Talk:Sheikh Jarrah controversy

Israeli National News

Arutz Sheva is being used for facts (that so far, in lieu of good sources, turn out to be claims. I.e. 'there were about 100 Jewish houses in the neighborhood.') It is a settler newspaper advocacy organ and repeatedly at RSN the verdict has been that it is unreliable for historical facts. I removed use of it, and it was summarily restored. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the sentence itself states 'about' should alert editors to the problem. In whose estimation? Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Enthusiast. You keep restoring this, without having responded to the above. And by the way, another editor notified your page that your practice of adding material and then putting a cn tag, is bad practice. One never edits anything into Wikipedia without a source, and in this area a strong source. And one certainly cannot arbitrary remove a RS source claiming, as you have, that the source contradicts facts you believe you are privy to.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to show RSN where Arutz Sheva was found to be unreliable for every historical fact?Tritomex (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If u think Arutz Sheva is unreliable then you should stop citing Middle East Eye & Al Jazeera too. Imthagumtha (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy? Slant?

This article seems to be unusually slanted. First, I’ve never seen a number as high as 850,000 for the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948. That number seems extremely exaggerated; what references are provided to support this? Second, there are multiple references to the legal system in Israel being biased against Arab property claims; this repeated emphasis seems odd, as well as suspect. Khommel (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The timeline of events does not seem to match that which is presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah The article does seem slanted as well. For instance, even the titles of sections are slanted "The Jordanian Period" vs "Israeli Occupation". Either say ".... Period" for both or "....occupation" for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.75.135 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Jordan era (I would refer to it as Jordanian rule) was not an occupation, there are no sources saying that and there are no UN resolutions saying that either.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Jordan 'era' resulted in annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. This was regarded as illegal and void by many countries including other Arab League nations. Other parts of this article appear unusually slanted as well: for example, the difference in tone between 'fled/expelled' and 'evacuated' (for Palestinians/Jews respectively) in discussing refugees of the 1947-49 War conflates the situation and suggests that one side were forced refugees while the other were willing to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.46.66 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion can't go very far without some structure. So what I suggest is that we use the standard form of "edit request" ie Change X to Y (per some source). And we will go from there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

False edit summary

This was removed:

Bernie Sanders argues that the Palestinian families subject to these eviction orders must navigate 'a legal system designed to facilitate their forced displacement.'

I.e., a notable US figure and ex-Presidential candidate commented specifically on this dispute. The reason given for its removal is policywise, incomprehensible and indeed false. I.e.

'So torn from context an d alienated in meaning

What on earth is that supposed to mean?.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BuySomeApples (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sheikh Jarrah solidarity demonstration

• ... that the deputy mayor of Jerusalem explained that the Sheikh Jarrah eviction cases are part of a municipal strategy to create “layers of Jews” throughout East Jerusalem? Source: Evictions in Jerusalem Become Focus of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, May 7, 2021: "But Mr. King, the deputy mayor, said “of course” they are part of a wider strategy of installing “layers of Jews” throughout East Jerusalem. That policy, Mr. King said, “is the way to secure the future of Jerusalem as a Jewish capital for the Jewish people.” “If we will not be in big numbers and if we will not be at the right places in strategic areas in East Jerusalem,” he added, then future peace negotiators “will try to divide Jerusalem and to give part of Jerusalem to our enemy.”"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Chariot of Israel: Britain, America and the State of Israel

Created by Enthusiast01 (talk) and Onceinawhile (talk). Nominated by Onceinawhile (talk) at 20:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The framing of King explaining what the eviction cases are doesn't seem quite right, since it implies without sourcing that that's what they really are. How about "...described the Sheikh Jarrah eviction cases as part of...", or something like that?

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - Not quite clear enough at 100px, I don't think. Might need to add a different image to the article or run this without one.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is of course not perfect (but articles don't need to be perfect for DYK), and the talk page is quite something, as are the talk pages for a lot of articles under ARBPIA. But this nomination is eligible and almost ready to go. With that said, I've flagged two minor issues with the nom above. Once they're fixed, please use {{subst:DYK?again}} to request another reviewer to double-check. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 23:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: thanks for this. I am fine with your proposed amendment to the hook. Many thanks.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• This article is tagged for neutrality and there is an ongoing RFC in that regard. In my view, this should not proceed until it is resolved.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Neutrality issues have not been addressed in the almost-two months since Selfstudier's comments. With how it appears that it won't be resolved anytime soon and the lack of activity on this nomination, it appears that there is no feasible path forward at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. Ongoing issues with the article and a current rfc make it unlikely that this article ready anytime soon. It can be renominated if the article gets cleaned up and promoted to GA in the future. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

controversial statement: rejection of Law

Since when a law reject something. The law states what is legal not what is not feasible nor what is not stated. Basically, palestinan revendications in Israel aren't linked to this law, and are not possible for several reasons, mainly because they were nationalized and they are enemy population... Please delete this propaganda piece in the introduction.

Secondly it's not about Jews, it's about Israelis owning land in West Bank. --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

File an edit request stating what you want.Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Separate what state the law from the stated political considerations :-) --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two relevant bodies of law. Israel's laws (technicians call them the 'institutionalization of dispossession') and international law. The conflict is not political, but between the two systems. International law is neutral to the parties: Israeli law is, as one scholar wrote, 'ethnicity-based'.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You mix different things for political motives. Scholar may have opinions or "technicians", etc...

Edit request : " separate what the law Is, from the political speculation about what it is about palestinians etc. It's a law applied on Israel not on Palestinians, or on Palestine, or whatever that is not Israel. You can call it dispossession, land won in warfare, etc all that is a political debate/ a reflexion on it, if you don't like to be portrayed as politically motivated...

Basically.. just write the law and stop doing propaganda ( I mean the academic definition,not "bad rethoric" or "lies" etc) on what selective scholar think about it, or about what are the implications for palestinians in certain legal framework outside of the Israeli one, or simply outside of this law. Very easy to understand...

Edit request : write about what the law says, is it written "Jews"? No, take it off. Is it written "Palestinians? No take it off. Etc.. stop disinformation thank you --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias

The Palestinian view is written in the introduction but the Israeli one. Please respect NPOV--Rectangular dome (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Per above, file an edit request. Else no-one knows what it is you actually want.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

I propose to remove it. Its WP:UNDUE the publication is not scholarly one. Also the author is not academic --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, if so how did it get onto JSTOR? They have high standards. I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Idk if it helps or not, there was a discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis/Archive_3#Socialist_lawyers Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jstor is just an archive. The publisher is not academic.And of course she is reliable for their own words but here the question of WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Name

Selfstudier has rightly pointed out that the characterization of this topic as just a “property dispute” has been widely stated in the media to be non-neutral POV spin.

Does anyone have any good ideas for neutral alternatives?

Onceinawhile (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not POV spin at all. Its NPOV descriptive name Shrike (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Most rs seems to focus on the fact of the evictions rather than a characterization. eg FT 19 May,

"How Arab evictions sparked the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Legal battle over settlers’ claims in East Jerusalem sparked protests that led to Gaza aerial barrage". There are some commentators who go beyond "evictions" and refer to it as forced displacement or similar, the UN has called it like that for a long time now. So whether it is POV or not I couldn't really say for certain but in any case it doesn't matter because rs mostly are not simply calling it a property dispute. I think it might be called The Sheikh Jarrah evictions, perhaps or even the Sheikh Jarrah affair.Selfstudier (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with affair --Shrike (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

'Affair' is in one strong RS, but by now it rings rather lamely, redolent of the usage which established the idiom in the Dreyfus Affair. A dispute running for half a century is not adequately characterized as an 'affair' (a word most associate with romance in this context) though intended as an event or set of events that raises concern, and implying something that blows over (the Watergate Affair) Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh-Jarrah-gate.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Heh ,:)Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Joking aside, I think “Sheikh Jarrah eviction cases” might have a good balance to it. Used by both WaPo and ToI. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And you already have https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/world/middleeast/evictions-jerusalem-israeli-palestinian-conflict-protest.html cited (this also says "which Israeli officials dismiss as "a real estate dispute,").Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. This thread started by @WillowCity: suggesting that the term "eviction" is a sanitized pro-Israeli term is interesting.

John Oliver covered this in his recent piece:video, script

• John Oliver: The threat of eviction is accurate only in a very superficial level — in that one day you live somewhere, the next day you don’t, and that change wasn’t your choice, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s like running a headline that says “Matt Gaetz reaches out to Florida youth.” Sure, not inaccurate. But it’s missing some pretty crucial details about the exact nature of that interaction.
• Mohammed El-Kurd: To start, it’s not really an eviction. It’s forced ethnic displacement, to be accurate. Eviction does not imply the hundreds and hundreds of heavily armed police and army and settlers colluding, blowing up your doors, throwing your children from your windows and using brute force to throw you out in the street and assaulting and arresting you should you resist. It doesn’t imply the grenades. It doesn’t imply the rubber-coated bullets.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Having done some more checking about and reviewing sources, I think there is a good case for detailing in the article the international law position. I am in two minds about how to say it in the article title, I suppose evictions is OK if it is elaborated on in the article body. WillowCity thread mentioned above is ongoing.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed by proposer to allow new proposal Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → ? – Current title is non neutral and reflects the position of the Israeli government as stated in the section above "which Israeli officials dismiss as "a real estate dispute,". Many sources refer to the fact of "evictions" rather than attempting a characterization of the situation and there are also sources describing the events as forced displacement, expulsions or similar so any title should reflect this. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad WP:RM you have to propose an alternative title and not just question mark anyhow I oppose any name change as this title neutral and descriprive --Shrike (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It says "(or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered)" and as I suggested in my statement, I am open to any name that does not reflect the non neutral position of the Israeli government and is common in sources. We only need a descriptive name if there is no common name.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you close this please and I can make an actual move request? nableezy - 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Nableezy: There you go.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

move request 2

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn for a new move request

---

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Expulsions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah – The current title is POV and that is established by a number of reliable sources. Examples include Euronews: One of the sparks that lit the fuse of the latest conflict came from a small neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, where Israeli settlers are working to evict Palestinian families. What is happening in Sheikh Jarrah has been characterised by the settlers and their supporters as a mere property dispute., Raja Shehadeh in The New Yorker: Israel argues that the situation in Sheikh Jarrah is merely a straightforward property dispute. In fact, what it demonstrates, above all, is the city’s endemic discrimination. The Scotsman: The 23-year-olds live and work near the embattled Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, which is the focus of an attempt to remove Palestinian families from their homes, in what the Israeli government terms a “property dispute”. It is an established fact, per several reliable sources, that "property dispute" represents the specific POV of one of the parties involved. The opposing POV, that this is "ethnic cleansing" can likewise be found in sources as the POV of the Palestinians, examples include The chief of Hamas' diaspora office, Khaled Meshaal, described Israel's eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem as "ethnic cleansing.", Eviction is a legal process that tends to happen when people are unable to pay their rent and landlords make claims to move that process forward. That is a completely different situation than what we are talking about here: forced expulsion of people because of their identity. This amounts, essentially, to ethnic cleansing. just as "property dispute" can be. So we have two opposing POVs, one where the issue is downplayed to a mere property dispute and one where it is framed as a war crime. Thankfully we have other options. Sources that back "expulsions", forced or otherwise, include the following: al Jazeera: Israel’s high court has postponed a ruling on the forced expulsion of four Palestinian families here after a violent crackdown on protests and prayer by Israeli security forces. The scene is one of several shared on social media from the near-nightly confrontations between Israeli police and protesters against the expulsion of eight Palestinian families from the neighbourhood, which is claimed by Jewish settlers., NY Times: The court was to decide on Monday whether to uphold an expulsion order for the families in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, in a hearing that many feared would set off a wave of unrest, Washington Post: The families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood bought their land and built their homes, residing there for decades, following their expulsion from other parts of the country in 1948. But now eight Palestinian households face expulsion, part of several legal challenges from a U.S.-based settler organization that disputes who owns the land., Des Moines Register: In a statement of solidarity with the Palestinian people, dozens in Des Moines joined global protests Friday against the military occupation of Palestine and the most recent Israeli bombings, attacks and the forced expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Sources also support "evictions" though that has its own POV spin, but eviction would likewise be a marked improvement over "property dispute" in terms of POV. The current title is a blatant NPOV violation in that it asserts the POV of one of the parties, a POV rejected by a huge number of sources. It is slightly unwieldy to propose two names at once, but I think Expulsions is preferred over Evictions which is preferred over property dispute. nableezy - 15:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, blatantly non-neutral. Courts have determined the Arabs are squatters who never held title and refuse to pay rent to the rightful owners. Perhaps a move to Arab squatters in Sheikh Jarrah would be more fitting than the current title in reflecting the legal case that has been duly decided by the courts.Free1Soul (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• comment - I would like to expand slightly, we have several sources that make clear that this is not an issue of Israeli law. East Jerusalem is widely considered occupied territory, not Israeli territory, and Israeli civil law is not what is at issue here. The UN Human Rights office has said “Given the disturbing scenes in Sheikh Jarrah over the past few days, we wish to emphasize that East Jerusalem remains part of the occupied Palestinian territory, in which International Humanitarian Law applies. The occupying Power must respect and cannot confiscate private property in occupied territory, and must respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” He went on to note that Israel cannot impose its own set of laws in occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, to evict Palestinians from their homes.] Free1Soul is presenting this as though this is some private issue, reflecting one extreme end of a POV, as described by reliable sources that say, for example The United Nations Commission for Human Rights has called the forced removal of Palestinian families a potential war crime. Israeli officials have called it a "real-estate dispute between private parties. We are describing potential war crimes as a property dispute, and saying a change from that is blatantly non-neutral. nableezy - 18:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Per WP:RMCOMMENT you shouldn't vote here as the proposer. I suggest to move you comment to nomination --Shrike (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

modified to a comment. nableezy - 23:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - it strikes me as more descriptive of this event, especially in terms of how people will be searching for it. It seems unlikely that many people will be looking up a property dispute nor is that the only dimension to this "event".Dan Carkner (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not neutral the proposed title is not WP:COMMONNAME anyhow and extreme violation of WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support As part of their 2021 report on Israel and the crime of apartheid:-

April 2021 Human Rights Watch, A Threshold Crossed:Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution 2021 p112 & footnoted for Sheikh Jarrah "Beyond formal state confiscation, discriminatory laws and policies enable settler and settler organizations to take possession of Palestinian homes, evict the Palestinian landowners, and transfer their property to Jewish owners in East Jerusalem neighborhoods."

while Amnesty asserts that it is a war crime

Amnesty 10 May 2021 Israel/ OPT: End brutal repression of Palestinians protesting forced displacement in occupied East Jerusalem "Four Palestinian families in the neighbourhood are under imminent threat of forced eviction..... Forcible transfer of the occupied population is prohibited under international humanitarian law and constitutes a war crime according to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court."

