Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 5 June 2009

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV tag

I have placed a POV tag on this article as I believe it does not present this information neutrally. In fact, I am considering nominating the article for deletion as it is not about "Palestinian Land Law" at all, but as far as I can determine, a particular fatwa which has gained the support of the PA. There are also some elements which smack of OR. Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a merge tag on the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Gatoclass. However, it would probably be most prudent if you raise specific concerns about the lack of neutrality of this article. Is there something specific that think is being overlooked? By its very nature, the contentious subject of the article can give the impression of POV problems, but the same can be said about all contentious articles. I will remove the tag pending specific concerns about the lack of neutrality. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

There is a merge suggestion on the article but no discussion seems to have been initiated. There is also no rationale given for the suggested merge into Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. At first blush, it doesn't make sense. To be specific, it makes as much sense to merge Human rights in India with Land Acquisition Act. Although the latter does raise some human rights issues, namely a government telling its citizens what they can do with land, not all laws that have human rights issues should be merged into an article about the country's human rights issues. Especially notable laws for which its violation is a death sentence. Since no rationale was given for the suggested merge, and the suggested merge seems problematic, I'm going to remove the merge tag pending some clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did give an explanation but admittedly not a comprehensive one. The problem is that the only source you have AFAIK that refers to a "Palestinian Land Law" is a self-declared Israeli advocacy site, hardly the most reliable of sources. Furthermore, it's not clear even in that reference whether this apparent prohibition against selling land to non-Muslims is part of a larger "Palestinian Land Law" dealing with all aspects of property under the PA, or whether it refers exclusively to this particular prohibition. Without a reliable source to determine that one way or another, naming this article "Palestinian Land Law" is misleading at best, not to mention OR.

Secondly, I see no reason why this information needs an article of its own when we already have a perfectly good article called Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority which exists precisely to deal with this kind of material. The sourcing you've provided for this article is thin, even the NGO reports you cite have given this phenomenon no more than a line or two in a broader discussion of human rights abuses by the PA, and I fail to see why wikipedia should treat the topic any differently.

In regards to the POV tag, you've made no attempt to balance the article with an explanation as to why this tactic has been adopted by the PA, which gives a very misleading and one-sided view. Anyone who read this article would probably come away with the view that the PA adopted this strategy simply because they are prejudiced against Jews, but in fact it's been adopted in the face on ongoing expropriations of territory by the Israeli state and/or Jewish settlers. So the tag is fully justified in my view. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass: There are two sections on this talk page so that the two issues don't get confused. It would be way cooler if you would respond to each section and not confuse the issues. But as you addressed both issues in this section, I guess I'm forced to do the same.

The name the article is really a red herring. There clearly is such a law on the books in the PA. Whether it's called this or that is irrelevant to the merge of neutrality considerations. Thus, whether the source calling the law the "Palestinian Land Law" is an advocacy organization is wholly irrelevant. If they were claiming that the law exists while others were denying its existence, we should consider whether the source's alleged advocacy effects the reliability of its content. But since we all know that the law exists, we don't have to weigh whether the organization's alleged advocacy effects the reliability of the name given to the law. Especially since the given name is a rather bland and POV-less name.

I oppose the merge proposal. As the article's sources attest, this death penalty law is clearly notable on its own. The law and its applications have received significant coverage in reliable sources, easily meeting WP:GNG. There's no good reason to shove a well-sized article about a notable law into a second large article that is only tangentially related to the law.

Finally, regarding the POV tag, with all due respect, you're just not reading the article. Palestinian Land Law#Reasoning gives more or less the explanation you would like the article to give and is not prejudiced. We can't put it in the exact words that you like because that would violate wp:or/wp:synth. Nor does the article give the impression that the PA is prejudiced against Jews, but if it does, I surely understand how that came about. After all, the the law does prohibit the sale of land to Jews, not Israelis or settlers. But I digress. If you have a reliable source for the wording that you prefer that you can demand that the wording be included and then demand that the omission of your preferred wording is a POV-violation. Additionally, three editors have worked on the page since the neutrality tag was removed, and none of them had any problem with the article's neutrality. I would urge that you first find reliable sources for the wording that you prefer and add it to the article. If your sourced wording is deleted from the article then you should see if you can gain a consensus for tagging the article is unneutral. But until you find a source for your preferred wording you cannot demand that the article have your wording and you surely can't tag the article because you think the article should say something else.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got one sentence in a 500-word article which addresses the rationale for this law, and you think that's sufficient to maintain NPOV? Sorry, but that is totally inadequate. To properly NPOV this article, this "law" (the actual text for which has yet to be provided) would need to be thoroughly contextualized within the circumstances that gave rise to it. Once that was done, maybe then the text itself would be balanced and NPOV, but you'd still have to find some justification for having a standalone article on a topic which NGO's have seen fit to mention only in passing, and which would be more appropriately referenced in an existing article, namely Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't demand just demand that editor's provide a rationale that you like. Find a reliable source that supports your rationale, and then we can talk. The continued re-addition of a POV tag because you want the article to say something for which you have provided no sources, is frankly disruptive. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Query: You're quite an experienced editor, Gatoclass, but I can't honestly see a law that relates to Jewish people being merged into Palestinian Human Rights. I'd appreciate a deeper explanation into how you see the two issues merging. Jaakobou 09:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is subject to this law? Palestinians. It is clearly therefore an issue relating primarily to Palestinians, as a quick check of the sources will confirm. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you have a point there but how is it a human rights issue? Jaakobou 12:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's the death penalty that human rights groups find objectionable. That and the vigilante justice. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From the little bit of sources I've read there's about (if I remember correctly) 43 military law reasons and 23 civilian law reasons for the death penalty under Palestinian Authority rule (not sure where Hamas stands in all this). Doesn't seem like vigilante justice concerns are a reason to merge this one IMHO as it is certainly a more notable issue than the other reasons for intra-violence. Jaakobou 15:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record: User:Orlady has also opposed the merge proposal in an edit summary

