or the article should be changed to be informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.193.182.254 (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

unreliable source

Israel Today is an activist web site, not a reliable source. It is somewhat like a right-wing version of +972 Magazine, which shouldn't be cited as a source of facts either. This article will soon become entirely useless if we admit such sources. Zero^talk 12:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)