If anything, expulsions understates the case.Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Those "reports" by advocacy organizations doesn't prove anything. Even the founder of HRW criticized the organisation for their anti-Israeli agenda [1] Shrike (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support: the present title is 100% how the Israeli government wants to portray it. It ignores what the rest of the world/the international community says: namely that Israel has 0 right to the properties in the land occupied since 1967, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this strikes me as WP:ADVOCACY. - Scarpy (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose New title has the potential to be misleading. If the residents are evicted from certain properties in Sheikh Jarrah, AFAIK, they can potentially move to another available one and are not being expelled from the neighbourhood. Something like Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah would be more accurate. However, I would also be interested to know if the Israeli courts have upheld any Palestinian claims to buildings – if they have, I think the current title is appropriate (although possibly should be changed to Sheikh Jarrah property disputes as the article covers multiple separate disputes) and should be expanded to cover these. Number 57 11:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • From a quick search, it does appear that there have been court rulings in favour of the Palestinian residents and ones that Israeli settlers should be evicted; This report details examples of courts ruling against evictions of Palestinians (p43) and in favour of evictions of Israeli settlers (p14, p46), although these weren't enforced. As such, I am leaning to sticking with the current title and making it plural. Also, if the Israeli Supreme Court ends up ruling in favour of the Palestinian residents in the current case, the move will look a bit odd. Number 57 12:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Several reliable sources explicitly state that the current title is the POV of the settlers and the right-wing Israeli government. That the "property disputes" are in fact "international human rights law violations". nableezy - 14:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

But there was no evictions so the proposed title is factually incorrect --Shrike (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

There have been numerous evictions in the past. Number 57 15:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/2021/03/10/joint-urgent-appeal-to-the-united-nations-special-procedures-on-forced-evictions-in-east-jerusalem-1615372889.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This isnt a topic restricted to a single case or year. There indeed have been plenty of forced removals of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah. nableezy - 15:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This article talks about current dispute if you want to change the scope of the article you should open an RFC --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Or make a move request. Which is what I am doing. nableezy - 15:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This request reminds me of the move of "Creation-evolution controversy" to "Rejection of evolution by religious groups", albeit far more controversial (somehow!). The word "dispute" is not explicitly listed at WP:WORDS (pr WP:LABEL specifically), but it does read to me as having the same general effect. My feeling is that we ought to lean heavily on WP:COMMONNAME, but that's challenging in a case like this where the specific incident has diverse referents in the media. Is anyone aware of title naming precedent for other articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Suriname0 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Either eviction or expulsion is the name I've seen most widely used in the non-partisan press. Evictions maybe more common in the US press at least. But "property dispute" is about on par with "ethnic cleansing" in terms of it being one extreme end of the POV spectrum. Well that and "Arab squatters" offered up above. nableezy - 17:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• See recent documentary: This documentary from Vice News gives a good illustration of this issue, in the context of deciding on the right title. I was particularly surprised to see the interview with a man who had been expelled about a decade ago, with all his belongings lost and nowhere to live. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, one-sided advocacy.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose while many may try to make this out into a broader part of the IP conflict, this is in effect nothing more than a property dispute, and one that impacts 4-5 families. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

::While six Palestinian families may be directly implicated in the current round of attempted expulsions, your comment ignores the hundreds of Palestinians forcibly displaced from Sheikh Jarrah, the thousands expelled from East Jerusalem, and the millions unable to return to the occupied territories. Definitely not just a "property dispute" between private parties, but rather a microcosm of much broader issues.WillowCity (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose concur this is one sided advocacy; non-neutral and not the common name. ProcSock (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  To add, see sources here. Even in the sources Nableezy gave on that page, this was not the most used term. The NYT source Nableezy gave overwhelmingly uses 'evictions' not 'expulsions'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Even in the sources Nableezy gave on that page, this was not the most used term. and then mentions one source, ignoring every other one. And also, no, the NYT does not overwhelmingly use eviction, it has evict(ion) and exp[u,e]l[sion] 5 times each. And pray tell, which of those call it a "property dispute" for those claiming that using the terminology of right-wing settlers is not one sided advocacy but using the language of the United Nations is. Regardless, will open a new request for evictions and see how much one sided advocacy people are comfortable with here. Just as long as it is on the side of war crimes I guess. nableezy - 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

*Support Thanks for suggesting this edit, as I commented on another talk page it's not appropriate or true to WP:NPOV to use language that aligns with Israeli domestic law to the exclusion of international legal opinion. Aside from "expulsion", I would be open to terms like "forced displacement" or even "Removal of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah". WillowCity (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC) User is not allowed to participate here as per WP:A/I/PIA --Shrike (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression that talk pages were fair game? I.e. "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Is the talk page off limits for some reason? It would be nice if that was made a little clearer for new editors like myself, thanks!WillowCity (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not permitted to comment in "internal project discussions"; ArbCom has clarified this to include requested moves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment

I have made up a table of relevant sources, please feel free to add to it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Newsorgs [2] "Israel’s high court has postponed a ruling on the forced expulsion of four Palestinian families" [3] "whether to uphold an expulsion order for the families" [4] "now eight Palestinian households face expulsion" [5] " the forced expulsion of Palestinian families" [6] "forced evictions" [7] "forced displacement [8] "the expulsion of eight Palestinian families" Orgs [9] (OCHA, since 2009) " Forced Displacement" [10] (UNRWA, current) "forced evictions" [11] (OHCHR, current) "Forced eviction". [12] (Norweigian Refugee Council, "Forced evictions" [13] (Amnesty) "forced eviction" While sources also use the term "evictions" or "forced evictions", sometimes in conjunction with other terms, very few sources describe the situation as a property or real estate dispute.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the law says only Jews are allowed to file claims over the land or does it just an interpretation of the law made by the sources?

It it said in the introduction "Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned". But in the law itself (The Absentees’ Property Law which gives the land to the state) and the other related law (Legal and Administrative Matters Law which allows getting the land back from the state) I didn't find any statement regarding the religion of the person. Is it correct to say that saying that the law allows only jews is nothing more than an (incorrect) interpretation of the law made by the sources and not the law itself? Doesn't the real reason for Palestinians not being able to claim their land is because they are present absentees and not because they are not Jewish? 84.229.154.9 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference given that present absentees was a status created to give to Palestinians who were internally displaced and not Jews who were likewise internally displaced. nableezy - 01:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

But does an Israeli Arab citizen, who stayed in Israel in 1948-1949, can file the claim? Because by what I can see in the content of the laws, they can 84.229.154.9 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

An Arab citizen of Israel either stayed in his or her home or was internally displaced. The former has no claim to any lost property since they did not lose it, the latter are classified as present absentees. nableezy - 17:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being annoying :) I'm not a lawyer just trying to understand. It might not be the place for it, but if what I'm thinking is correct, then the article is misleading. This is just hypothetical - if an Arab Israeli owned a land, but wasn't living in it, can they file a claim for their property? Because again, I can't see why wouldn't they in the law, and if they can, then it's not just for Jews. 84.229.154.9 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Regardless, this isnt the place to discuss the topic, this talk page is meant to discuss the article. The material in the article on the law allowing for reclamation of property allowing Jews to reclaim property abandoned but not Arabs is well sourced, and absent any source disputing it there isnt anything to really discuss here. nableezy - 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We go by the sources. The question as posed is anyway a bit loose, it needs to be much more specific. Take a look at https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/reports/the-absentee-property-law-and-its-implementation-in-east-jerusalem.pdf (Section 4 and the conclusions on 90-93).Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The page starts with saying: "Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned.[2][3][4][5] In this specific case, the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah are refugees who have no right under Israeli law to repossess their pre-1948 homes in Haifa, Sarafand and Jaffa.[6][7]"

well there is a lot of unaccurasy here: 1. every person, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Druze, and others can claim ownership to property owned prior to 1948 and after it, by law, many non Israeli ciztizens Palestinians fails to claim property ownership in Israel, since Israeli law granted the state of Israel all the lands it had control in after the end of 1947–1949 Palestine war, the disputed land, was bought by jewish trust prior to the war, and it was residented by Palestinian refugees but Jordan didnt make it an eminent domain after conquering west bank in 1948.. Therefore by law, the land ownership remained under its owners of prior to the war. - both laws considered legal by both Israeli and UN Laws.

2. saying that the law is only pro jewish is absurd since Israeli Court also evicted 350 resident of Amona Settelment, after Palestinians showed ownership papers of the land.

3. In 1982 the residents and the owners came to agreement states that: the resident acknowledge the owner's ownership of the land, and agreed to pay rent to avoid evictions. In 1993 the owners requested eviction of the residents for not paying rent. Some residents asked for cancelation of the agreement, but Israeli court denyied the plea, non agreement between the land owners and its residents, and the residents refusal to pay rent is the main reason of the treat of eviction by the court verdict.

you may add other groups Interpretations of the events, but this is just Interpretations, and not the reasons that given by the court verdict which are being justified by Israel laws.

this Paragraph should be changed. Nahnieli (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, we base our articles on what reliable secondary sources say. Besides, your understanding of the law is seriously lacking, it applies to territory Israel claims as its own, not the West Bank settlements. Illegal settlements when proved to be built on privately owned Palestinian land indeed rarely have court ordered evictions. Even rarer is the actual carrying out of those orders. But it has nothing to do with this law, and your original research on it is a, irrelevant, and b. incorrect. nableezy - 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

this are seocndary sources. also: I dont think I am wrong, I think you dont know the Israeli Laws or you didnt understand me / I didnt explain myself good, anyone can claim land ownership to lands he owned prior to 1948, (doesn't mean he would win the court) in the lands where there is an Israeli millitary control, please if I am wrong correct me and give "reliable source".

I gave Amona example as an Example of property owners being able to evict residents from land not thiers by law, The jewish owners got the land in 1972 by law: "חוק הסדרי משפט ומנהל", before East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel (in 1980), any citizen of Israel could "use" the law to claim land ownership in East Jerusalem, Arab citizens too.

Nahnieli (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source but you can also have a look at Israeli land and property laws.Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong, as Amona had nothing, literally nothing, to do with the reclamation of property law. That was an unauthorized outpost built on privately owned land in the West Bank. It was not reclaiming property lost during 1948. The two things are not at all related, and your belief that they are is mistaken. nableezy - 01:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

ok so ill explain myself better, the owners got the land in 1972, before "Jerusalem law" which annexed Jerusalem by Israeli law. They got it by "חוק הסדרי משפט ומנהל 1970" law. Which gave power to any Israeli citizen, Arab, Jew, and others to claim his land, according to the court verdict, the Residents of the disputed land didnt have papers showing its thier property, and therefore the "Jews" could claim the land which was done in 1972, and yes until now nothing to do with Amona. I read the articles which none of them states that only jews could "use" the law to claim lands, but it says that because East Jerusalem was evicted its Jewish residents after the 1948 war, it was tp thier opinion: law only for Jews to claim the land. It might be true, but still it doesn't mean that only Jews could claim the lands. So to my opinion: "Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned." To my opinion should be changed to: Israel's laws allows Israelis to file claims over land in East Jerusalem which Jordan didnt eminent domain in the time of its rule on the west bank, (although I am not sure if it still possible to claim land there after 1980 Jerusalem Law). And after this an addiation of interpetitions saying the law was destinied for Jews to claim thier land. As for Amona: I added this only to justify the request of the eviction by Israeli law, because I heard claims saying that eviction isnt legal. Nahnieli (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely inaccurate, and not really supported by sources. The laws do not apply to "Jews" or "Palestinians". There is a law that applies to people who departed Israel to enemy states in 1948, which is mostly Palestinians. Israeli law on the subject treats Jews and Arabs equally, Israeli-Arab citizens can also claim property they owned in East Jerusalem under equal circumstances. The text on Wikipedia makes a generalization that is not present in most of the sources it cites. The particular Palestinians involved in the dispute, who left Israel to an enemy state (Jordan), are unable to claim historic property in Israel. The law does not extend to all Palestinians. The sources cited are more specific in language, while the test on Wikipedia makes an unfounded generalization. Also Israeli law does not apply in most of the West Bank, it does apply specifically in East Jerusalem which was annexed by Israel.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Read up on the topic. Both of you make vast generalizations ('people who departed Israel to enemy states'. 29,000 in West Jerusalem, to note one case, did not 'depart to enemy states': they were dispersed all over the West Bank and the Middle East as they fled the violence). The scholarly documentation is overwhelming that Israel property laws are rooted in the ethnic privileging of Jews over non-Jews. WP:OR and personal opinions make no dint on that consensus.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

One can quite reasonably go even further. From the standpoint of IL, it's moot. As far as the UNSC is concerned, the territory is considered occupied and any and all actions taken by Israel, purported annexation included, to change the character of Jerusalem are of no legal effect. In that sense, Israeli laws, no matter the legal gymnastics involved, are simply inapplicable.Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Precision is important. East Jerusalem is not the same as the West Bank, and sources refer to Jerusalem not WB. Also the sources used are opinionated and of low quality here. Free1Soul (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Quiet obvious that the arguments is for or against politicizing the laws. I recommend that you first express what the law says ( whithout the political instrumentalisation), and then make the political cases in the dispute about it :).--Rectangular dome (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is regularly included in the West Bank by the UN and other sources. Yall have brought no sources that back up any part of anything that youve said. Which makes it pointless to engage with. nableezy - 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I can talk about me, my remarks isn't about East Jerusalem recognition, rather about what the Israeli law says. Please try to answer directly the question, if not it's pointless :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That change is fine though, claims on West Bank property arent covered by this law afaik. This change merits sanctions for falsifying the source though. nableezy - 15:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source says Under Israeli law, Jews who can prove pre-1948 title can claim back their Jerusalem properties. No similar law exists for Palestinians who lost homes in West Jerusalem. Additional sources that make the same point are:

• AP: Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim such lands but bars Palestinians from recovering property they lost in the same war, even if they still reside in areas controlled by Israel.
• NY Times: Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim ownership of land they vacated in 1948, but denies Palestinians the right to reclaim the properties they fled from in the same war.
• CBS News: The settlers say they have a legal right to the land based on an Israeli law that permits Jews to recover property abandoned during the war in 1948. There is no equivalent law for Palestinians, who have been unable to reclaim land they abandoned or were forced to leave during the war.

I can continue to compile a list of sources, but until and unless one of you has something that challenges these I dont really see a point. Just baldly saying its not true and then effectively lying about the source in the article is not however an option that will result in anything other than a request for sanctions if it is repeated. Making up that the sources are opinionated or low quality when it is a Guardian news article cited likewise wont work. nableezy - 16:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes we both read the news. The news aren't writing the law, and i don't recommend law student to learn the law by news online :) News makes generalization and simplification, not Wikipedia ( or anything serious ).--Rectangular dome (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

ok so ill explain myself better, the owners got the land in 1972, before "Jerusalem Law" which annexed Jerusalem by Israeli law. They got it by "חוק הסדרי משפט ומנהל 1970" law. Which gave power to any Israeli citizen - not matter if its Arab, Jew or others to claim his land in East Jeusalem. according to the court verdict, the Residents of the disputed land didnt have papers showing its thier property, and therefore the land owners of before 1948 could reclaim the land which was done in 1972. I have read the articles which none of them states that only jews could "use" the law to claim lands, also Israeli laws are similiar for any citizen - no matter is race. some articles claim that this law as "made only for Jews" because there were no Jews in East Jerusalem after 1948 war, and as some articles says: they think its clear that the law was made for Jews. even if its true, it still doesn't mean that only Jews could claim the lands.

so I think we should change this:

"Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned."

To something like this:

Israel's laws allows Israeli citizens (arabs, jews, others) to file claims over land in East Jerusalem which Jordan didnt eminent domain in the time of its rule on the west bank.

• And after this an addition of interpetitions saying the law was destinied for Jews to claim thier land can be added.