Articles should not be merged just because we can. Indeed, it usually goes the other way; expanding articles become unwieldly and are split up. This article is large enough to be standalone. In any case, the subject of land rights, although connected, is tangential to human rights abuses. Further, Gatoclass demands that the background to the law is expounded. This requires further expansion of the article making it even more substantial. It will also take the article in a direction away from the basic issue of human rights making it even less of a suitable candidate for merger. SpinningSpark 09:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As applied to Christians

User:Gatoclass removed the mention of the law's application to Christins, edit-summarizing "not one of the provided sources supports this statement" This is false. The first two references listed in the references list both clearly support the text. On-line sources are not pre-requisite for article content and the removal of the content because its source is off-line is in violation of WP:V policy. Please self-revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should I take your word for it? Perhaps you made a mistake. Please provide an exact quote so there can be no doubt you haven't misread your source. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior here is getting more troubling by the edit. You can't remove content for which an off-line source is provided because you don't believe me or think I have made a mistake. Please self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you request in good faith the exact wording of the source I'll be happy to provide you with the exact words. But I will not comply with your ransom demands that blatantly violate WP:V. I'm going off-line for the next few hours and will unable to respond, but I hope that on return I will be able to provide you with the exact quotes and we can both make positive contributions to this article. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am perfectly entitled to ask for a quote from your sources for a contentious claim. People often make mistakes when reading articles, it happens all the time at DYK. I would like some reassurance that you haven't misread the articles in question. I don't think that is too much to ask. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask at all. But it is too much to remove the content and then demand a source before it is readded. Again, I'm not going to be held hostage to your WP:V-violative demands. Revert your content removal, and I'll be happy to provide you with the exact words of the source. Going off-line now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should more fully explain my reason for removing the "Christian" claim. The reason I removed that claim is because after checking all the other online sources and finding no mention of Christians, I found one of the remaining sources online, from the JCPA, and there is no mention that I can see of the law pertaining to Christians in that article, so it appears you misread the source. That only leaves the Boston Globe article, and I notice that the JCPA source quotes several times from that article. So I assumed you had got the latter source from the former, but then also mistakenly added that source as one supporting the claim about the law pertaining to Christians. I don't think that was an unreasonable assumption to make in the circumstances, but if I am wrong, and you actually have the original Boston Globe article, then by all means please provide a quote. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

At first glance I thought you caught a clear error with removing that text, Gatoclass, but upon second thought I can fully understand how Evangelic Christians would be denied land purchasing rights as they are mostly viewed as (and many of them are) supporters of Zionism and Jewish territorial expansion into Palestinian controlled land. I may find some time later on to try and get a more definitive source on this matter but I'm no longer surprised by the addition of "and Christians" to the equation/article.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote the Boston Globe feature article:

Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add the following part:

This misinterpretation has gained currency because of the preachings of radical Muslim sheikhs who refer to all non-Muslims as infidels.

In other words, you have no source for the statement that the law applies to Christians. I am therefore removing it from the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "misinterpretation" is the opinion of the article author. A law is defined by how the government applies the law and how citizens apply the law, not how writers and academics interpret the law. For example, there are multiple well-accepted Constitutional scholars that will assert that Roe v. Wade "misinterprets" the Bill of Rights. But all their proclamations are irrelevant. What is relevant is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land in the US. Similarly, whether the law was intended to apply to Christians or whether it was not intended to apply to Christians is irrelevant when the law in actuality is applied to Christians.

However, in a compromising and collaborative spirit I will edit the article in order to remove any sort ambiguity. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? This has nothing to do with scholarly disputes about the meaning of law. He's talking about how the man in the street misinterprets the law to believe it applies to all non-Muslims, when in fact it doesn't. His meaning could scarcely be clearer. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "man in the street" is ambiguous and may lead to another misinterpretation :). It's more like "Palestinians" believe that the law applies to Christians. Hence the point above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If the Law is in reference to Jewish people only, then that should be the phrasing in the first sentence. If it is applied to others as well, that should be stated a little later on in a conservative manner (I can still see an option to keep it in the lead though). I'm still unsure that it doesn't apply to Evangelic Christians though - sounds like the basic spirit of the law. Jaakobou 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree. I have moved some of the details out of the lede.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The document that I added to the article as an external link was written before the current law was finalized, but it contains potentially relevant information about the wording of the law. Specifically, it says (on part):

This new law reportedly bar sales to "occupiers" whom it defines as the "Israeli occupying government and its civil and military institutions, settlements and whomever is under their authority." It declares the sale of land in "Palestine" to such occupiers to be "high treason" punishable "according to the criminal law." And it states that foreign violators have "committed harm to the national security and will be punished according to the criminal law." The draft law is vague about punishment, but according to the Jordanian Penal Code, which is still in effect on the West Bank, the crime for treason is death.