Saying that only Jews can use the law is absurd, since all Israeli citizens are equal by law. also Israel court respects arabs property ownership in East Jerusalem, even if it was populated by other groups before 1948, the fact is that the residents there didnt have papers showing its thier property, and therefore those who have papers (even if before 1948), could reclaim the land, thats the court verdict and its also justified here: . Nahnieli (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Again, please read WP:OR. You thinking something is absurd is nice for your blog but has not basis for discussion on Wikipedia. The material is reliably sourced and you, nor anybody else, has presented any source that disputes it. Continuing to waste our time is disruptive. Unless you have any source that disputes what our article says this discussion should be closed. Your personal analysis of the laws and what they say mean zero zilch nada here. nableezy - 23:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

so just scroll a bit up I gave 4 articles which every one of them disputes the sentence:

"Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned."

all I wrote is based on this articles, and I added that I read the articles that you and others claims to support the senetnce above, but I didnt see in any of them that only jews can file claim over land in west bank and jerusalem.

so i added reliable sources, which saying this: Israel's laws allows Israeli citizens (arabs, jews, others) to file claims over land in East Jerusalem which Jordan didnt eminent domain in the time of its rule on the west bank.

again: all I wrote is based and taken from the articles I mentioned above. 31.210.180.31 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ive quoted several sources that back the material. Youve made a series of unsupported leaps without ever once quoting a source that actually disputes the material. Absent that I leave the last word to you, but the article will continue to reflect the sources, not what you or somebody else wishes they said. nableezy - 15:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Sorry I am new to wikipedia editing, can you give me the qoutes you based this senetence upon? 2. "In the mid-1950s, the Jordanian government settled Arab refugees there. After the Six Day War, the land passed to Israeli rule, Israeli law was applied to it and it was given to the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property. In September 1972, the Israeli Custodian released the land to its owners - the Spanish Community Committee and the 'Knesset of Israel'. " (not to be confused with the Knesset) . Also about the law being only for Jews, I think the authors meant Israel when they said Jew, but anyway: "In the State of Israel, equality was expressed as a general value, if only for inspiration And intention, in basic sources beyond the laws. The House of Representatives and the Court often accepted Inspired by the heritage of Israel, which gives expression to equality as a fundamental value. Thus, for example, Judge Branson found Reference is made to the prohibition of discrimination between members of different religions in the Torah of Israel, which "never distinguished between a particular expression, although it is not complete, is also given in Israeli case law."..." . Nahnieli (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• I don't know the answer, but in response to some responses above, I think the IP's question is a valid one to ask. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. By its nature, it goes into more factual depth than your typical news article, and if it's portraying a factually inaccurate story then that should be corrected. On issues like these academic scholarship is preferable, and I think Nishidani compiled a list of some articles earlier (I've yet to read it all, but it's on my list). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Theres nothing factually inaccurate about it, and scholarly sources likewise say the same thing. See for example Rempel, Terry (1997), "The Significance of Israel's Partial Annexation of East Jerusalem", Middle East Journal, 1 (4), Middle East Institute: 520–534, In the area of personal status, the legal anomalies were addressed primarily by granting exemptions to Palestinian East Jerusalemites from the Absentee's Property Law and the Penal Amendment Law. Article 3 of the Legal and Administrative Matters (Regulations) Law stipulated that "a resident shall not ... be regarded as absentee within the meaning of the Absentee's Property Law of 1950, in respect of property situated in that area." Two things should be noted about this exemption. First, that the exemption was carefully qualified to refer only to property "in that area" which was defined as East Jerusalem. In other words, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who were considered absent under the Absentee's Property Law with regard to their property in 1948, either in West Jerusalem or in other areas inside Israel, were not permitted to reclaim their property. Second, Article 3 stated that residents were not to be "regarded" as absentee: it did not state that residents were 'not' absentee with respect to their property. Thus, while Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were not considered absentee in relation to the application of Israeli law, they were still absentee by virtue of the extension of Israeli law. This created an ambiguous situation in which the law existed but was not applicable. The government made a similar exemption concerning the "enemy" status of East Jerusalem inhabitants. Article 4 of the Legal and Administrative Matters (Regulations) Law instructed courts and tribunals that a resident of "the area" should not be considered, in civil matters, "an enemy or enemy subject, unless that plea is made by the Attorney General or with his written consent."" nableezy - 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader There are so many books and articles on this, one need just google and read. Ask any Palestinian refugee in Jordan with title to property in the West Bank or Israel what happens, and you would have a voluminous memoir of entrapment in bureaucratic finessing of what is simply a legislative regime drawn up and refined to make such claims, even with some room for legal manoeuvre, almost impossible to obtain recognition. The most outstanding case is West Jerusalem. Whatever the law may state, per Number57, nearly all cases are rejected before they reach court. None of this Kafkian redtape exist for comparable cases involving Jewish claims on property outside of the green line. To the contrary.

Legal proceedings involving the Sheikh Jarrah dispute have dragged on for years. It is assumed that Israel’s Supreme Court will soon decide to evict the Palestinians and give the homes to Jewish claimants. Yet that same court will not hear cases by Palestinian residents who were evicted from their homes in West Jerusalem, in 1948. The Absentees’ Property Law of 1950 deems them “absentees,” even if they live in annexed Eastern Jerusalem, less than a mile away. Raja Shehadeh, Sheikh Jarrah and the Renewed Israeli-Palestinian Violence New Yorker 11May 2021

Shehadeh is a world authority on those laws. The I/P problem is basically, the obvious is there to see, but you have to have a Phd in urban archaeology to dig beneath the pyramids of historic chatter that have buried the facts. Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It isnt even something that anybody has brought a source challenging. We shouldnt need to spend the time arguing over something that not one source disputes. You think its wrong? Get a freaking source that says so. Until then no, it is not a valid question, and no, we dont need to endlessly entertain such wastes of time. nableezy - 14:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ok Hold on, I just gave an article stating that the Israeli law is equal either you Jewish or Muslim or Chrisitan, and as I understand from your quotes you just gave, non of them says that only Jews can claim land in each Jerusalem which they owned prior to 1948, But as my articles support: All Israelis can file those claims in East Jerusalem, so I ask to change the word "Jews" to "Israelis", since not all Jews are Israelis and non Israelis cant file those claims, its first wrong statement, and by refering to only Jewish Israelis, is making it an half truth, (since others can file claims in East Jerusalem too).

also: "The 1970 law thus created a deep legal gap between the ability of Jews to return to their hands Their assets in East Jerusalem, compared to the inability of Arabs living in East Jerusalem to return They have properties they owned in the west of the city. Return of the properties in the west of the city to the residents East Jerusalem was not possible, among other things, because the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property sold The property or transferred to the Development Authority under the Functional Property Act of 1950, or the property Was expropriated for public purposes, so that it could not actually be released for the benefit of its Arab owners. Vs This is the authority of the Israeli Custodian General to return assets held by the Custodian Jordanian (according to the Judicial Procedures and Administration Law of 1970) to their original owners, also applies to properties Transferred to private hands." - academic research. it does support what its written that East Jerusalem residents which owned land in 1950 Israel borers can't file claims to thier lands, but its just coincidentally, according to this article. and thats wy I dont think it should be written as the current form, that: "but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned." . to the form I offered above.

addition: Just for accuracy I dont think it should be written "Palestinians" there, but maybe "Arab Israelis" or "Palestinians Israelis", because non Israeli cant claim the land anyway. Nahnieli (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not true that all Israelis may file claims, well they may file them but not all of them have any possibility of success. Reliable sources directly related to the topic of this article say that Jewish Israelis may claim property lost in East Jerusalem but Palestinian Arabs may not claim property lost in Israel proper. That is what our article says. You wish to take an article that makes the claim that there is equality under Israeli law (a laughable claim per the human rights organizations that have documented hundreds of laws that discriminate between Jews and non-Jews) and say that it applies to this specific law when you have no source directly doing so. The reliable sources provided explicitly support the material in the article. No reliable source explicitly contradicts it. nableezy - 22:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There were Israeli arabs which filed claims in East Jerusalem and won. Also there is no human rights organization that I know which says that Jews and Others in Israel are not equal by *law*. Also as the qoute that I gave above says that its just coincidnetally, because the arabs lands of before the war were destined for public puroose or expropirated, while some of the East Jerusalem lands were held by the custodian Jordanian, if Jordan had expropirated the area there like it did in some other places, or gave the land residents a deed, they might still owned the land, but niether happend. The law is equal by its basis, you can interpate that some laws were "made for Jews" and you articles those support that, but saying that the law itself Says that only Jews can file claim to the lands is just not true, and if you think it is just qoute to me from a reliable article. Nahnieli (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Re there is no human rights organization that I know which says that Jews and Others in Israel are not equal by *law*., please see Adalah's list of discriminatory laws. Re you can interpret, nobody here is interpreting anything. It is not our job to interpret. We are faithfully representing what the reliable sources we cite say. And what they say is that under Israeli law Jews may file claims for property lost in 1948 in East Jerusalem but Palestinians may not in West Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. Not one source has been brought disputing that. A number have been brought directly supporting it. Absent sources that directly dispute what now has 5 solid sources directly supporting there is nothing else to discuss here. I already quoted several such articles. The scholarly one cited above says In other words, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who were considered absent under the Absentee's Property Law with regard to their property in 1948, either in West Jerusalem or in other areas inside Israel, were not permitted to reclaim their property. The Associated Press says Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim such lands but bars Palestinians from recovering property they lost in the same war, even if they still reside in areas controlled by Israel. The NY Times says Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim ownership of land they vacated in 1948, but denies Palestinians the right to reclaim the properties they fled from in the same war. Those are all reliable sources, and not one source has been provided that disputes them. If somebody wants to repeat the nearly vandalism level edit of Geshem Bracha and again replace what has several reliable sources supporting it with something that is flatly untrue they can do that, but the next time it happens there will be a report for falsifying sources brought to AE. I dont plan on endlessly replying to sourceless comments here, if you have sources that directly refute the text then bring them. But your arguments are a. untrue, b. unsourced, and as a result of no consequence. nableezy - 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not disputing what you gave, I am just saying that for a reader who read this article he would think that ONLY Jews can file claims to land in East Jerusalem, while in fact every Israeli can file the claims in East Jerusalem. so I am basicly asking to change the word "jews" to "Israelis" because writing only Jews makes it an Half-truth or just give me one qoute saying that ONLY jews can file those claims in East Jerusalem, because if articles says that Jews can, it doesn't mean others can't. and now I understand you better, I think that the reason (in law which was supported by the articles both you and I gave), that the Palestinian-Israeli East Jerusalem Residents can't file claims in West Jerusalem (and other parts of Israel), while the other Israelis can file those claims in East Jerusalem, should be mentioned in the same sentence, because as reader I would assume that the law say explicitly that only Palestinians can't claim lands, which is not true.

not related: but about "adalah" document that you gave, there are examples of laws that apply also in many other democratic countries, just "adalha" refering it to discrimanting Arabs citizens, while for some if not most of them, they dont even have examples of such use for such purposes, while many of this laws like NGO “Funding Transparency” Law , are laws that are equal for all, and doesnt even let some authority to interpret them to discriminate. not only that "adalha" as published sometimes false accusation on Israel. Nahnieli (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What you are asking us to change is what the sources directly support. What they say is Jews. And I gave you several quotes. Again, NY Times: Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim ownership of land they vacated in 1948, but denies Palestinians the right to reclaim the properties they fled from in the same war. Jews were not classified as present absentees, any Palestinian who fled their home in 1948 was and is unable to file any claim to recover that property. That is attested to by several reliable sources. You disliking what those sources say is interesting but I feel like this section has reached the end of its useful life. I dont plan on responding again absent actual sources that dispute the article text. nableezy - 19:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You either no understanding me or ignoring what I said, all I said is that Arabs can file to claim land in east Jerusalem too, yes most of the claims there are by Jews, but Arabs can and did file claims in east Jerusalem and even won several times, the reason I am insisting on changing the way its wrote is because people uneducated about the conflict can confuse easily, and thats also ehy I would like the reasons, of ehy the situation is as it is to be mentioned too in shortly. Since we don't come to an agreement, I say that we call a thirth person (which doesn't have favor Palestinian or Israeli side) like ProcrastinatingReader, which commented above and seems netural to me. Nahnieli (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

User:ProcrastinatingReader, can you give your opinion? Nahnieli (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

Not my area of expertise, unfortunately. However: I came across a WSJ source yesterday that says In 1970, Israel passed a law allowing anyone to reclaim land that had been confiscated by Jordan during the 1948 war, as long as the land hadn’t been given to new owners. From some further reading, unsurprisingly, it seems a pretty complex subject, and my feeling is that news articles focusing on effects (such as the recent ones re this dispute) aren't properly researching and describing the effects of the law, naturally it isn't the point of the articles. I'd have thought we should look for academic sources that discuss the relevant laws and their application. There's some interesting writing here on the issue - although it's from an NGO. There's also these two pieces which look relevant at a skim and of a high quality: [14], [15] (American Journal of International Law and The Middle East Journal respectively). I don't know if the current revision of the article is an accurate portrayal of either the facts or the sources; it could be, but I wouldn't bet on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That NGO report captures the essence of the situation. It is correct as far as it goes, to say the law (APL) does not distinguish but that is to ignore the context, intent as well as the definition of absentee. That is the reason it says "Considering the purposes of the APL and the historical context in which it was enacted, it is obvious that there was no real intention of applying it to Jewish property." and no one seriously pretends otherwise these days. You can of course try to argue that the NGO is somehow misrepresenting the position, good luck with that argument.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read the full NGO source, but even if one assumes NGOs are RS (debatable, really, but understandably under discussion), they should never take priority over WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Since scholarship exists here, that should take precedence. Certainly, the best of the 3 sources I linked is the American Journal of International Law scholarship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your desire to retire the NGO from discussion notwithstanding you should pay closer attention to what it says, they have dealt rather comprehensively with Benvenisti/Zamir, and why would they not.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it has, but in my view it is not RS, and in any case an NGO source has no ability to override academic scholarship. I'm sure there's something good to be taken from it, but when we have better sources I see no reason to rely on it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Well there is no backing for your position at RSN, it is one of the best sources out there for this issue. Your error lies in assuming that there is a contradiction between what it says and what "your" source says, there isn't any such contradiction.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no backing for the idea that it's reliable either, and no policy that exists saying that NGOs are reliable. But this is neither here nor there, as: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. There is no contradiction, per se. The NGO piece does, however, not word things clearly (see another example below). Jews and Israelis are not equivalent. Aside from being misleading, the statement in the WP article implies that, for example, a Jew living in America without Israeli citizenship can claim land. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's correct, a person from the US who never lived in Israel, could buy properties in East Jerusalem that belonged to Palestinians declared absentees. That happened with the Shepherd Hotel. As I said before, it's all in the definition, "absentee" does not apply to anyone living abroad, only to Palestinians.Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We're discussing too many things here. In this section, I don't think the dispute is about property purchase, we're talking explicitly about the reclaim of lands owned pre-1948. Can a non-Israeli Jew living in a foreign country reclaim property in East Jerusalem, that they owned (or inherited, I suppose) in East Jerusalem? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because by the Law of Return this non-Israeli Jew can claim Israeli citizenship at any time and make a claim. nableezy - 13:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so they need to be an Israeli citizen first? It's not by virtue of their Jewishness (religious or ethnic) that one can reclaim property, its by citizenship in the State of Israel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Like to see a Palestinian try that or anyone not a Jew for that matter. It's precisely because they are Jewish.Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

They need to be an Israeli citizen, but Palestinian citizens of Israel may not reclaim their property. When you have a class of citizens that by virtue of another law are disallowed from reclaiming property, to say that the law that allows for claiming property is available to all citizens is disingenuous. Yes, taken by itself the 1970 law does not only allow claims by Jews. But with the 1950 restricting claims by Palestinians that is its effect. nableezy - 21:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree we are discussing too many things and there is a tendency just to pick on a bit here and a bit there that suits a particular argument (as the originating IP did here). That way, there is no conclusion, if we want to go down that road what we ought to be doing is to select on a limited number of sources that cover this situation en toto and work from there on getting what they mean exactly in the detail. I tend not to pay much attention to it myself because the international position is really quite simple (I won't repeat it).Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As I say, this is just perplexing. We're discussing a very specific issue here: the treatment by Israeli authorities of property reclaims in East Jerusalem. So the discussion is not progressed by venturing to discuss various different issues. The most comprehensive scholarly source I've found - linked above - discusses this issue in detail. It says that Israelis are able to reclaim ownership of properties in East Jerusalem. It's a very simple thing which the IP has asked - whether religion is the distinctive factor that affects property reclaim in East Jerusalem - and the answer is no, at least as applied. For other issues, they need to be covered in themselves and per the sources. If the purpose of the Israeli policy is de facto to privilege Jews, as I think some claimed above, then that needs to be sourced and added in an additional sentence. But it does no reader justice to present an inaccurate account - factually lacking and not reflective of the sources - and to 'hide' details from them. The purpose of an article is to reflect the high quality sources and let the reader make their own conclusions. It's not the job of editors to 'protect' the reader, or substitute their judgement in its place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's our job to inform the reader, simple. If you want to do that, I'm on board.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A review of that article I reference suggests that the law does not discriminate based on religion. It does discriminate based on Israeli citizenship, and possibly does not class residents of East Jerusalem as eligible (unclear), but the distinction is based on that status and not on the religion of the claimant. As it applies to East Jerusalem, anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A little care is needed here, I notice that everyone is merrily writing "Israeli citizen" but one should note that when reference is made to "national" then it means Jew (Palestinians cannot be nationals, only citizens, only Jews can be nationals, as well as citizens). Ditto "nationality" and "national institutions", they refer to Jewish nationality and Jewish institutions.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand what the WSJ source is talking about. It is discussing property seized by Jordan, meaning in territory Jordan controlled (East Jerusalem). It is discussing the 1970 East Jerusalem Law that transferred property from the Jordanian Custodian of Absentee Property to an Israeli one. The property that Palestinians had fled from, willingly or otherwise, in Israel however was covered by the Absentee Property Law of 1950. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were not dispossessed by the Jordanians, so there are not many (any?) claims from Palestinians to recover property in East Jerusalem. They are however barred from reclaiming territory lost in 1948 (in Israel proper), which is what the other sources all say (and why you continue to ignore them remains a mystery). I actually quoted from the Middle East Journal source up above, what it says is In other words, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who were considered absent under the Absentee's Property Law with regard to their property in 1948, either in West Jerusalem or in other areas inside Israel, were not permitted to reclaim their property. nableezy - 20:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a step backwards. The dispute here is over "Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which they may have owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over land in Israel which they owned" right, and whether the ability to file claims is limited to Jews? So, I'm saying that the American Journal of International Law source confirms that the Israeli law, as applied, allows Israelis owners to reclaim land in East Jerusalem. It doesn't appear to be about whether they're Jewish or not.