It is not hard to imagine Christians being regarded as "occupiers" under Israel authority. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment highlights one of the problems concerning this article (and its associated proposed hooks in fact). We don't actually know exactly which party or parties are named in the law. Some of the sources say the law prohibits sale of land to "Israelis" rather than Jews. Now you are raising the possibility that the law simply refers to "occupiers". Yet here we are, brazenly announcing to our readership that the law specifically prohibits sale of land to Jews. This entire article appears to rest on an unsourced assumption. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Side comment: A hook need not include all of the potentially relevant details. If there were a statute that forbade the sale of land to noncitizens, convicted felons, people who have lived outside the Palestinian Territory for more than 5 years, and Jews, it still might be valid to write a hook that said that the law forbids sale of land to Jews -- particularly if there were numerous sources describing the law's application to Jews but not to the other categories. --Orlady (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found and added a source which states: "Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews, a law that extends to Christian Arabs selling land to each other". Chesdovi (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your source is an autobiography by Alf Droy, an evangelical Christian who moved to Israel and wrote his life story. Not exactly a RS as far as I can tell. Nableezy (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jpost article

The JPost article, at present the most frequently used reference, doesn't mention the law. It mentions a fatwa issued by a PA cleric. --Soman (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are heaps of problems with this article really. Having just done a bit of cleaning up, I've noticed that there is a lot of repetition and redundancy. I've tried fixing it up as much as practicable, but without altering the basic structure there's a limit to the amount of improvements that can be made. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have sourced and added another JPost artcile which mentions the "Palestinian military law": PA court: Death to man who sold land to Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion from DYK talk

I have copied the long discussion of this article that occurred at Template talk:DYK into this new archive. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OR tag

I have placed an OR tag on this article as I no longer believe that the article's basic premise, that there is a "Palestinian Land Law" that "prohibits citizens under its control from selling land to Jews" is adequately sourced. A brief net search has yielded dozens of articles which would appear to discredit this claim. There's actually a huge amount of contradictory information out there, but it appears there are a whole host of old laws with various origins prohibiting sale of land in the Palestinian territories to Israelis/"occupiers"/non-Arabs etc.

As a first step, I think the name of the article will have to be changed, to something like "Palestinian property law and Israeli settlements" because (a) we only have one rather dubious source for the "Palestinian Land Law" label, (b) it seems there is more than one law, or body of laws, being applied, and (c) it's clear that these laws are being invoked in relation to the spread of Israeli settlements. It's late here and I haven't time to add any more sourcing to the article, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) I have found and added another source which states: "Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews...". Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that book can be considered a reliable source. The author has no known qualifications in the field and the publisher appears to be an obscure publisher of religious books. So I am removing it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Page name change

I can now see that the "Palestinian Land Law" consists of a much more comprehensive set of various laws, one of which contains the prohibition of sale to Jews. E.g: "According to the Palestinian land law, a grazing place can only be taken from the Bedouin if one provides them with a corresponding pasture". These laws were instituted the Turks and amended by the British and Jordainians. I therefore think a name change is in order. Chesdovi (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we need a more specific title. Although my preference is still to merge this article with Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this name change. As I said several days ago on the DYK talk page, I could not find evidence that the law is called the "Palestinian Land Law", except by one cited source (Weiner). I said at that time that I'd feel better about the article and the DYK hook if the name were changed to Palestinian land law. Another goog option would be Palestinian property law. At the time I first made the suggestion, the article described only one facet of PA land/property law, but the recent addition of information about the origins of the country's land/property law helps to validate a generic name.

I do not agree with a merger to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority, as (1) the article focus is on legal aspects of land, not on human rights, and (2) this article is long enough that it "works" much better as a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the article focus is on legal aspects rather than human rights. Much of the article, as Soman observed, is not about legal statutes per se, but about bans and fatwas, which are not legal statutes. The article is also heavily focussed on the death penalty for breaches of a particular law or body of laws, which have been critized by HRO's.

But I think we can leave the issue of a possible merge to one side for now, since there clearly isn't much support for it at the moment. I would certainly support a page move as an interim solution. But I don't believe a generic title like "Palestinian land law" would be suitable either, because the article is not about Palestinian land law in general, about which we know next to nothing, it's about one particular aspect of Palestinian land law relating to the sale of Palestinian land to non-Arabs, specifically, to parties with an allegiance to the state of Israel. So I think that also needs to be reflected in the new title. I have suggested "Palestinian property law and Israeli settlements" since all these laws seem to be aimed at or utilized for the prevention of further expansion of such settlements. However, I'm open to other alternatives. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another possible title: "Palestinian land laws relating to foreign ownership." Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Palestinian land laws relating to non-Muslim ownership". (I am basing this on the assumption that Arab Christian sales are also curbed). I reject the title "Palestinian property law and Israeli settlements" since the law was reinstigated by Jordan during a period when it itself occupied the territories. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I considered that option and I don't think it's viable because there is no actual law against selling land to Christians, for example (although there is apparently a misconception on the part of some Muslim Palestinians that that is the case). So, IMO, I think "foreign ownership" might be our best bet ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; but is it necessarily "foreign ownership" at hand here? Saudi investment/ownership is most surely welcome. The law applies to the "enemy", so maybe we need to make mention of Jews. And I say Jews and not Israelis, because non-Israeli Jewish purchasers would also be banned. Chesdovi (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that most if not all of these laws do not actually mention "Jews" at all. It does appear as if the PA is using some of these laws as a means of preventing land sales to Jews, but that's not the same thing. As for your other point, the proposed phrase was "laws relating to foreign ownership", not "laws prohibiting foreign ownership", so it wouldn't contradict the fact that Palestinians might be willing to sell their land to some foreign parties, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag

I don't see any original research or unverified claims, aside from a single short paragraph which is already tagged. So I'm removing the article tag. If someone wants to put it back up, they'll have to explain it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the tag as the article's basic statement, that there are "Palestinian Land Laws that prohibit citizens under its control from selling land to Jews" is not supported. Also added a POV tag as I believe this article is not neutral. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The cited sources at the first sentence all support the text. Like 7 editors have already removed the nonsense tags and you're the only one re-adding them. See the discussions above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I may not have made my case all that well, as it occurs to me I have seen sources which refute the basic premise which are not actually in the article. I will either put my case here or just edit the article to include the sources when I can find the time. In the meantime however I'm replacing the POV tag, as at least five editors at DYK expressed the view that the article was POV, and there has been little in the way of substantial change since. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't place tags on an article because of your unknown sources that you may have. Either make the case or self revert. And your claim that 5 other editors have expressed concerns that the article is POV is false.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To be precise, five editors were opposed to running the article on DYK. Three of them, including myself, agreed that the article failed NPOV. The other two did not make their views entirely clear but agreed the article wasn't ready for the front page. So there were certainly five editors who felt the article wasn't up to scratch, and I was clearly not alone in expressing the view that the article has POV problems. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, not one editor at the DYK discussion page said that the article is POV-problematic. I'll give you a million dollars for each diff you find in support of your claims. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I think the article fails WP:NPOV. My comments above are not about sourcing, but about the need for a balanced presentation of a contentious topic. I don't think the article achieves that standard currently. I think the article is cursory and lacks context to understand the law. This is normal, it's a new article, but I don't think it's suitable for the main page. - Paxse Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The link that you provided doesn't go anywhere, but I'm afraid you're confusing the discussion at the DYK discussion page and the discussion at the DYK talk page. I have to leave now and raise some funds in case you actually come up with a diff. Be back later.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link, I've replaced it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So I thought, I was referring to the DYK discussion page, not the page discussing why the hook wasn't advanced despite a consensus in support. In all the combined discussions and in all the separate discussions, the consensus is manifestly clear that the article meets wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the DYK discussions page, and that was the discussion where it was decided not to run the article, partly because of NPOV concerns, so I'm afraid you are just plain wrong. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There are/were more than a few problems with the article. The bit on the laws extending to Christians was completely unsupported. The neutrality issues for me stem from trying to equate a fatwa by a Sheikh with laws imposed and enforced by the PNA. Fatwa != law and placing them together is an issue for me. Nableezy (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion revolves around POV concerns. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see where I wrote 'the neutrality issues for me'? Nableezy (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that but the end of the sentence didn't support the beginning of the sentence. I hope you don't claim that the word "fatwa" automatically raises a POV problem. It looks like you're conflating OR and POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I object to unrelated information used to advance a POV. The word itself does not raise a POV problem if it is in an article about or related to that fatwa (for instance articles on the bombings of the embassies in Africa should include information on the fatwa by UBL about killing the 'infidels' wherever they are). Here there is no such relation. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nableezy, and that is only one of the issues with this article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec}The fatwa is in effect the same as the law. The fatwa is advancing a POV just like the article about the law is advancing a POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Any sheikh (really anybody) can issue a fatwa. A law needs the force of the government to issue and enforce. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll start issuing fatwas. But that's besides the point. Whether a fatwa that was issued to supplement the law is relevant to an article about the law (reliable sources certainly think so) or not, has nothing to do with POV concerns. There is a law prohibiting the sale of land and there are fatwas prohibiting the sale of land. The same way an article about the law itself is not POV-violative as long as all POV's are given due weight, an article about a fatwa is not POV-violative as long as all POV's are given due weight. The very mention of a fatwa does raise POV concerns. If you feel that there should be a separate article about the fatwa then you can raise the issue at another venue. But whether this article should or should not mention the fatwa is not germane to any POV concerns. If you think certain POV's are omitted from the article then please enlighten us. Otherwise this wp:idontlikeit filibustering is nothing less then disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I hereby issue a fatwa that any fatwa issues by you is null and void. Second, the middle of your comment was to convoluted for me to read right now. Last, filibustering? Really? My edits to the article have involved removing an unreliable source, removing a source that did not support what it was citing, and adding a citation needed template to an unsupported claim. And what makes you think I dont like this? How do you know I am not a radical supporter of such laws and think that they should publicized to a much greater extent than they currently are? Not saying that I do, but the points I have raised have nothing to do with whether or not I dislike the article (whereas your position in a renaming dispute elsewhere is a manifestation of not liking something), but instead question whether unrelated information is used to advance a POV. Nableezy (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to formulate why it's unrelated, and assuming its unrelated how it advances a POV, and assuming it advances a POV, what POV it advances. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do hate to keep you waiting, so here goes: a fatwa is a religious decree, not binding on any person, that proclaims that something is either permissible or impermissible under Islamic law. The PNA is officially secular and the article itself says that the motivation for this law is based on stopping further expansion into the occupied territories. A fatwa declaring that an action is a sin is not at all relevant to a law(s) that predated the fatwa. And the declaration that it is a sin has nothing to do with it being punishable by death as treason. The POV it advances is that this is Muslim vs Jew issue, whereas it is a Palestinian vs Israeli issue. Nableezy (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A fatwa that prohibits the same thing prohibited by a Palestinian law is certainly relevant to an article about the Palestinian law. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt prohibit it, it says it is a sin. Nableezy (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Nab, let's play word games another day. From what I'm finally picking up, your stance is that any mention of a fatwa in this article violates POV even if the fatwa is a carbon copy of the law. That's ridiculous and you know it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats absolutely not what I said. You have a line saying that the laws (which stipulate punishable by death) have received 'some Islamic law backing', having a fatwa that says members of the family and community of those who sold land to Jews would ostracize them does not show laws proscribing the death penalty have received 'some Islamic law backing'. (FYI: Islamic law is pretty explicit in what the death penalty may be used for). These are not word games. Bring a fatwa that affirms the death penalty for selling land to Jews and it would fit, what you have does not. Nableezy (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review there are some sources that say Islamic law backing for it, but not the one that brings up being ostracized by families and communities. I think that should be removed.Nableezy (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we move on to specific details, I'd like to resolve the initiating issue, the POV tag. Can we agree that fatwas relating to land sale prohibitions are relevant to this article and a POV tag is spurious if it is based on the argument that this article should not mention any fatwa?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you not use words like spurious (and I wasnt the one who put the POV tag, ask Gatoclass what he thinks is non-neutral, I am just going through the issues that I see)? One other POV concern is the Further Reading essay by a CAMERA researcher which presents one view of a rather complex issue, but I suppose that can be balanced by another essay. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not jump on one word. And I know you didn't place the tag. Can I get your objective opinion - does discussion of a fatwa in this article violate WP:POV or not? Btw, I didn't place the link in the External links section. User: Orlady added it and I never removed any "balancing essay". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but all the same lets try to assume that everybody is trying to improve the article and not trying to inhibit that goal. And didnt I just say (above and below) that mention of a fatwa does not violate NPOV so long as the fatwa is related, ie proscribing the death penalty for selling land to Jews. Nableezy (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume everybody is trying to improve the article and I hope you would assume that I would assume that everybody is trying to improve the article. As for the underlying issue, I don't exactly see that quote above or below, but I'm happy to see we agree that the initial basis for the placement of the tag was wrong. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say that. I dont believe Gato gave that as his basis for placing the tag so I have no idea whether or not his basis is right or wrong. The exact quote is "Bring a fatwa that affirms the death penalty for selling land to Jews and it would fit." Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Nab, you keep on talking in negatives ("I didn't say that" or "Thats absolutely not what I said") and then complaining when I don't figure out what you are saying. Gato actually never gave an explanation for his tagging of the article (he said he'll tell us when he "can find the time") so all we have to work with is your explanation, which in its current form apparently finds fault with the statement that the fatwa affirms the death penalty. Does this statement:

satisfy the concern?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brew, like I said below if there is any confusion on what I said just ask me what I meant. You are a relatively ;) smart guy, I am sure we can figure out what each of us means if we just ask. Yes that quote is fine by me, and I said that already, but I do not think the one from Tamini calling it a sin should be included. That one says they will be ostracized for such actions, not put to death. Nableezy (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: the quote from Sheik Tamini is cherry-picked. Any other number of lines could have been used from that article, such as "ban was needed to thwart attempts by the new right-wing government in Israel to take control over more lands in the Arab neighborhoods of the city." There are a number of other issues where you seem to take the most inflammatory part of any story you can find, completely disregarding the rest so that this article only shows such a collection. Nableezy (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a short list on the next section with suggested improvements and collaborate to fix it to a balanced version that you both can agree on. Tags are meant for starting a discussion not for giving a hand to personal attacks. Jaakobou 03:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is not a personal attack in anything I wrote above. And this section is just fine for this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I went over the Tamini quote and don't really see a problem with the current phrasing, though, it doesn't hurt to add your text to it as well. Still, there doesn't seem to be an insidious purpose (per "most inflammatory") with the current phrasing.

p.s. it would be better to frame the discussion a bit so that the tag won't seem disruptive in nature. I believe brewcrew won't mind too much if we add your suggested extension if this would help remove the all inclusive "disputed" tag. Jaakobou 03:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about not cherry-picking quotes to balance other cherry-picked quotes? I didnt suggest adding a different quote, my suggestion is to remove the quote currently in the article. And the tag is not 'disruptive in nature'. Nableezy (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the line "citizens under its control." I think it should read "Palestinians in the Palestinian territories" Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the tags are used -- and I'm not saying this is one such case -- as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than real policy based concerns. I agree with your note about "Palestinians", but it is incorrect to assign them explicitly to the territories for a number of reasons. I worked out a version that should reconcile your concerns about this. Jaakobou 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I don't see the value in removing the quote. It is clearly helpful in explaining the perspective of the Palestinians. Jaakobou 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it incorrect, what Palestinian is 'under its control' but not in the territories. Under its control is not standard usage for citizens of a country or territory. Nableezy (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There are Palestinians in that are not under PA control who live in the territories. I hope this clarifies the issue. Jaakobou 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, though I think we need to find a different way of saying it other then 'under its control'. Does the PNA issue citizenship? Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually no it does not clear it up. Where are there Palestinians in the occupied territories that are not subject to these laws? Nableezy (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Jaak demands it to read 'under its control' and readds the Islamic law backing in the lead, I moved the POV tag back to the article not just the section. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed issues