I agree with you that, per the sources I've read as well, Palestinians are not able to claim land they lost in 1948. But that does not seem to be the thing under dispute here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well West Bank was wrong afaik and has been removed, as Israel has never applied its laws to the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem (and the settlements for Israeli citizens but that is another matter). Yes, Israeli citizens, inclusive of Arab citizens, who lost territory in East Jerusalem but stayed in Israel proper and were not classified as "absentee" by the Absentee Property Law may file claims. Yes, the law does not distinguish based on ethnicity. However, the Absentee Property Law effectively does, and would you care to hazard a guess as to the number of Arab residents of East Jerusalem who fled the Arab held sector of the city in 1948 for Israel proper? Because that would be the only class of Arab citizen of Israel that would qualify, while all Jewish citizens of Israel would qualify. Like I wrote initially, distinction without a difference, which is why these sources all say that the ability to reclaim property is limited to Jews and not Israelis. Does the letter of the law say only Jews? No, as far as I know. Is that its effect? Yes. The main point the sources are making, and which seems to be lost here, is that the Palestinian families in these homes are being forced out of these homes without being allowed the same right to reclaim the homes they were forced out of in Israel proper, sometimes in West Jerusalem. nableezy - 21:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And some additional sources:

• Seidemann, Daniel (2016), "East Jerusalem: The Myth of Benign Occupation Disintegrates", Journal of Palestine Studies, 45 (2): 6, Palestinian property rights in East Jerusalem are challenged by Israel's Absentee Property Law, according to which property owned by a person who has been in "enemy territory" at any time since 1947 is absentee property that, automatically, belongs to the State of Israel. Under the terms of the 1950 law, enemy territory includes the West Bank (the occupied territory was in the hands of Jordan, then an enemy state). Right-wing settler organizations have used this and other laws to great effect to take over properties in Silwan and the Old City of Jerusalem. When the government attempted to apply the law more systematically in East Jerusalem, legal challenges ensued. Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled (among other things) that while the Absentee Property Law applies to East Jerusalem, it should be applied only "in extremely rare situations" with respect to properties the owners of which reside in the West Bank—and only then with the approval of the Attorney General.

  Palestinian property rights in East Jerusalem are also challenged by Israeli legislation passed in 1970 that allows Israelis who owned property in East Jerusalem prior to 1948 to recover that property from its current occupants or tenants. This legislation was the vehicle by which settlement enclaves were established in Ras al-Amud and Shaykh Jarrah, as well as in parts of Silwan and the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. Importantly, Palestinians who owned property in West Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel prior to the 1948 war enjoy no similar right of recovery.

• Jadallah, Dina (2014-01-15). "Colonialist Construction in the Urban Space of Jerusalem". The Middle East Journal. 68 (1). The Middle East Journal: 77–98. doi:10.3751/68.1.14. ISSN 0026-3141. One place where there was persistent pushback is the Shaykh Jarrah neighborhood. There, the large grassroots Solidarity Movement began with weekly Friday protests that were sparked by the forced eviction in 2009 of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. The families are all former refugees who escaped their homes on the other side of the Green Line during the 1948 War. Following their displacement, they obtained the right to build on vacant land in Shaykh Jarrah from the Jordanian authorities that controlled East Jerusalem at the time. However, after the Israeli occupation in 1967, Jewish organizations claimed ownership by virtue of Ottoman deeds and prior Jewish ownership. The authenticity and applicability of these deeds have since been challenged in court. Meanwhile, Israel's Absentees' Property Law bars Palestinians from any ownership rights over their pre- 1948 properties. While Israeli authorities recognize pre- 1948 deeds belonging to Jewish citizens, there is no equivalent recognition of Palestinian property rights. Therefore, evicted residents of Shaykh Jarrah cannot return to their former homes in West Jerusalem because property (and other) rights are contingent upon Jewish identity.

The material in the article is well sourced and accurate. nableezy - 20:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And all this is only at the level of Israeli law in any case. All these legal antics are the result of one illegality piled atop another, commencing with the 67 application of Israeli law (sort of) in the old Eastern Jerusalem and a part of the West Bank. All such laws are of no legal effect per UNSC resolutions.Selfstudier (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ive added the Colonialist Construction in the Urban Space of Jerusalem source and quote and added "proper" to in Israel to clarify that it is not referring to East Jerusalem for the second part of that sentence. nableezy - 21:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And some more sources:

• Cook, Stephen A. "How Evictions in Jerusalem Led to Israeli-Palestinian Violence". Council on Foreign Relations. Israeli authorities emphasize that the situation in Sheikh Jarrah is a private real-estate dispute. That is accurate, but it only explains part of the story. Pro-Israel organizations have sought to change the demographics of East Jerusalem—which is predominantly Arab—for many years, taking their cues from successive Israeli governments that emphasized Israel's right to build within its own capital. Israeli law permits Jews to reclaim property that they or their families owned in Jerusalem prior to the division of the city after Israel's establishment in 1948, provided that they can prove ownership of the land. For their part, Palestinians cannot claim rights to property they once owned in Jerusalem or other parts of Israel.

• Rempel, Terry; Prettitore, Paul (2010). "Restitution and compensation for Palestinian refugees and displaced persons: Principles, practical considerations, and compliance". In Akram, Susan; Dumper, M.; Lynk, Michael; Scobbie, Iain (eds.). International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-85097-4. This is perhaps best illustrated in the Palestinian case by the legal regime that Israel created to seize, expropriate, transfer, and then secure Palestinian refugee (and nonrefugee) property in a "land reservoir" as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.¹⁶⁸ Aharon Tsizling, Israel's first Minister of Agriculture, for example, emphasized in relation to the confiscation of refugee agricultural lands after the first Israeli–Arab war in 1948 that it was "important in the international arena and before the world community that what is happening appears legal."¹⁶⁹ [emphasis added] After the 1967 Israel–Arab war, Israel adopted legal and administrative measures to facilitate the restitution of Jewish-owned properties in the eastern areas of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian administration between 1948 and 1967 while preventing Palestinians from recovering property in western Jerusalem.¹⁷⁰

  Footnote 170 reads: Section 3 of the law limited the right of Palestinians to repossess absentee property to eastern Jerusalem. Also the italics and "emphasis added" is in the source, the source is adding that emphasis not me.

nableezy - 22:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked those sources yet but if we assume they are HQRS and the quotations are representative of the source, then I'd say what we have here is an issue of the sources being in dispute. WP:ASSERT and WP:BALANCE probably then applies. We should find a way to word the disagreement between the sources, identifying clearly on which part they disagree. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sidenote, a quotation of the NGO source in the article says This property has been transferred, in accordance with the APL, to the Custodian of Absentee Property, who in turn sold it to the Development Authority, which, in many cases, then transferred the property to Jewish Israelis. The general rule – according to the APL and court rulings – is that this property should not be returned to its previous owners. The source I mention above says: The law authorizes the custodian to transfer the absentees' lands to the "Development Authority," which is registered in the land registry as the owner of the property. Under the law, the Development Authority may not sell the property or transfer the title thereto to any other person. The land may then be used by way of long-term lease. Probs worth clarifying in article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Which source disagrees with what the article currently says? Jews may file claims in East Jerusalem. Palestinians may not in Israel proper. Which part of that is in dispute? That it is not exclusively (legally) Jews who may file claims in East Jerusalem, even if it (practically) really is? Well, the article does not say only Jews. There is a disparity in the treatment of Jewish claims in East Jerusalem and Palestinian claims in Israel proper, which is what both the sources and article describe. No need to assume anything, one is available on JSTOR the other on Google Books, and both meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP though apparently now users can dismiss such HQRS when it suits their politics in other articles in the topic area so who knows what RSN might say. nableezy - 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want to clarify something. You always say Jews and Palestinians, but Jews are not the "opposite" of Palestinians. It's either Jews and Arabs or Palestinians and Israeli Citizens. By what nableezy says, the law allows only Jews to request it, so the reason that Palestinians are not able to "qualify" is not because they are Palestinians, it's because they are arabs, so if you are correct, the article should say "but reject Arab claims over...", but we need to make sure that it's true, and that the law really does prevent from Israeli arabs from using this law to claim their property. ProcrastinatingReader says that the law takes into account the citizenship and not the religion, so it should be changed to "Israel's laws allow Israeli citizens to file claims". In any way, whichever is true, the text should be fixed, because Jews refers to religion and Palestinian to a citizenship. 93.173.38.160 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is specifically Palestinian Arabs. I never said the two are opposites. Palestinian citizens or residents of Israel or those in East Jerusalem are barred from making claims in Israel proper. Jewish Israelis however may make claims in East Jerusalem. Both parts are true, and that specific distinction is remarked upon by several sources. The article as it stands is accurate. I see no reason to change it given the several reliable, including scholarly, sources that directly support it. Finally, it is not me who keeps saying Jewish and Palestinian in the distinction, it is the sources. nableezy - 02:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty confused here I admit. You admit that this description is inaccurate, factually. We have high quality scholarship giving the full description. But you wish to keep it out because some sources - apparently usually news sources but some scholarship too - use the word "Jew" instead. But the two aren't interchangeable. It doesn't say "only Jews" but it certainly gives that impression. I agree with what the IP says, directly above, about the confusion. Admittedly I've spent too much time on this already but I just think it's a bit bizarre of an approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I did no such thing. And no, the high quality sources directly back what the article says. Those high quality sources talk about the disparity between Jewish claims in East Jerusalem that displace Palestinians and the treatment of the claims of those same Palestinians in Israel. Yes, the two are not interchangeable, and nobody has said they are. The IP, and apparently with your support now, is attempting to disingenuously claim that there is equal treatment here. The sources, including several scholarly ones, are emphatic that there is not equal treatment. It's a subtle piece of propaganda, but it is propaganda. The sources are very clear that the disparity that exists here in property claims is between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. So too should our article. nableezy - 13:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

And another source:

• "A Threshold Crossed". Human Rights Watch. 2021-04-27. Beyond formal state confiscation, discriminatory laws and policies enable settler and settler organizations to take possession of Palestinian homes, evict the Palestinian landowners, and transfer their property to Jewish owners in East Jerusalem neighborhoods. They have done so based on a 1970 law that requires authorities to return to Jewish owners or their heirs property they owned in East Jerusalem prior to 1948 and that was held by Jordanian authorities between 1948 and 1967. By contrast, authorities have largely allowed the takeover of the land and homes of Palestinians in West Jerusalem who were expelled or fled as a result of the events of 1947-1949 and of Palestinians who were expelled or fled as a result of the onset of the Israeli occupation in 1967, by declaring it as "absentee property."

But we are supposed to maintain some fiction that there is equality in the law between Jew and Arab because reasons? There are a huge number of sources that explicitly say that Israeli Jews have these rights that Palestinian Arabs, including Israeli citizens, are denied. nableezy - 13:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Might as well keep them coming Daphna Golan-Agnon (16 November 2020). Teaching Palestine on an Israeli University Campus: Unsettling Denial. Anthem Press. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-1-78527-502-9. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here lies the point: If you want to get across the message that the disparity in property claims is due to Jewishness, find a source that says it, and then insert the text directly. There is at least one piece of high quality scholarship that says it's based on being Israeli. Where high quality sources contrast however, the 'facts' of both should be stated. One cannot simply pretend like the source does not exist. My perception is that you're trying to make the point implicitly, but if it's so obviously verifiable then it shouldn't be difficult to make it explicitly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Which HQRS is that? The WSJ? I thought earlier you wrote news sources generally should not be relied on? But now when you have one news source that backs your position but multiple scholarly sources dont trump that? Find one that directly states it? Have you not read any of the sources I posted? Here, I'll post it again for your convenience:

• Jadallah, Dina (2014-01-15). "Colonialist Construction in the Urban Space of Jerusalem". The Middle East Journal. 68 (1). The Middle East Journal: 77–98. doi:10.3751/68.1.14. ISSN 0026-3141. One place where there was persistent pushback is the Shaykh Jarrah neighborhood. There, the large grassroots Solidarity Movement began with weekly Friday protests that were sparked by the forced eviction in 2009 of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem. The families are all former refugees who escaped their homes on the other side of the Green Line during the 1948 War. Following their displacement, they obtained the right to build on vacant land in Shaykh Jarrah from the Jordanian authorities that controlled East Jerusalem at the time. However, after the Israeli occupation in 1967, Jewish organizations claimed ownership by virtue of Ottoman deeds and prior Jewish ownership. The authenticity and applicability of these deeds have since been challenged in court. Meanwhile, Israel's Absentees' Property Law bars Palestinians from any ownership rights over their pre- 1948 properties. While Israeli authorities recognize pre- 1948 deeds belonging to Jewish citizens, there is no equivalent recognition of Palestinian property rights. Therefore, evicted residents of Shaykh Jarrah cannot return to their former homes in West Jerusalem because property (and other) rights are contingent upon Jewish identity.

But after saying earlier By its nature, it goes into more factual depth than your typical news article, and if it's portraying a factually inaccurate story then that should be corrected. On issues like these academic scholarship is preferable, now I am the one that cannot simply pretend like the source does not exist? All of the sources that say Jews may make claims but Palestinians may not, those are what to you? Ignorable because of one WSJ saying "Israeli"? nableezy - 21:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The source I've been referring to this whole time is [16], published in the American Journal of International Law. (which, incidentally, despite being the most comprehensive source I've found, is not cited at all in our article.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, your source seems to be questionable under the following provision of WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. ... Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. given that this seems to be part of Dina Jadallah's PhD requirements (per the footnote). In any case, it's far less comprehensive and has far less citations, and I'm pretty sure the American Journal of International Law is more reputable, as are the authors of the work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't find comprehensive sources because you have an unjustified aversion to NGOs has been used as a source at Israeli land and property laws for long..note "According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 41), the provisions in the law made sure that the term 'person' did not apply to Jews." As long as you persist in concerning yourself with minutiae, then the big picture will remain fuzzy. Fortunately there are plentiful sources that do not dwell on the detail and simply (by implication if you like, it matters not to me) refer to the legal edifice as "discriminatory" (which it is, as well as being illegal in any case).Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, according to Benvenisti/Zamir, the reason for the lack of comprehensive sources is: This aspect has never been fully addressed, probably because of its irrelevance during periods of bitter political and military confrontation, and because of its tremendous legal and factual complexity. But we have a great comprehensive source, written by scholars including a professor and attorney who holds a named chair in International Law. For some reason, however, it is not cited in our article at all, and editors seem to simply ignore the source, in favour of articles written by PhD candidates and political analysts who are not lawyers but are analysing something of tremendous legal and factual complexity (still RS, of course, but per policy the credentials of the authors must be considered). Perplexing, really... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Now a professor and attorney who holds a named chair in International Law is something to respect as a great comprehensive source. Huh. nableezy - 15:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I didn't write it. If you want to cite B/Z for something, go right ahead. Recall that it was written in 1995 and since then a lot of attention has been paid to it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

George Bisharat, Land, Law, and Legitimacy in Israel and the Occupied Territories, 43Am. U. L. Rev.467 (1994) was written around the same time.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space2004, volume 22, pages 809 830 From Arab land to `Israel Lands': the legal dispossession of the Palestinians displaced by Israel in the wake of 1948 is quite interesting and cited a lot.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

These look great (from my spotchecks) — thanks for finding them! Will try to get around to reading them today/tomorrow. ProcSock (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that all the sources mistake "Jews" with "Israelis", otherwise there is a "hole" in the law, which doesn't make sense. Can an Israeli citizen who is not a Palestinian, use the law to get his property back? For example, Israeli non Palestinian Christian, or someone without religion? If the answer is yes, then the line is incorrect and should be fixed to Israeli citizens. By reading the law (in Hebrew), I saw that the eligibility for the law is based on location of the person and not his religion (For example, if you fled to an enemy land, like most Palestinians did in 1947-1948, and that's why even if they are annexed or even if they get a citizenship they can't claim the property). 89.139.122.53 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing opinion

User:Free1Soul, having just scaled 500+ edits, has removed Nicholas Kristof's piece in the New York Times because it is an opinion piece. Obviously the editor hasn't read or rather (hmmm) has ignored policy in this regard which does not underwrite the removal on sight of articles expressing an opinion. The views of informed political journalists who follow a topic area, and writing in a mainstream journal, are included everywhere here.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

it is nonsense to mix journalists opinions with serious matters. There is many opinions for or against it, you pick and choose :) --Rectangular dome (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Free1Soul: Do you have a valid reason for removal?(other than "I don't like it").Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The policy you cite, WP:RSOPINION, spells out that opinions may be used for opinion, but not for statements asserted as facts. This opinion was used to assert facts and this is wrong. Free1Soul (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The opinion was attributed to Nicholas Kristof?Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Read the text it was citing. It was used for fact, not opinion. And no attribution. Free1Soul (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So instead of a pop up ref with attribution (a perfectly normal practice), you would prefer the popup content to be all spelled out completely intext?Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions should not be used for factual assertions. No reason to use this opinion. Free1Soul (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It was attributed. What does "no reason to use this opinion" mean? Is that a different objection?Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The text contained no attributon to Kristoff. It did not state this was Kristoff's opinion. It is just an opinion, one of many. Free1Soul (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If I hover my mouse over the ref you deleted, this is what it says:

"Nicholas Kristof, writing in the New York Times to argue that American taxpayers are subsidizing the bombing of Palestinians, described the 'land grab' at Sheikh Jarrah as part of a pattern of discrimination which, while disagreeing, he notes has been recently likened by both Human Rights Watch and B'tselem to apartheid. Nicholas Kristof, 'What Your Taxes Are Paying For in Israel,' New York Times 13 May 2021."

aka attribution.Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should use op-eds it add add nothing and also WP:UNDUE here --Shrike (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All the above discussion shows that the erasing editor did not understand the policy he cited in his edit summary, and persists in saying the quote was without attribution when the note contained the required attribution. Whatever one thinks one way or another, one should have raised this on the talk page before using a misleading es. It is not his opinion that Human Rights Watch and B'tselem have recently likened Israel's practices to apartheid. That is a fact that can be independently corroborated by reading both those sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opposing editors believe that evictions are only one part of the property dispute, and the article covers the entire dispute, not just the evictions. Some editors would support some other move to a different name, but not the proposed move. Editors on both sides consider the other name to violate WP:POVNAME, so I see no consensus which name is most neutral. !Votes of non-ECP editors would not affect the outcome of this discussion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah – The current title is on the extreme end of the POV spectrum, and this is attested to by several reliable sources. Among them:

• Euronews: One of the sparks that lit the fuse of the latest conflict came from a small neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, where Israeli settlers are working to evict Palestinian families. What is happening in Sheikh Jarrah has been characterised by the settlers and their supporters as a mere property dispute.
• Raja Shehadeh in The New Yorker: Israel argues that the situation in Sheikh Jarrah is merely a straightforward property dispute. In fact, what it demonstrates, above all, is the city’s endemic discrimination.
• The Scotsman: The 23-year-olds live and work near the embattled Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, which is the focus of an attempt to remove Palestinian families from their homes, in what the Israeli government terms a “property dispute”.

The other side of that POV spectrum calls this "property dispute" "ethnic cleansing". But non-partisan sources have generally characterized the events as expulsions or evictions. Expulsions is my preference given the usage by third-party organizations such as the United Nations, but that was rejected above. Regardless, "evictions" is a marked improvement over characterizing what the UN and human rights organizations have called a potential war crime in to some "property dispute". Sources that support "evictions" include:

• AP: She and her husband, empty nesters with grown children of their own, may have to leave it all behind on Aug. 1. That’s when Israel is set to forcibly evict them following a decades-long legal battle waged by ideological Jewish settlers against them and their neighbors.
• CBS News: One of the factors that led to the current violence in Israel and Gaza is the possible eviction of 13 Palestinian families from the Skeikh Jarrah neighborhood in the disputed territory of east Jerusalem.
• NY Times: The effort to evict six Arab families from a contested neighborhood has drawn attention to the Israeli effort to remove Palestinians from parts of East Jerusalem and led to protests.
• Times of Israel: The Supreme Court, amid daily violent clashes in East Jerusalem, has canceled a hearing scheduled for Monday that could have determined whether four Palestinian families in the city’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood will be evicted.

And historically:

• Lawyers without Borders report on housing rights in Sheikh Jarrah: has a section on "the Sheikh Jarrah evictions"

I think evictions is, like property dispute, a bit of propaganda in that it downplays a matter of international law in an occupied territory to some mere civil case to be settled by municipal authorities, but property disputes is on a whole other level in terms of its disingenuousness. Finally, the current title, besides being a blatant violation of WP:POVNAME, fails WP:COMMONNAME. "sheikh jarrah" "property dispute" returns 1140 google news results. "Sheikh jarrah" "evictions" returns 47,400. nableezy - 14:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose But no evictions has taken place per your own sources. The current title is descriptive and WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As in the prior move request, this is not something that is limited to the last two weeks. You have already been shown that numerous evictions have indeed taken place. Your vote also disregards that the current title is, per several reliable sources, POV, specifically the POV of the settlers, not "NPOV" as you assert without evidence. nableezy - 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Support I would support evictions provided that the international law situation be adequately covered in the article body which, boiled down to essentials, would add the adjective "forced" (as in "forced displacement"). Per the sources, virtually no-one refers to this situation as a real estate/property dispute with the exception of the Israeli government. Classing it as such is not NPOV, not at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, non-neutral advocacy. Also closing your own RM when it goes against you and immediately opening a new RM with the same arguements is diaruptive. Free1Soul (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Um no, accepting that a request will not gain consensus and proposing a new one is very much not disruptive. If you feel it is, WP:AE is thataway. But maybe try providing evidence for your claim, per WP:NOTAVOTE. Would love to see how somebody can call "evictions" non-neutral or advocacy while pushing for "property dispute", which per several reliable sources is actual non-neutral advocacy on behalf of a war crime. nableezy - 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the third RM in so many days. Give it a rest, everyone is tired of these long long posts. Free1Soul (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Whats your point? This article has a title that a number of reliable sources say is POV. You liking that POV does not make my efforts to correct the issue of Wikipedia being used to advance the POV of downplaying a war crime to a "property dispute" disruptive. Maybe address the fact that the current title is, per several reliable sources, explicitly on the extreme end of the POV spectrum? nableezy - 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Evictions is better than the current title, but it's still inaccurate and weaselly language intended to hide the true nature. "Eviction" implies the people living there a) don't own the property and b) did something wrong to prompt eviction (failing to pay rent, destruction of property, etc). A more accurate title would be Forced removal of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah. An eviction is a specific type of forced removal, but in this case eviction doesn't apply so we should use the more general term. --eduardog3000 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Editor can't comment in AFD as he didn't reached yet 500 edits --Shrike (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The OP claims the current title is NPOV but then proposes one which paints a completely different picture. I also echo the words by Free1Soul that the OP shouldn't have closed his own RM and opened one right away and should have let it run its course. --Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This letter signed by dozens of lawyers and scholars from all over the globe, requests the ICC prosecutor to investigate the Sheikh Jarrar case. Supporting what many sources describe as being the view of the Israeli government in the face of all the evidence is not a sustainable position.Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Posting advocacy letter by anti-Israeli organization doesn't prove anything --Shrike (talk) Shrike (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose fails WP:CRITERIA. The scope of the article, as can be seen in the current revision of Special:Permalink/1024896433, is a property dispute along with its historical background, legal history, positions and status of the land in international and Israeli law. Evictions constitute one section of the 6 section (+2 subsections) article. Accordingly, the proposed title is not an accurate title for this page, and fails WP:PRECISE. I hope the conclusion of this RM is respected, and we do not have to see a 4th... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There's been one real move request prior to this. How about we not start a new obviously false narrative about the history of this, as I closed the other per SNOW and your objection that eviction is more common? nableezy - 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the scope of this article should be widened so as to include all of the other related displacements in East Jerusalem, Silwan being perhaps the most notable of these. In this way, it can then be made absolutely clear just what is actually going on, the number of available sources as evidence for it rising exponentially.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nobody was evicted so far. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we should not name the article after an event that may not take place. Even if it does take place, eviction would be a small part of a much larger dispute. “WarKosign” 22:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WarKosign many families have been evicted over the years, please read Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#Evictions. And the entire dispute is about the evictions. What else is there to the dispute besides the evictions?VR _talk 03:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was focused only on the current events. Still, the article is about more than just the eviction, potential (and past) evictions are a result of the ongoing property dispute which is the subject of the article. It's easily evident from the table of content of the article. “WarKosign” 06:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Sheikh Jarrah evictions" gets 65,300 hits in Google, while "Sheikh Jarrah property dispute"/"Sheikh Jarrah real estate dispute" manage a whole 70 between the pair of them.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:HITS is not a reliable metric, but neither can be said to be the common name. See trends. Historically both are low usage, there was a spike in one aspect of this article's scope (the evictions part) due to news coverage, but it's dying down again too back to equilibrium. With the entire scope of this article, there is no particular frequent label in RS usage. (ngrams results show even less than trends). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And we may add another 26,800 if we do "East Jerusalem evictions".Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One can be said to be considerably more common, and one has reliable sources saying is a POV of an involved party, making it a POVTITLE which means it needs to be the common name to be used as our title. nableezy - 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not how the WP:Article titles policy works. There are five pieces of WP:CRITERIA to decide the title of a page. Your basis for the move is that a name is common, except this page is not titled under WP:NPOVNAME it's titled under WP:NDESC. Your proposal doesn't address the former because that's not the topic of the article. So what you've shown is that recent news reporting on breaking news events describes a specific event under a common name - a fact not under dispute (at least from me). What it overlooks is that those events are not the defining topic of this article. The article is titled as a neutral descriptor for the broad scope of the topics it covers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You must be referring to the largest section in the article, the one titled "Evictions"? Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's the largest but it's still only about 33% of the article's readable prose in word count. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE provides for using a non-neutral title when the name of the article is derived from reliable sources, when it is the common name. If an article has a non-neutral name then that name should be the most common way of referring to the subject. "Property dispute" you admit above is not a common name. It says to use neutral descriptive titles though, and this is a descriptive title. Per several reliable sources, "property dispute" is a non-neutral way of referring to this subject. You saying that this is a neutral descriptor is nice as a personal opinion, but it is reliably sourced that "property dispute" is indeed a non-neutral title, representing the POV of right wing Israeli settlers. International rights organizations refer to this "property dispute" as a "war crime". Downplaying a "war crime" in to a "property dispute" is very much not a "neutral descriptor". Again, that is not my personal opinion. That is the informed view of several reliable sources. Ive indeed demonstrated that this is not titled at a neutral description. The reply to that has been to baldly assert that it is, but as in all things on Wikipedia my sources trump your bald assertions. Also, please dont claim that my basis is purely commonality. That was the last, and the most minor, of the points raised in the move request. It is more than a little annoying to have my argument distorted so cavalierly. nableezy - 19:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support this title as "evictions" seems like a very neutral way of describing what's going on.VR _talk 03:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It simply cannot be 'property dispute' for that, being the default Israeli viewpoint, sides with one party at the expense of another, egregiously violating WP:NPOV. Raja Shehadeh is a distinguished Palestinian lawyer and legal authority on land laws in the West Bank and in international law, whose works are widely cited in the academic literature. He has published at least two monographs on the topic, and if he challenges that term as POV. Eviction is the standard legal term for 'the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. . . the term eviction is the most commonly used in communications between the landlord and tenant.' In this case, the Jewish company (run by a settler fellow who specializes in stealth purchases of West Bank followed by the eviction of the residents on those properties, repeatedly buys and evicts, using Israel's laws regarding property and the rights of their owners.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title is factually accurate and neutral--this is indeed a dispute over property. It also better covers the scope of the article. --Albany NY (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Tell Blinken he doesn't understand it Antony Blinken "warns Israeli leaders evicting Palestinians from East Jerusalem could spark war" Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The encyclopedic value of the article in that it describes the whole property dispute. Actual and/or future evictions are only one of the outcomes of this dispute. The point of the article is to objectively describe the whole legal situation, as well as its impact. Even as an outcome of the situations, evictions are not covering the whole thing. 173.224.161.129 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)ARBPIA

  For the closer: Apparently at WP:ARCA the current ArbCom may not agree with the previous ArbCom's interpretation of the RM clause at ARBPIA. If the comments of non-ECP editors will affect consensus in this discussion, then it may be best to hold off closing until ArbCom make their decision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I was leaning towards support, but the IPs and ProcrastinatingReader's arguments are convincing. The evictions are one part in the property dispute, and only comprise a third of the page. I do see that property dispute is a somewhat biased term, but moving from a biased term to a non-descriptive/incorrect (in describing the article's scope) one isn't an improvement. I fully support a move towards a more neutral name or a redefining of the article's exact scope, but I don't support this move. Zoozaz1 talk 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. One-sided advocacy and as ProcrastinatingReader points out not what this article is about.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expanding scope of article

Initially raised by Selfstudier above, question: do we have another article that deals with property disputes in Israel and Palestine? If not, it may be relevant to expand the scope of this article, given that much of it is already generalised and not specific to Sheikh Jarrah (and the dispute is not limited to the area either). ProcSock (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As of May 29, in East Jerusalem, there are 218 Palestinian households (970 persons) with eviction cases. SJ is 8 with 75 and Batan al-Hawa (Silwan) is 7(44). There is an article Judaization of Jerusalem, this usually being considered a part of that but it does not deal with the situation in any detail. Israeli demolition of Palestinian property includes East Jerusalem house demolitions, considered as another part. The overarching generalization and driver for these and other related issues is the desire of the Israeli government to maintain a certain demographic in Jerusalem.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There are probably sources that tie these things together. I think expanding this article is better than a new one. The amount of forks in the I/P topic area is poor value for readers, and as I say much of the information in this article is general beyond just Sheikh Jarrah. There's firstly the concept of private properties that were 'abandoned' (for lack of a better word) or whose status changed in 1948 and 1967. Then there's the ongoing treatment of those properties; including their occupation. And some sources discuss the implications this will have on a future peace treaty, especially with regards to a right of repossession. I think all of this, at least in summary, should fit within the scope of one article and be accessible to a reader as such. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The evictions in Sheikh Jarrah itself merits an article, the wider dispossession and expulsions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem should be a parent article to that. nableezy - 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

neutrality of title

It is reliably sourced that this current title is the POV of extreme right-wing settlers who wish to frame what the UN human rights office has called a potential war crime in to a "property dispute". Several sources explicitly saying so have been provided. That there was not consensus for a new name does not change that this title is non-neutral, and so I've restored the tag. If people have suggestions on a name that isnt, per reliable sources, the favored framing of an extremist element involved in the dispute on the order of "ethnic cleansing" in terms of its degree of "POV" feel free to offer one. If nothing is offered I'll start an RFC with the various options to see if a consensus can form around any one title (including this one if thats what it ends up being, but removing the tag based on a no consensus close isnt proper). nableezy - 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the title issue remains at issue since we have clear cut sourcing from a majority of newsorgs that are not referring to it as a real estate or property dispute other than to clearly point out that is the view of the IsGov. In a normal world, we could take external agency guidance, it being referred to as forced displacement by multiple UN sgencies and by Amnesty. Human Rights Watch has gone further and is now calling it apartheid, they are even calling Israeli property laws within Israel proper discriminatory, never mind in East Jerusalem. So are many Israeli hr orgs, including B'tselem. Of course all these sources are as usual dismissed as "biased" or "anti-Semitic", meaning that they disagree with the IsGov. Generalizing, what does one call the systematic demographic engineering (the politest way I can think of to phrase it) that is going on, I don't know, but it is surely not "property dispute".Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the tag, frankly it is shocking that this is the title we’re stuck with. “Property” is an ambiguous term, whose meaning is almost entirely contextual. When you qualify it by adding “dispute”, in the context of this article, it is clearly referring to real property. To the lay reader, a “property dispute” is a disagreement between neighbours. Supporting walls and boundaries come to mind. Property disputes are typically matters of domestic civil law, not a violation of international law. Ideally the name would centre the international nature of the conflict, while covering the full scope of the article. Maybe something to do with the occupied status of Sheikh Jarrah? For example, “Israeli occupation of Sheikh Jarrah/Israeli occupation in Sheikh Jarrah” or “Occupation of East Jerusalem in Sheikh Jarrah”. If we wanted to go really broad and excruciatingly neutral, we could say “Israel-Palestine conflict in Sheikh Jarrah”. Just some suggestions, since I don’t have standing to comment on requested moves. WillowCity (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue, really, is that some people feel the article needs a dramatic title, and thus are unsatisfied with the current. The current is perfectly NPOV. This article is not about the broader occupation. It is about properties, a complex legal issue relating to them, and the evictions of people living in them. Indeed, a legal dispute is best described as "a dispute". Of course, the issues are complicated by the fact that the Israeli position on East Jerusalem is not supported by the international community. That can adequately be described in the lead.