Please state the issues for the tag. Thanks, Jaakobou 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass who keeps on placing the tag on the article has never actually formulated his issue. He says he'll explain his rationale "when he can find the time." He claims the basis for the tag is that "at least five editors at DYK expressed the view that the article was POV". This is false. See this this discussion. In the section above, I finally elicited a rationale from User:Nableezy, who apparently maintains that mentioning a fatwa in this article violates POV because it gives the impression that this issue is a Jewish-Muslim issue, not an Israeli issue. I responded that if there's a fatwa along the same lines as the law, it deserves mention in this article. At this time, I'm still awaiting a meaningful response. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty serious accusation to me and I hope Gatoclass can find the time to formulate proper concerns so that the article can be moved forward.

warm regards, Jaakobou 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not maintain the position you attributed to me and would appreciate in the future if what I say is not crystal clear that you phrase it as a question as to what I am saying. Thanks brew, Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(NB: There is an inclusion of a specific fatwa I take issue with, not any mention of a fatwa) Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the tag as a number of users have now raised issues about this article. In regards to Jaakobou's request for further explanation, I have two general issues with the article, first that the article's basic premise that there a number of PA laws explicitly prohibiting the sale of land to Jews is unsupported, or at best very weakly supported, by the sources, and secondly that the information here is presented in a one-sided, unbalanced and frequently quite inaccurate manner.

The article really needs a complete rewrite in my opinion, but the first issue that needs to be fixed is the title, because the article is not about "Palestinian land laws", it's about a network of laws pertaining to foreign ownership in territories governed by the PA, which is a much more specific issue. Until we get the title right, I don't believe the article can give a properly focussed or balanced treatment of the topic in hand. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Summary execution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

agreed upon minimized lead Nableezy (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy states that "summarily executed implied the government did this, not the people". "Summary execution", however, is not the same as an "execution". Also, the majority of these killings are done by semi-governmental bodies such as the PA's "military wing", a.k.a. al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. (Sample: "The al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, carried out the summary execution in Ramallah") I'm willing to keep an open mind to rephrase suggestions, but the "summary executions" text is clearly relevant to our paragraph; otherwise it leads people to believe only two people have been killed in the past 60+ years over violations/suspected-violations these laws. Jaakobou 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant and it is in the text (and btw 'summary execution' means to execute with haste). But vigilante justice and application of the law are two different things and you are attempting to conflate the two. And no it does not lead people to believe only 2 people have been killed without the phrase, it leads people to believe that 2 people have been found guilty, sentenced to death, had the sentence approved by the Pres. of the PNA, and had the sentence carried out. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, 'summary execution' means haste, but it also means extrajudiciality. No proper trial was given, etc. I don't know if it's being conflated; the two executed by the government and the unknown additional number summarily executed by other parties who may or may not be agents of the government are quite separate. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See this.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

an accusation of possible involvement by the PNA is not suitable for the lead. If there was something stronger than that maybe, but the possibility in itself does not make it necessary for the lead. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Killing people is pretty notable, in most people's opinion. It's certainty more notable then some tangential background about the Six Day War, which the lede now includes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly tangential, as the reasons given by the PNA relate to the occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank. And who killed them is what matters. Nableezy (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are in no position to determine who killed all of them and I'm sure there's some breakdown between al-Aqsa Brigades and other groups as well. What matters for the lead is not the breakdown but the mention that people have been summarily executed. If you're concerned about the phrasing, I'm open to suggestions - but they do need to include this fairly notable issue. Jaakobou 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) p.s. please note, Nableezy, that three editors disagree with your conflation concerns. I'd still be interested in getting a version that is agreeable with you. Try and work with us, please, to get a version that will work for the long term.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you have trouble reading: "the two executed by the government and the unknown additional number summarily executed by other parties who may or may not be agents of the government are quite separate." => saying that these issues are separate, ie not the same. Nableezy (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually not sure what he meant (separate as in space between when he read the article), but he wrote that when they were separated, not put together as you did in your edit. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the two are separate subjects in the same realm; one is people executed under the laws of the PA, the other is people executed with disregard for those laws. Both merit inclusion, but they are not the same thing. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They both are included, but should both be included in the lead right next to each other, separated by a 'however'. Placing that phrase with that phrasing in the lead, as it was here does seem to conflate the two into one thing, with no explanation as to whether these killings were sanctioned by the government or not. Nableezy (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me what these 'summary executions' have to do with the law if they were not convicted of the law, sentenced or executed under the law? Nableezy (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The executions are inspired by the laws as well as by the Islamic decrees. This is not a major point for me though as I was more interested in balancing the point about two official executions with the non-official ones. This is the same thing the BBC has done as well. Jaakobou 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit did not do that though and that information is in the article. Why would an article on a law include in the lead acts of vigilante justice that are "inspired" by the law (OR). Nableezy (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source - - and here's the paragraph: "Only two people have had death sentences against them carried out, although others have been summarily executed over suspicions that they sold land to Israelis."

The issue is just as notable as your addition that only two were killed officially. Please note that the concept of the lead is to summarize the major issues from the body of the article (in a balanced and conservative manner). -- Jaakobou 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. also note the two reliable sources that use the phrasing you're objecting to and that I'm still interested in working out a version that is agreeable with you. Jaakobou 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First, notice how I didnt include the 'only' as that would be a subjective judgment. And that part I did include is specific to the law and its execution. The rest of the sentence is on vigilante justice, and if this article was about killing Jews for buying land it should be included, but this article is about a law(s). I dont understand why extrajudicial killings should be included in the lead of an article about a law. Nableezy (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Palestinian land laws and their ramifications, not just the law and nothing which relates directly to it. Besides, the executioners are usually authority figures and the very paragraph that you added to cite that only two people were officially executed gives the disclaimer that many were executed in less official manner. It is (a) common practice not to leave out relevant content, and (b) this is supported by more than the source you picked out, and (c) your initial concern about implications doesn't hold when compared with the sources and there is a consensus against this argument. To be frank, I thought that the "which are illegal" was an undue addition to the lead but I was willing to work with you and collaborate. Would be nice to have some reciprocation.

With respect, Jaakobou 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get this 'the executioners are usually authority figures'? And again, I did not put 'only two people'. And where is this consensus that you speak of? And why should this be in the lead of the article? Nableezy (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I already answered all of these (except for the "majority" question which is irrelevant). Can we move this issue forward without going in circles? Jaakobou 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you didnt. Where do you get 'the executioners are usually authority figures'? And where did I say 'majority'? And finally, why should this be in the lead? Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You convinced me to take a minimized approach to the lead. I'll make the relevant adjustments and we can discuss if we prefer a minimized version or one that addresses both our concerns with a larger lead. Jaakobou 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Made some modifications to your change, didnt add much but to say Palestinians in the Palestinian territories (the law clearly doesnt apply to a Palestinian selling a home to a Jew in Chicago), changed the notable sentence and added the sentence must be approved by the President of the PNA. Sound good? Nableezy (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid mention of the presidential role unless we want to clarify it with a note that no one waits on that to occur and executions are the norm. This seems like a reasonable compromise for the minimized version that you prefer. If you want to expand it, expect others to want their own expantions included as well. Jaakobou 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidence at all for that statement. If you want to include that it is a capital crime, punishable by the government, include what is required for that sentence to be carried out. Nableezy (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) The small detail of Presidential approval does not belong in the lede, per wp:lead. All civilized countries require death sentences to go through some sort of bureaucratic approval before an actual death sentence is carried out. If there is a trend of the President pardoning the death sentence it would be notable, but since no sources mention that the President has actually pardoned the death sentence, the inclusion of this information would not conform with WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is a "detail" and certainly not more notable than the detail about multiple "non-official" executions by the PA's "military wing". Both are prominently covered whenever the alleged land sales issue are raised in media/print. Jaakobou 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The US does not require death sentences to go through some sort of bureaucratic approval. The US allows for appeals up to and including the executive of the jurisdiction that gave the sentence, but does not require the approval. Given that there are sources that say that this approval is routinely withheld I think it does belong in the lead. And Jaak, you keep saying that the PA's 'military wing' have done unauthorized executions where the source only suggests that they may have, not that they did. Nableezy (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, in at least some of the U.S. states that have a death penalty (probably in all of them), the state governor must sign an order before an execution can be carried out. This is not a detail that would be included, however, in a short lead section for an article about the laws under which death is a punishment. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Actually in the US, a death sentence is automatically reviewed by higher court (See Capital punishment in the United States#The legal process). These automatic reviews only apply to death sentences. But the detailed nature of this problem aside, the greater problem is its misleading nature. It is clear at this point that although the PA has barely (if at all) executed PLL violators, they have sanctioned, if not arranged multiple "summary executions". Thus, it would mislead the reader into thinking that the violators are never punished with death. A compromise that would be most in accord with giving a clear picture of the situation is to mention both the fact that the PA doesn't officially kill the land sellers but gets them killed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (I knew about the review by a higher court, but from what I understand in IL, before Ryan imposed a moratorium on all death sentences, no official in the executive needed to sign off on an execution), I drop this now. Nableezy (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

A few compromise suggestions were made despite (a) a consensus against your initial perspective (e.g. Golbez), and (b) the used source itself support of the general consensus (the paragraph mentions both the Palestinian President and the Summary executions). A quick google search can do wonders for information about the "unauthorized" executions but this is not even the point. The point is that the killings do occur and they are quite notable. You can choose the minimalist approach that doesn't mention either or the more inclusive version that mentions both - to remind you, they are both mentioned in the source you added to the article. If you have any other compromise suggestions, I'm sure we're willing to keep an open mind it feels, and you'll excuse me for saying this, that you are not treating this article with a neutral perspective - presenting notable issues evenly. I suggest you consider why you're interested in presenting the lack of law approval in official channels while rejecting the laws de-facto application. Let's resolve this issue so that the article can finally be worked on and expanded and improved and balanced and all the concerns can be addressed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt here, but I dont really give a shit what you think about my supposed lack of neutrality on this page (as I think much the same about you). You are not the sole arbiter of what my choices are. I would prefer if you keep your comments about me to yourself and the ones about the article on this page. I have already explained why I object to mentioning vigilante killings in the lead as I have already explained why I think the approval bit is needed. I was waiting for a reply from brewcrewer regarding my post above your soliloquy. To repeat myself on the points about the article: the article is about a law(s) that prohibit the sale of land to Jews that proscribes the death penalty for violations of that law(s). The law requires the approval of the President before a capital sentence may be carried out. Those are the big points about the law(s). 'De-facto application', while being a phrase that is nearly meaningless, is also not a part of the law(s). It belongs in the article but not the lead. Nableezy (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue 2: PA involvement