All the titles suggested thus far - including in the 3 RMs above - represent a substantially different scope to that of the article. Nobody can come up with something remotely relevant and decent. That is probably the best indicator that there is no problem here, and that it's about time for the WP:STICK to be dropped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain how when several reliable sources say that this title represents the POV of an involved party you can seriously argue that it is not POV. Reliable sources, several of them, say otherwise. Please explain how you are disputing the reliably sourced statement that "property dispute" represents the favored framing of the Israeli settlers? nableezy - 14:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it represents the favoured framing of the Israeli settlers. I'm saying you've failed to come up with one better, and I don't believe a better one is possible. That Israeli settlers happen to like the name doesn't make it POV, the same way Palestinians liking an alternate name doesn't make that name POV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So your position is that choosing the favored framing of an involved party, when uninvolved parties call it a "war crime" instead, is not taking a POV? That's like saying that if this article had been initially titled "Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah" that well that just cus one of the parties likes this framing and the other objects to it, while neutral third parties choose something else entirely, doesnt make this framing non-neutral. nableezy - 22:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A "dramatic" title isn't necessary, just one that reflects reality and sourcing rather than the view of the IsGov. Property dispute doesn't represent the scope either.Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Drop the stick. Your repeated RMs have failed, and re-arguing the same point over and over is tiresome.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is utter horseshit. Reliable sources say that this title is POV. A collection of users is saying it is not. Will take this to an RFC then. A close found no consensus for a different title. It did not find consensus that this one is neutral. And this game of claiming otherwise by users who have repeatedly said things that sources say are well I'll be kind and say inaccurate instead of dishonest is not surprising but a little annoying. nableezy - 14:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

material removed

The material on settlers framing this issue as a "property dispute" and Palestinians in turn calling it "ethnic cleansing" is remarked on by a number of sources. Explain why it was removed from the lead. Ive tagged the article due to the constant removal of material that shows this POV-fest is something other than that. nableezy - 14:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, Wikipedians evaluate a question about how our article on this subject should be titled. Like so much that relates to Israel and Palestine, this matter is highly contested and fraught. Because this is a high-visibility topic area and it seems likely that this RfC may well be read by non-Wikipedians, I will try to explain the discussion and the decision in a way that's intelligible to the general public.

Wikipedia's most basic rules, our "core policies", require us to maintain a "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV). This is a non-negotiable requirement for all articles, and interested people may wish to refer to our page about it.

This article is about a region of East Jerusalem where the ownership of property is contested; one entirely possible consequence of this contest is the eviction of Palestinians, and some Wikipedians are concerned that our current article title, which frames article's subject as a "property dispute", is so bland as to obfuscate the reality of what is happening on the ground -- in other words, there is a concern that the title is so pro-Israeli as to violate NPOV.

Wikipedians make decisions by consensus, a slippery word which I attempt to define below. There have been a number of attempts to change the name of this article, none of which have been successful; and rather than begin another attempt to change its name, Nableezy has gone back to establish whether the current name has consensus.

On Wikipedia "consensus" does not mean "unanimity", as it would do in natural language. We use a threshold of "rough consensus" (described in detail, in the slightly different context of deletion discussions, at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS). Discussions are "closed" by volunteer closers, in this case me; and it's a sacred cow of Wikipedia that the closer must be previously uninvolved in the debate and may not be appointed by any of the parties. If you're wondering why I, a man who has never been to Israel or researched any of the issues here, am acting as closer, this principle of uninvolvement is the reason.

The closer's role is not to decide, but to summarize and document what the community has decided.

Because anyone can register an account and participate in a debate, a straight-up vote would be easy for a bad faith user to engineer, so we describe contributions as "!votes" (where the ! means "not" -- i.e. "!votes" are not-votes). We ask our volunteer closers to give each !vote its own weight based on the reliability of the sources it cites, its relationship to the policies it cites, and its force in logic and reason.

After doing this exercise, I conclude that while many good faith editors do support the current title, the level of support expressed below is insufficient to amount to a consensus within that word's Wikipedian definition. This means that the attempts to find a clearer and more neutral title may, and should, continue.

Any questions, comments, or complaints about this close may be directed to my talk page in the first instance. I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Is the current title NPOV? If not, what would be an appropriate title? Nableezy 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, and that should not even be in dispute. When reliable sources explicitly say something represents the POV of an involved party in a dispute then on Wikipedia it is reliably sourced that it is POV. Reliable sources explicitly say that the framing of this issue as a "property dispute" represents the POV of the Israeli government and of right-wing settlers. It is absurd for somebody to argue in the face of several sources that say "this is POV" and say, with no sources and no policy, "no it is not". WP:IJUSTLIKEIT is no more valid a reason than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It has been repeatedly established, with reliable sources, that what this article calls a "property dispute", in keeping with the POV of extremist Israeli settlers, is what the UN and human rights organizations term a "war crime" and a "violation of international law". Sources include:

• Euronews: One of the sparks that lit the fuse of the latest conflict came from a small neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, where Israeli settlers are working to evict Palestinian families. What is happening in Sheikh Jarrah has been characterised by the settlers and their supporters as a mere property dispute.
• Raja Shehadeh in The New Yorker: Israel argues that the situation in Sheikh Jarrah is merely a straightforward property dispute. In fact, what it demonstrates, above all, is the city’s endemic discrimination.
• The Scotsman: The 23-year-olds live and work near the embattled Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, which is the focus of an attempt to remove Palestinian families from their homes, in what the Israeli government terms a “property dispute”.

• So, is the current title NPOV? No, and that is a reliably sourced statement. What would be an appropriate title? I favor "Expulsions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah" or "Evictions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah", as neither of those titles have the distinction of being the favored framing of either side here, with one favoring "property dispute" and the other favoring "ethnic cleansing". But this current title is, per several reliable sources, a NPOV violation. nableezy - 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This was linked earlier, and I wouldn't cite this as a reliable source, but the Last Week Tonight bit on this is worth a watch for people trying to understand why the framing here as a "property dispute" is a rather blatant NPOV violation. Robert Fisk has a column about how the language used in this conflict has been routinely twisted towards a specific POV. Colonies become settlements become neighborhoods. Occupied becomes disputed, wall becomes security barrier. And a war crime, as described by the UN human rights office, becomes a property dispute. nableezy - 03:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. When several sources, including the New York Times clearly state that there are two positions, that of settlers and the Israeli government, that this is a 'property dispute' and that of Palestinians and many international observers, that this is an issue of forced displacement of Palestinians, a change of title is obligatory. As it stands, the title endorses one of two POVs.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. Here BBC, CNN, CBS & NYT all pointing to real estate/property dispute as the view of "Israeli officials".

  (BBC) "Israeli officials say the Sheikh Jarrah issue is nothing more than "a real estate dispute" and that the settlers have the law on their side."

  (CBS) "Israeli officials have called it a "real-estate dispute between private parties."

  (NYT) "which Israeli officials dismiss as “a real estate dispute,” has become emblematic of a wider effort to remove thousands of Palestinians from strategic areas in East Jerusalem"

  (CNN) "Israeli officials have described the issue as a "real estate dispute." The UN says the evictions are illegal under international law"

  Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah, as has been suggested by several other editors, seems an objective and neutral compromise between two extremist positions (property dispute/ethnic cleansing).Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, and drop the stick. This repeated self-closing of discussions going against you and re-opening discussions on the same topic when consensus is against you is disruptive. This was already discussed in Requested move 20 May 2021, move request 2, and Requested move 24 May 2021. I see no need to respond to the merits of the wall of text above, and the claims therein have already been refuted in prior discussions in the past 10 days.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• No clearly not, as is well sourced. What it is called by either side is clear, but what it is called by neutral parties is less obvious to me at the moment. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, and drop the stick In agreement with Geshem and per my comments in the section above, that the current title is a WP:NDESC for the situation and the events it composes. You cannot title an article on a substantially different scope. RS in relation to one portion of the article's scope - the evictions - may indeed title their articles over the evictions, but this article composes the historical scope and legal background. It's a substantially different scope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, there are dozens of sources stating that it is a non-neutral name – do you have a source disputing this, or is this your own original research? On the scope, this article is entirely focused on the political dispute – not a simple "property dispute". Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect we have different definitions of "property dispute". Firstly, the sources don't quite say what people here are saying. Most of the sources given say that Israeli officials call it a "real-estate dispute". This doesn't imply that the term is correct or incorrect, or that it's POV, and our article isn't titled "Sheikh Jarrah real-estate dispute" anyway. The New Yorker source is opinion, and WP:WIKIVOICE details the difference between opinion (even widely held opinion) and fact. There are neutral sources that adequately describe the complex legal dispute and term is as such, rather than as "ethnic cleansing" or some such (noting that, according to this scholarly source, most Israeli claims over properties in East Jerusalem result in compensation not in property ownership -- however that may have changed over the years, I'm not sure). This journal piece, titled "Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement", very clearly describes the issues, which it describes as a subject of tremendous legal and factual complexity. That something is a "property dispute" doesn't take favour about which side has a stronger argument, or whether the law is even applied correctly, or state an opinion on which country's laws applies to the dispute, or what the UNHRC position is. It simply neutrally describes that there is a legal argument or disagreement in relation to properties in Sheikh Jarrah, which is an accurate description. Having said my substantive piece, and considering that this has spread over 5 sections now (3 failed RMs, a pre-RfC and an RfC) in which I've engaged, one will understand that I don't really plan on spending even more time engaging in the endless back and forth. The outcome will be whatever it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

PR. Please don't quote policy that contradicts what you infer it supposedly states, i.e.WP:NDESC. The title is evidently 'judgmental', in espousing the known POV of one party to a dispute. The evidenc is overwhelming.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

One should not equivocate. if I say 'I'm a realtor'/'I'm in the property business'/'I buy and sell real estate,' the referent is identity, only the words differ. To repeat, it has been shown repeatedly that 'property/real estate dispute' is Israel's official default term. Israel is one party to the dispute, the other are Palestinians, who do not consider it to be a 'property dispute'. There is simply no way getting round the fact that the term we have espouses the preferred definition of Israeli interested groups. The legal fuzz is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, it isn't neutral. I would favor Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah ("eviction" as someone else proposed is more often applied to residential property at an individual/family level, and doesn't work for this). "Expulsion" remains correct even if the Israeli position that it's ultimately a property dispute is true. The "it's a property dispute" position does nothing but provide a particular rationale for the expulsion. I must also remind people that this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone thinks that WP:CIVILPOV or WP:GANG behavior will go unnoticed, they are mistaken. There is no stick to drop when a policy is not being followed; editors are correct to keep pointing out that it is not being followed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Per previous Rfc. There isn't a restriction against starting basically the same Rfc over and over again because you don't like the result? If not, it should be.--SoaringLL (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock

Thats a move request that didnt result in a consensus. No, there is no restriction on pursuing the steps laid out in our dispute resolution policy when discussions do not result in consensus. It would be helpful if others attempted to follow that policy, along with the other ones. nableezy - 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, per review of available sources. Preferred title is Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, the formulation of the question is confusing. In the same way repeating the question again and again until the perception of obtaining majority for certain POV is also confusing. You cant ignore previous RfC on same question, and move one to next one until you get one that will fit your desires. The current title is not POV The owners of the property mentioned are actually Jews who were expelled by Jordanians in 1948 and Palestinians were settled in their homes Now they live there for 70+ years and probably have some legal rights to property (I am not familiar with Israeli law) which is disputed by the original owners who want their homes back. This means that this is actually a property dispute Further as I know, in the latest conflict there was no any form of expulsion but a judiciary process that will when finalized benefit one or another side in this dispute.Tritomex (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, the formulation of the question is not even a little bit confusing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  What part of is the current title NPOV are you confused by? nableezy - 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• No it is not neutral. Support Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah as the title. I also note that the tactics of some of the respondents of trying to shut down the discussion by accusing nableezy of operating in bad faith merely for starting the RFC are uncalled for. Argue on the merits of your opinion, but don't try to silence discussion to preserve your preferred POV; furthermore, it's not valid to argue that a prior lack of consensus means the discussion be halted and the status quo preserved. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes As per previous discussions on this topics.That perfectly WP:NPOV descriptive title that some users just WP:DONTLIKE --Shrike (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes As someone who just learned about this issue, it seems that "Property dispute" is a neutral description for any disagreement that involves land. To settle this issue, what about using "Sheikh Jarrah Dispute"? Any eviction creates a dispute and any owner would still think it is a dispute, regardless of the side. Ihaveadreamagain 18:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  The question is not whether there is a dispute, but why? The claim against the residents of SJ (since 1956!) is based on Israeli law being applied in occupied East Jerusalem ie it is illegal in international law and in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions. These terminal defects aside, the law being applied is anyway discriminatory since the SJ residents, who owned property pre 1948 in what is now West Jerusalem, are prevented from claiming it back while Jews who owned property in East Jerusalem pre 1948 are allowed to. This issue is not new, merely reincarnated, and was roundly condemned by all, including the US, back in 2009.(https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_shiekh_jarrah_english_2009_08_15.pdf)Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  A title need not answer a question. The point of WP is to report on what is happening, not to take sides on an issue. Be neutral. Ihaveadreamagain 16:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Property dispute is taking a side, the side of the settlers and Israeli government. Reliable sources report that "property dispute" is a non-neutral framing of what the UN calls a war crime. nableezy - 16:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Since passions flare even among "neutral" editors on this issue, see that I suggested "Sheikh Jarrah Dispute" to omit the word "property" thus not to pick a side. Ihaveadreamagain 17:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Euphemisms arent neutral either. nableezy - 17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is based on what sources say.Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use a title that is based on a reliable source, what about the "SHEIKH JARRAH ISSUE" as from the BBC article cited above? "Israeli officials say the Sheikh Jarrah issue is nothing more than "a real estate dispute" and that the settlers have the law on their side." [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57243631 Ihaveadreamagain 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

We already chose one. There is also a list of sources in the discussion below.Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. The sources above seem fairly unambiguous that this reflects the framing of only one side, which makes it non-neutral; nor can it really be considered the WP:COMMONNAME when so many high-quality sources are careful to avoid using it in their own voices. Beyond that it is stilted and awkward; but at the very least it violates WP:POVTITLE. Finding an ideal title might be difficult, but this one certainly doesn't qualify. The argument that this is an uncontroversial descriptive title seems absurd - if it were, the sources listed above wouldn't be so unambiguously treating it as a contested framing. Note that most of the people expressing support make no effort to argue that the sources support their interpretation - the few that bother to give an argument at all merely argue, effectively, that they feel one side of the dispute is correct, which is not a policy-based argument. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The dispute is on going, for over a century, and is a wider topic than just a specific eviction that hasn't happened yet. Free1Soul (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

"Israel’s foreign minister was at the beginning of May talking about this as a private land dispute. That is not the story as far as the international community and law and the Palestinians are concerned. This is occupied territory beholden to international law, and Israel has a responsibility towards the Palestinian families there. Israel is coming under mounting pressure. There is now a political element as far as Israel is concerned," said Fawcett, adding Israel’s attorney general has until June 8 to give his legal opinion on the matter.Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Drop the stick. Prior discussions: Requested move 20 May 2021, move request 2, and Requested move 24 May 2021.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Of the three links, the first was closed to permit the second, with a slight advantage to opposers. The important one was the third, and last before this, which was closed as 'no consensus which name is most neutral', meaning it is still an open question, asking the which is not a matter of brandishing a stick. Indeed there is far more evidence in now.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There has not been any consensus for this name, and the idea that no consensus closes of move requests means that I or anybody else should not attempt to correct blatant POV violations is to be blunt asinine. I decline. It is also a straight forward false claim I have repeatedly closed self-closed discussions. I have closed one move request where consensus was clearly not going to be achieved. It is also a false statement that there is any sort of consensus against me here. No consensus very much does not mean consensus, in case that was not obvious to others. An RFC will establish consensus (or not) on if this name is POV. You can choose to not discuss that, you can choose to make statements that reliable sources say are flat out wrong if you want. I just hope the closer looks at the quality of those arguments when evaluating what consensus actually is. Kindly dont make things up. Thank you, nableezy - 17:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

McCandlish's remarks and proposal are spot-on, linguistically and analytically. The only reason one doesn't suggest it is that in the topic area, factual realism appears to be frowned on. The evictions are part of a larger pattern, whom no one can doubt constitutes a policy of ethnic cleansing and expulsion. This is the data just for 2016

East Jerusalem Palestinians at risk of eviction

Area	Structures	Households	Palestinians	children
Beit Hanina	4	7	41	(19)
Beit Safafa	14	17	88	(50)
Im Haroun zone, Sheikh Jarrah	12	35	139	(54)
Karm al Jaouni zone, Sheikh Jarrah	9	23	97	(31)
Sheikh Jarrah	3	8	27	(7)
Batn al Hawa zone, Silwan	17	62	309	(164)
Wadi Hilweh zone, Silwan	3	5	24	(10)
Ras al-Amud	1	2	12	(3)
Burj Laqlaq in the Old City-	1	3	6	(2)
Al Qirami in the Old City	2	4	20	(9)
Aqbat as Saraya in the Old City	1	6	24	(10)
Aqbat al Khaldiya in the Old City-	2	8	31	(13)
Aqbat al Khaldiya in the Old City-	2	8	31	(13)\
Totals	69	180	816	372

Go through each incident and the 'pretext' can vary. But the intent of Judaizing by eviction/expulsion/beautifying areas by creating 'national parks', where too many Palestinians mar the view, in order to celebrate Biblical history is openly avowed as the aim of the municipal council.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is okay, as per above to tackle issues that are fully unrelated to the subject, it seems to me that Jerusalem is the only city on earth where the Jewish majority shrank from above 70%, before Israel was created, almost 80% in 1970s to 62% today, while Arab population ratio increased to the level not seen in last century, despite "Judaization" "expulsion" and despite Jerusalem having highest Jewish birth rate anywhere on earth. The 69 structure issue in the city of 1 000 000 inhabitans surely has impact on this.Tritomex (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. See? Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sari Bashi, Israeli human rights lawyer. "Israeli security forces, led by a prime minister desperate to stay in power to avoid jail on corruption charges, created a provocation by using violence and the threat of violence against Palestinians in Jerusalem. They stormed a sensitive religious site, used excessive force against demonstrators and threatened to forcibly transfer Palestinian families from their homes as part of an official policy to "Judaize" occupied East Jerusalem, which is a war crime." (per https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/opinion/israel-gaza-conflict.html, Nicholas Kristof)Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Without wishing to engage further in non policy based arguments on Wikipedia, an Israeli prime minister cant avoid jail on corruption charges, regardless whether he stays in power or not, if found guilty in front of court. Also Israeli security forces cant threaten to forcibly transfer Palestinian families from their homes in Jerusalem if they dont have a court order (and they dont have). Unlike in Gaza, in Israel there are real courts and laws. I dont know how police stationed permanently on "sensitive religious site" can storm it, or how the situation could become more sensitive if molotov cocktails are stored on same place.

I also dont know who Sari Bashi is, but editorials of different journals reflect personal opinion's of their authors, policies and interests of different medias and not necessary facts or even news.Tritomex (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It says she is a human rights lawyer and on WP, that opinion is certainly worth more than all of your unsourced opinions above, right?Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a good time to mention WP:WIKIVOICE. Opinions and editorials, regardless of the profession of the author, are not facts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That is very much not true, and besides it isnt an editorial by Bashi, it is an editorial by Nicholas Kristof, and the question is if a. does he faithfully report Bashi's views, and b. is Basi a reliable source. I dont really see enough in the way of peer-reviewed works for her to qualify as an expert in the field, but an actual expert in the field reporting something is not an "opinion", it is a fact. It can be disputed if other qualified sources dispute it, but the idea that we dismiss scholars because it is "just their opinion" is not one that is in keeping with our policies. nableezy - 01:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can now see Basi is a political activist on behalf of one side of that conflict. Her political views are not facts.Tritomex (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I never presented her opinion as fact (I would have edited that into the article else), what is more interesting to me is Kristof citing her in a generally critical article in the NYT, not known for being that critical ordinarily. The NYT seems to have taken something of a position on the Sheikh Jarrah matter.Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bashi, aka Umm Forat https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-our-jewish-israeli-writer-in-ramallah-is-ready-to-reveal-who-she-is-1.9907163 Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

NYT latest, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/world/middleeast/east-jerusalem-house-divided.html, Kingsley, even less likely to criticize in the past, now writes in a lengthy article (about another case initially) "The case is not just a dispute over a single property: It is part of an effort by Jewish settlers to cement Jewish control of East Jerusalem, a process many Palestinians see as a slow form of ethnic cleansing. A similar dispute in the nearby neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which could lead to the eviction of Palestinians there to make room for settlers, led to protests, clashes and finally war this past month between Israel and Hamas, killing more than 240 people." Trying to cast all this as property disputes is just not tenable.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz joins in with its editorial https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/.premium-israel-is-shirking-its-responsibility-for-residents-of-sheikh-jarrah-1.9883391 "The legal arguments that permit this may sound reasonable in Israeli courts, which for decades has been conditioned to rule based on a discriminatory system of laws. But they are impossible to explain in the international arena. Nothing will make them sound logical or moral to a reasonable person."Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As if any further evidence was needed...https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-ex-attorney-general-discovers-settlers-took-his-family-s-sheikh-jarrah-home-1.9906666 Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Newsorgs [17] "Israel’s high court has postponed a ruling on the forced expulsion of four Palestinian families" [18] "whether to uphold an expulsion order for the families" [19] "now eight Palestinian households face expulsion" [20] " the forced expulsion of Palestinian families" [21] "forced evictions" [22] "forced displacement [23] "the expulsion of eight Palestinian families" Orgs [24] (OCHA, since 2009) " Forced Displacement" [25] (UNRWA, current) "forced evictions" [26] (OHCHR, current) "Forced eviction". [27] (Norweigian Refugee Council, "Forced evictions" [28] (Amnesty) "forced eviction" While sources also use the term "evictions" or "forced evictions", sometimes in conjunction with other terms, very few sources describe the situation as a property or real estate dispute.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Ben-Yair

Nir Hasson, 'Former Attorney General Discovers Settler Group Took Over His Family’s Sheikh Jarrah Home,' Haaretz 15 June 2021 Has one exemplary case of the deceit involved in these 'property disputes'. Perhaps it deserves a section on its own.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the ever vigilant Selfstudier has beaten me to it (end of section above) Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

) SJ would be so much history if not for the actions of a British commander in 48 who for some reason acted to prevent the Haganah blowing up and occupying the place. The Husseinis, Nashashibis and the Khalidis were all there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closing in the hope that the RfC will be closed in a constructive manner. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Sheikh Jarrah dispute – All reliable sources agree that topic is not just about property. It is really about the ethnicity of the people living in the properties, and makeup of the population in East Jerusalem. Previous discussions on the name have failed to find consensus. This proposal is intended to maintain simplicity whilst removing the most misleading component of the name. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I would rather wait for the RFC closure (requested). Personally, I can see no policy reason why the majority view of this situation as internationally illegal displacement/eviction/expulsion (ethnic cleansing per the Palestinians and some others) should not be reflected in the title. The only reason there is any "dispute" is because of illegally applied discriminatory Israeli law in occupied territory.Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There is an RFC above waiting to be closed. No need for this right now. nableezy - 11:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I mean... I'm not necessarily opposed, if it means we don't have to hear about this again. However, I think it's a less descriptive, since the issue is ultimately about properties, regardless of any analytical effects of that. Hence it fails WP:CRITERIA (naturalness, recognizability, and possibly also precision). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blank edit

@Enthusiast01: It is usual to use the talk page to make comments rather than a blank edit/response by edit summary. In any case, the significance of "We have made this point before" doubtless escaped your notice. It was reiteration of a previous stance ie before the court took a position. As to it's meaning, like everything else, that's a matter of opinion and yours and mine don't count.Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest batch of sources

Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Evictions is the current front runner, I would say, expulsions after that. Feel free to add others, there were rather a lot recently and these are only headlines. Now, the simplest thing would be to informally agree on a new title, any chance of that? 12:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Evictions was already denied, expulsions is similar enough. The RfC asks us to find a different suitable title. Do you have any ideas of a title that addresses your concern of apparently being biased towards one party, that isn't biased towards another party, and addresses the concerns of not properly reflecting the scope of the article? An appropriate WP:NDESC seems like the solution here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Similar to evictions or not, the lead gives expulsions as an aka used by Palestinian supporters so let's leave that one aside as well for now. There are 4 main sections in the article, 5 if you include Background - International Law, Israeli Law, Evictions and Confrontations, how do you want to properly represent that? To my mind, candidates might include displacement or dispossession. You want to say that it is all about land/property whereas for me it is all about (as US State put it) "Families should not be evicted from homes in which they have lived for decades." What's left? Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree it's a simplification to call it a real estate dispute. That's not my position. This recent article seems like a good, balanced summary to me. If the current title has no consensus due to POV concerns, and your preferred title has no consensus due to POV/scope concerns, a few ideas immediately come to mind:

• Ditch the concise WP:CRITERIA and come up with a longer WP:NDESC. One possible example might be "Property disputes and evictions at Sheikh Jarrah" or a variant thereof
• Go with OIAW's suggestion of Sheikh Jarrah dispute

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I should think Alff's article has managed neutrality by offending both sides equally, haha. Your idea of "including both sides" in a longer title has merit, still it's not just you and I so if it's OK with you, let's allow a little time for anyone else that wants to chip in and if not, thenwe can continue to try and sort it out between us.Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I was updating the article and it reminded me this was still unresolved. No-one else has commented so maybe we can sort it out. Your suggestion includes one extreme (prop dispute) without the other (ethnic cleansing) (like this headline) so better would be two formulations more towards the center so to speak. I could live with Legal disputes and Palestinian displacement in Sheikh JarrahSelfstudier (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Do you want more time to think about it? We could also put up your suggested and my suggested in an RM and ask people to choose one or other if you prefer? Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. I've had this in my ping tray to come back to, but wanted to think more on it rather than give an immediate response. I think it's important to make clear what the 'legal disputes' are about (property). I still think "property dispute" is not the same as "real-estate dispute", and I understand your concern is that "real-estate dispute" (being the preferred phrasing of the Israeli government) is a POV issue, and I think you see these two as equivalent. I don't know how to describe a "property dispute" without using the word "property", but I think it's important to make clear that this article relates to properties. I'm okay with any synonym, such as land, if that helps. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, real estate dispute is what the entire discussion is about but not in the way you (or IsGov) mean (ie landlord/tenant or ownership of some parcel). From the Palestinian perspective, SJ is just a microcosm of a much bigger real estate dispute, the entire area claimed by the Palestinians, SJ, East Jerusalem, settlements, the occupation and whatever scheme (I view the legal set up here as just such a scheme) IsGov can come up with next to take their land away from them, thus "ethnic cleansing". If you want property/real estate dispute (IsGov perspective) then I want ethnic cleansing (Palestinian perspective) as balance. Or we have to find another way altogether of dealing with the name, idk if that is possible, let me think about it some more.Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: SJ is an instance (Silwan would be another notable instance) of Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem, displacement just refers to the fact of it and not to the whys and wherefores so I would also be willing to go with Palestinian displacement in Sheikh Jarrah if that is acceptable to you? Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I think we are not getting anywhere, I think principally because you are insisting on including what has already been agreed as a non neutral position of the Israeli government. So I return to my previous suggestion, we put up an RM with a suggested title, one from you, one from me, and ask editors to choose between them. If that also fails to produce a clear consensus, then we will just have to keep doing rms until we get one that does.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me try restating the issue. When I say "property dispute" I don't mean "a dispute over parties fighting over a property for its economic value" (or some such), I literally mean "it's a dispute that relates to property/land". We need a title that contains that meaning, otherwise the title is just not descriptive. "Dispute" is too vague to be helpful. I don't see why saying the dispute relates to properties is a POV issue, it's purely descriptive. Conversely, I do see a WP:POVTITLE issue in calling it "ethnic cleansing" in the title.

The way I'm breaking it down in my head is:

1. There is a dispute. That dispute is about land, specifically who gets to reside on and own that land.
2. The outcome, where cases proceed, is often evictions (of Palestinians)
3. Analysis by various individuals (scholars, the parties, journalists, etc) of the two above points comes to various conclusions. Of that, some maybe (I haven't checked the sources but I'll take your word for it) argue it is ethnic cleansing. But this is not a universally held conclusion (we discussed better scholarship above/elsewhere).

There is not really a COMMONNAME in sources for the entire scope of this article. There are two possibilities for the COMMONNAME of the evictions aspect[29][30] with the former slightly more common historically and roughly even today in Ngrams but the former slightly more common in Trends, but (again) the scope of the article is broader than just evictions. None of the analyses in #3 are widely held enough to satisfy WP:POVTITLE and be part of the page title.

Owing to the facts in the previous paragraph, as a COMMONNAME does not exist, the only choice is to consider the WP:CRITERIA individually and come up with a non-judgmental descriptive title for this article. So that's the choice we're left with here. I think that's the current title, and that you're misinterpreting the words. I don't really have a better title to suggest, and this whole dispute seems like bike shedding to me. However, if this is going to turn into a case of exhaustive RMs until one passes with minimal participation because most people are too sick of discussing it further, then I don't really have any interest in wasting my time with substantial participation here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:Respectfully, that seems merely a longer version of what you already said ie more justification for maintaining the non neutral position and avoiding the others. That's OK, we don't have to agree, I will put up another RM with my suggested title and see where it goes.Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll add that Palestinian displacement in Sheikh Jarrah seems like a reasonable proposal for an RM. Not necessarily one I would support, but it's at least not one that's effectively ruled out by the results of previous RMs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2021

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Palestinian displacement in Sheikh Jarrah This RFC concluded that "...the attempts to find a clearer and more neutral title may, and should, continue." A subsequent effort between 2 editors failed to reach agreement on an alternative title. and this proposal is an attempt to break the logjam. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "displacement" seems like an odd term to use when there are much clearer terms available, and I think the wording should be moved around slightly, as the current order of words is somewhat ambiguous as it doesn't make it clear that Palestinians are being displaced (it could be that they are displacing other people). I still think "Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah" is a clear and unambiguous title, but see this was rejected in an RM that I missed above (several editors !voted on the basis that no evictions had taken place, which is untrue). Perhaps "Attempts to evict Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah" might be a more acceptable combination/order, or if people are still massively against evictions for whatever reason, Attempts to displace Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah, but this seems rather mealy mouthed to me. Cheers, Number 57 11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Number57's analysis is spot-on, and I would commend his proposal that we write Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah. The opposition to 'eviction' seems to arise from the distaste for the precise legal terminology current everywhere, Israel included whereas 'displacement is an euphemism, and, as Number57 again acutely observes, when defined by 'Palestinian' can lend itself to an invidious ambiguity. That the title we have is itself POV emerged in the earlier discussion and closure. Those who continue to object to any alternative that might cut the Gordian knot should be under an obligation, in their dissent votes, to suggest a compromise title. We have a POV title, so we are trying to get one that is less so. Just saying no to any alternative translates as supporting what the closing admin said was an unsatisfactory term.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the "protected tenants" situation contemplated by a court does not involve eviction, but does involve removal of the asserted ownership of the property. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem that those tenants don't pay rent to the owners so they are squatters Shrike (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite disgraceful, Shrike. You may have some excuse because as I now note, Michael Ben-Yair's story was cancelled by some editor. He is now waging a case in an Israeli court to get settler 'squatters' out of his former home, which by the law cited is rightfully his, in order to restore its tenancy to the Palestinians 'evicted'. Most of the editors commenting here do not appear to have read the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the ethnic cleansing and denial of basic human rights by the occupying power. See how it doesnt help when we say things that have nothing to do with the move request? nableezy - 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the article title. As far as I can tell, the "squatters" comment above does not have clear relevance to the article title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not a neutral title. Repeated requested moves to similiar POV titles is not helpful. Free1Soul (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Do something. The article title should clearly identify the nature of the topic, and this one does not. Consider something like Disputation of Palestinian property rights in Sheikh Jarrah. As one basic suggestion, the title should include the word "Palestinian". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is not a neutral title. Suggesting a title that was just rejected a few weeks ago makes it hard to assume good faith. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Would go back to a new request with evictions. The argument that no evictions have taken place is just factually wrong and should be ignored, and all the me toos parroting that bogus line should likewise be ignored. nableezy - 18:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Freedom Is a Place: The Struggle for Sovereignty in Palestine, Ron J. Smith, 2020 is a high level scholarly summary for those not familiar with the background.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title is as neutral and factual as it can get. This article is about disagreement (dispute) regarding who owns real estate (property) in Sheikh Jarrah. "displacement", "eviction", "explusion" etc are potential results of one of the possible outcomes of this dispute, but they are only part of the real subject of the article. “WarKosign” 11:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  An RFC has already decided that the current title is not neutral, we are attempting to find one that is. Dispossession is another possibility used quite frequently.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  No, the previous RFC did not determine that the title is not neutral. It determined that there are many editors that are unhappy with the current title. It's not a sufficient reason to replace the title with one that is far less neutral than the current title. “WarKosign” 23:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  RFC -> "...the attempts to find a clearer and more neutral title may, and should, continue." and yet you continue to insist on said non NPOV title. I think that says it all really.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  You wrote that "RFC has already decided that the current title is not neutral", which is not true. It determined that a more neutral title, if can be found, is preferable - which is completely moot, it's already a pillar of wikipedia, we always strive to be as neutral as possible. Regarding current proposal, I !voted is that it's far less neutral than the current title and expressed belief that there is no more neutral title that can be found. No reason not to keep trying, though. Perhaps we can discuss first, and not start an RFC for every bad proposal. “WarKosign” 13:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  It has been discussed, for a long time now, including most recently, for a month following the RFC, between two editors, no other editors having felt the need to join in. Therefore this RM, seemingly headed in exactly the same direction as all the other discussions ie a POV blockade in favor of a non neutral title.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title is less clear about the scope of the article than the current title, which is a perfectly accurate description. See fuller comment in section above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment For those saying the current title is fine (contesting an RFC en passant), here is A House Divided: A Palestinian, a Settler and the Struggle for East Jerusalem, NYT, 7 June 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The case is not just a dispute over a single property: It is part of an effort by Jewish settlers to cement Jewish control of East Jerusalem, a process many Palestinians see as a slow form of ethnic cleansing. A similar dispute in the nearby neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which could lead to the eviction of Palestinians there to make room for settlers, led to protests, clashes and finally war this past month between Israel and Hamas, killing more than 240 people.

This is rethoric used by one side in a property dispute, in an attempt to steer the discussion away from the real matter at hand - disagreement over legal rights to a piece of real estate. Parroting the argument used by one side in the title of the article is as POV as it can get. “WarKosign” 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The only "rhetoric used by one side" is that used in the current title as shown clearly in sources (many of them, not just that latest one above) and the result of the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is fine and meets WP:NDESC because that what it is a property dispute. I would agree to change it to Sheikh Jarrah dispute as proposed above if it will stop endless move discussions --Shrike (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  I would accept Sheikh Jarrah controversy for the same reason.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be ok with either of these two. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  How is "controversy" better than "dispute"? Why not "strife" or "tribulation" ? And how is dropping the word "property" better? It just makes the title less accurate. “WarKosign” 08:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  controversy" is not better than "dispute", they're equivalent, and I'd be ok with both. In the sprit of trying to find some compromise, I'd support dropping the "property" part, because some view that as one side's point of view (yes, it's a dispute about property ownership, but one side claims that's just a legal façade for a desire to remove Arabs).Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Controversy is better than dispute because it refers to something of a persistent long term nature rather than the passing dispute that you and I are having. Per numerous sources, it is not just about property (that's why IsGov tries to restrict it in that manner, in order to avoid the other more important issues).Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  No, that's just something you invented. Take a look at Kuril Islands dispute which has been on-going for far longer than this one, and contrast with Killian documents controversy which came and went after a few weeks. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not invented by me, sorry. "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." (Oxford and several other dictionaries, similar).Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  "Definition of controversy 1: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : DISPUTE [31]. They are synonymous. Inf-in MD (talk)

  You may use your dictionaries and I may use mine, it is somewhat academic since no one else has endorsed the term in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  It's literally about properties... Per the lead: over the ownership of certain properties and housing units ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh...First line of lead..."The Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (as described by the Israeli government and their supporters)"...exactly what the RFC concluded as well. QED.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As one basic suggestion, the title should include the word "Palestinian". The reader should be given some clue what this is about. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I tweaked your indentation, I hope that's OK. I don't disagree, just trying to find a way through. If "Palestinian" is included then the title necessarily becomes longer and the obvious question is Palestinian what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the original indentation. It is not an entirely new comment, as it basically repeats something I said earlier in a top-level list entry. It is a reply to the two comments above that suggested "Sheikh Jarrah dispute" / "Sheikh Jarrah controversy". I think those titles are insufficient to identify what is notable about the topic. They seem a bit like calling the Assassination of John F. Kennedy the Texas School Book Depository incident. Yes, the title probably needs to be more than three words long. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, We can say that is "Sheikh_Jarrah Jewish Palestinian property dispute" Shrike (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be punctuated as "Sheikh Jarrah Jewish–Palestinian property dispute". I'm not sure I like it, but I think it's better than what we've got now. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, Well part of editing is to find compromises Shrike (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah is the best title here. The argument on scope is bogus, as the main focus of this article is the evictions, both prior and proposed. The "property dispute" is background material to evictions. The arguments above against it that said "no evictions have taken place" are so provably wrong that they should have been ignored. I think the better use of time here is compiling evidence on commonality and neutrality and proposing another move request with Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah as the target and advertise it as widely as possible, so that a bloc of filibustering editors are unable to maintain the status quo through "no consensus" and then demand that the status quo be respected as "consensus" and that others should "drop the stick". That little game is honestly my biggest pet peeve on this site. nableezy - 15:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed: It is not a neutral title. Dinkytown talk 16:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Sheikh Jarrah dispute – It is clear from previous move discussions for this article that there is no consensus for earlier renaming proposals, but that there is a broader, growing consensus for the dropping of the word 'property' in the article's existing title to leave it as simply "Sheikh Jarrah dispute". This is a shorter, more neutral title that does not couch the article in the terms of only one side of the dispute, as using ‘property dispute’ does, by implying that the dispute is solely about property and not also about the broader issues of jurisdiction and the applicability of the adjudication of the Israeli legal system to the dispute under international law. This is by no means a perfect title, but it does address the egregious lack of neutrality in the use of the phrase 'property dispute', which has been specifically called out in the media as reflecting a non-neutral point of view, as noted in this talk, as a means of misdirecting the discussion and reframing the argument in terms disfavourable to the Palestinian residents under threat of eviction. Several editors have either suggested "Sheikh Jarrah dispute" as a title, or noted that it is a reasonable compromise that they would not object to, including @Shrike, @Onceinawhile and @ProcrastinatingReader. It can be comfortably argued that it is (under WP:CRITERIA) recognisable, natural, concise and also consistent with much of the reporting of the subject. It is not precise, but no term arguable can be given the polarised nature of the terminology used by the opposing sides in the dispute. Most importantly, it does not outright fail WP:NPOV due to its use of 'property dispute' as a specific phrase used by one side in the dispute to downplay the contradiction of international law. Iskandar 323 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure you cannot have two move discussions going on at the same time, the other needs to be closed first.Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• True, but it seems pretty obvious that the above move request isn't going anywhere. “WarKosign” 13:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment ...and the main fruit of the talk above was other options, including 'Sheikh Jarrah Dispute' Iskandar 323 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose [Sheikh Jarrah dispute]. It's an acceptable title, just not as good as the current one. Dropping the word "property" doesn't improve the neutrality of the title but does reduce specificity. “WarKosign” 13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly disagree with the assertion that the proposal does not make it more neutral. The neutrality point has been extensively covered. 'Property dispute' is the preferred terminology in Israeli sources. Forced eviction or displacement is the preferred terminology from a Palestinian perspective. Dispute is more neutral, but if anything, it arguably still tilts decidedly towards the preferred terminology in Israeli sources. Dispute alone is better, but not perfect. It is also more concise. The word 'property' only makes it more specific selectively, focusing in on the property and land deed angle rather than on the international law and treaty angle. It therefore arguably makes it more specific, but at the same time, less accurate. Iskandar 323 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• The bike shedding over this page's title is so bizarre. And I'm not being funny but all but one of the cited sources ostensibly given for "property dispute" actually say "real-estate dispute". I have tagged it thus. international law and treaty angle What treaty? The word "treaty" doesn't appear in the article even once. Even insofar as it relates to international law, it's still a dispute over land... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I personally consider property and real estate to be entirely interchangeable, and that it is splitting hairs to think that these words are treated significantly differently in normal usage. The real 'dispute' is not over property but international law - i.e. A) whether Israeli jurisdiction even applies in the first place, and B) whether under the Fourth Geneva Convention (a treaty), the evictions on the premise of Israeli laws permitting land expropriation in defiance of its responsibilities under treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbid population transfer, are permissable. The 'property dispute' is the preferred battleground of the Israeli courts, but I believe the Supreme Court itself has refused to directly address the issue of jurisdiction precisely because there is no interest in moving the conversation and media coverage in that direction. Palestinians have engaged with the Israeli courts because they are willing to explore all avenues of legal recourse, but their fundamental position is that the Israeli courts have no jurisdiction. Therefore the 'dispute', as much as the term applies, could equally be viewed as one of property from one perspective, and as one of international law from the other. Whether the article itself does this points sufficient justice is quite another matter again, but I think there is enough clarity about the 'dispute' from the Palestinian perspective as pertaining to international law for the term 'property dispute' to be considered bias. Iskandar 323 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty. And no, the international law issue is not a dispute over land, it is a dispute over the rights of an occupied population. nableezy - 18:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose [Sheikh Jarrah dispute] This RM of 8 July above already proposed this title and I repeat here what I said there: "Personally, I can see no policy reason why the majority view of this situation as internationally illegal displacement/eviction/expulsion (ethnic cleansing per the Palestinians and some others) should not be reflected in the title. The only reason there is any "dispute" is because of illegally applied discriminatory Israeli law in occupied territory.Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the section above, you proposed "Sheikh Jarrah controversy", but here you oppose "Sheikh Jarrah dispute", which uses a synonym for controversy? What sort of game is this? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• What about you @ Inf-in MD? You said you were fine with either dispute or controversy before. Are you not in support? Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• yes, I support either controversy or dispute. they are synonyms. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• I meant this Move Request proposal to remove the word 'property'. You agreed to this in principle in the previous discussion, but based solely on your commentary underneath this Move Request your position could be read somewhat ambiguously. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to, as soon as the previous one closes. This is not proper. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe read what I said more carefully?Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Surely this Move Request and your preferences aren't mutually incompatible? You could support this request to remove the word 'property' for now and still continue to press the case that controversy is a better word than dispute without issue. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• You appear to have stopped reading when you got to this point, look down the page.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yep, you got me. I missed your comment at the bottom. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is somewhat disingenuous Selfstudier, as the 8 July discussion of the proposed title was ended based on the technicality that an RFC was in motion. There was never any substantial discussion of the proposed title in its own right, nor was a consensus reached. Your objection to the word dispute in general meanwhile may be merited, but this discussion is not really about this - this is focused on whether the word 'property' unnecessarily warps the neutrality of the article. You could probably argue the case for 'eviction' or 'forced displacement' to be included in the title till the end of time, but based on all of the discussions on this page, you would never attain a consensus. In the meantime, the non-neutral title 'Sheikh Jarrah property dispute' will stand. I believe that some incremental progress and improvement would still be better than absolutely no movement at all. Iskandar 323 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it is, a bit, but note the technicality was remedied, not the case here, we have 2 rms going on at once, it still refers to the previous one on the front page.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe tell Dinkytown he's supposed to be commenting this one not the other?Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support [Sheikh Jarrah dispute] as an improvement from the current title, but still intend to propose Evictions as a title with some additional evidence compiled. But this improves the status quo from the odious look of framing the issue in favor of those proposing a literal war crime. nableezy - 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would support on that basis.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Second RM merged as a sub-thread of the already open one, adding "[Sheikh Jarrah dispute]" to clarify responsive comments. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I oppose Sheikh Jarrah dispute .I thought it as compromise proposal but if its only a step to futher move discussions then this is no go. I would support such title if there will be moratorium for one year for any move request or RFC about renaming --Shrike (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment But it is a compromise proposal. Nableezy notably caveated his intent to continue to pursue his own preferred title by noting that he would wait for additional evidence to be compiled. It is perfectly reasonable to change a title again if the burden of evidence shifts. For the same reason it is slightly unreasonable to attempt to impose ultimatums on future editing, because you never know how the facts will change. It would be better to address the Move Request based purely on its own merits and not on potential permutations of future events. Iskandar 323 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support "Sheikh Jarrah dispute" (or controversy) - if it puts an end to these moves- That is, I support the change, but with the same stipulation that Shrike (talk) made- that we have some lengthy moratorium on further move requests. I supported this in the previous discussion as a compromise, in order to resolve the issue (and I still do), but now I am concerned that some editors see this as just a stepping stone to a different title and will start yet another request as soon as this one is closed. That's not a compromise in my book. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with the above comments. Support with lengthy moratorium, as this is like the 6th RM/RfC in 3 months and bordering on disruptive, otherwise oppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, utter nonsense. This is an improvement, and I will not stand in the way of an improvement. But if the evidence supports a better name I will be proposing a better name, and especially after an RFC concluded that we should continue working to find a better name you and the no consensus by filibustering to maintain the current POV name crowd arent going to prevent me from working to improve this articles compliance with our policies. We already had an RFC that determined that this name does not have consensus, and every single comment that tries to enforce this non-consensus based name as though it did should be outright ignored as being well past the border of disruptive. nableezy - 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed title was rejected exactly two months ago. The reasons for rejection, as summarised in the close, remain. Opposing editors believe that evictions are only one part of the property dispute, and the article covers the entire dispute, not just the evictions. Some editors would support some other move to a different name, but not the proposed move. It is exhausting to re-propose rejected proposals in such short time frames. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it was closed with no consensus. It was not closed with consensus against it. You cant pretend that a no consensus close cannot be challenged and re-discussed. We literally have an entire policy on what to do when there is no consensus. It is exhausting trying to get you to understand that "no consensus" does not mean "consensus against" or "rejected". It does not mean less discussion, it means more with as wide an audience as possible. And given the number of editors in that move request that made straightforward dishonest arguments (nobody has been evicted yet), I actually think that close could have been challenged. That editors have successfully filibustered this POV name into remaining does not mean that others (myself or any other editor) may not attempt to continue to improve this article's compliance with our core policies. And efforts to stymie that with bs ultimatums like "I will only allow a move if no other moves are proposed" are "disruptive". nableezy - 23:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It says no such thing. It says "not moved", which, per WP:NOTMOVED, means Consensus to not move/Not moved should be used when a consensus has formed to not rename the article(s) in question. ... this notifies other editors that they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change. There is a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is. which is distinct from the "No consensus" option. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well then I would challenge that close, and will do so with a new move request. And you and all the filibusterers in the world can complain then, cool? And we had an RFC that explicitly determined there is in fact not a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is. nableezy - 02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The place to challenge a close is WP:DRV. I assume you're already aware of that. I will probably request an administrative moratorium of RMs at AE if that title is proposed again, as it would be textbook WP:DE to have a 7th RM on this page, with an attempt to retry a title already proposed and clearly rejected. You're not being "filibustered"; you can either come up with a novel reasonable proposal, or you can agree to this compromise, or you can put up with the current title, but you cannot exhaustively force through RMs on titles that the community has made clear it does not approve of. The RfC - which provides room for finding alternate titles - doesn't change the status of a particular rejected title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also why have two RMs been merged together? Now comments don't make sense in the context they were made. Can someone undo this big giant refactoring? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  There's at least 3 editors who think it isn't right to have 2 rms at once.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Then sub-section it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why? It's not causing me any problems and no-one else is complaining (yet).Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions on any editor. I agree completely with Nableezy idea of an rm (or another rfc) widely advertised so as to produce a real and independent consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)