I added another tag in reaction to the sentence that said " "scores of Palestinians have also been summarily executed in a fashion suggesting PA involvement in their murders." I am troubled by the idea of "summary executions"; two of the three sources cited call these "murders" (Jerusalem Post: "Scores of Palestinians have been murdered over the past three decades for allegedly selling their property to Jews or for acting as intermediaries in real estate deeds involving Jews"; HRW: "murdered in circumstances that strongly suggest official tolerance if not involvement"; only the BBC uses the summary execution language, saying "although others have been summarily executed over suspicions that they sold land to Israelis.") I am more deeply troubled by the statement "suggesting PA involvement," as the suggestion of government involvement in a murder is a serious one and this statement is supported only by the 1997 Human Rights Watch source. I do think the allegations about vigilante justice being used to enforce the prohibition on land sales belong in the article, but I am not sure that the term "summary executions" is supportable and if there is going to be a suggestion that there is PA involvement, the source of the accusation needs to be clearly identified. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not mindreaders and we can't know forsure what exactly you want the article to say. Did you try editing the article in accordance with your concerns prior to placing the tag on the article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the version of that part of the "Death penalty" section that existed as of 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) was essentially what I had written on 18 May 2009, which I thought at the time was supported by the cited sources. I have not been in a position to follow all of the discussion that has occurred since then to fully understand the reasons for the recent change in wording, but it seemed to me that the recent changes had converted a reasonably benign statement into a troubling accusation. If I were to revise this passage, I'd revert to my old wording, but I don't think that would be helpful/productive at this point. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The PA does not exactly have a similar reputation to say..... the New Rochelle Police Department. As a matter of fact, accusations of extrajudicial killings, summary executions, murders, etc in the hands of the PA are as prevalent as accusations of too many donuts eaten by the New Rochelle Police Department. This article in a reliably lefty publication gives a good background about all the not such benevolent things the PA is accused of doing.

In any case, we were hoping you'd be amenable to other words besides your exact words. The article barely resembles the version I initially started and If I were to template the article each time my wording was modified carpal tunnel syndrome would have set in long ago.

To the specific concerns that you raised, everything in the sentence is supported by reliable sources and is not contradicted by other sources. If qualifying the most extreme wording to the Human Rights Watch is what is wanted, we can do that.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't interested in insisting on my own words. (Actually, at one point I wrote "As of May 2009, only two people have been legally executed for violating the Land Law, but there also have been cases that appeared to executions by vigilantes," but that version had been edited because the sources did not call these vigilante executions.)

Rather, my concern was that the accusation of PA involvement represents an interpretation -- furthermore, an interpretation by a source that often has a particular POV, and it should not be presented as if it were objective fact. The quotation marks and the specific citations (added between the time that I tagged the article and the beginning of this discussion section) help a lot, but I would feel better about the situation if there were another source for suspicions of PA involvement in addition to the decade-old Human Rights Watch report, which describes only the three 1997 murders (not "scores of murders") in these terms. Unless there is a more recent source suggesting PA involvement in additional murders or "summary executions," I don't think this statement belongs here. If another source is found, the accusation of PA involvement would still need to be attributed in the article text (as in "Human Rights Watch considers that the circumstances suggest PA involvement"). --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that "scores of Palestinians have also been summarily executed in a fashion suggesting PA involvement in their murders" because it's unsupported by any of the cited references. Additionally, I have removed the statement that "As of May 2009, two people had ever been officially executed for selling land to Jews", because although the article implies that two people have been executed for selling land to Jews, it doesn't actually make the statement outright, and according to other sources extant in the article, the latest case in which someone was condemned to death for selling land to Jews was "the first case of its kind". Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You must have overlooked the BBC source wherein it states: "Only two people have had death sentences against them carried out, although others have been summarily executed over suspicions that they sold land to Israelis." Please be more careful when removing content and sources , especially when the content is supported by the sources that you remove. If you have specific issues with some of the wording you should edit the article, not make wholesale removals of content and sources. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't overlook it at all, that's the statement I referred to which only implies two Palestinians have been executed for selling land to Jews, but doesn't actually say so explicitly. The writer may have been referring to the total number of people executed by the PA for any offence - an interpretation supported by the Jerusalem Post's statement that the recent case in which a Palestinian was sentenced to death for selling land to Jews was the first of its kind. You cannot add statements to the article based on your assumption of what the source meant. We don't have any solid source for your statement.

That is only one of the problems with your edit though. As Orlady has already pointed out, you have also strung together several separate statements in different sources to come up with an entirely novel conclusion, that the PA has been implicated in "scores" of summary executions for this offence. You have in fact, grossly misrepresented the sources on this occasion, which say nothing of the kind. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the "two people" item (which I originally added to the article) is valid. From the context, it's clear that the BBC reporter was describing two executions for selling land to Israelis, not two executions in the history of the Palestinian Authority. This reading is supported by other sources that indicate that the PA has executed more than two people in its history. --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that you managed to find a source detailing 13 PA executions, it would seem your interpretation is correct (I initially interpreted the source that way myself) but then one wonders what the JPost was referring to when it described the recent case as "the first of its kind". This looks like another case of the sources contradicting one another. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the context is pretty clear and it's also clear that since its inception at the Oslo Accords the PA has executed far more then two people. However, Gatoclass does have a point with the JP article, which contradicts the BBC. Both claims should be given mention in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it is reasonable to indicate uncertainty regarding the number of executions under this law. The last time I looked at the article (which has been changing quickly), I thought the statement on uncertainty was good. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article in accordance with the different concerns raised by Orlady and Gatoclass. I hope this resolved the outstanding issues about that section, but further fine-tuning is obviously welcome.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I left you a note Gatoclass, though in retrospect I would have preferred it had I sent it in private. As a side note, I'd like to request that you please not delete what you can fix.

With respect, Jaakobou 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Jaakobou, in relation to the concerns raised on my talk page, I am certainly willing to put in plenty of effort to get this article fixed, but as I am not inclined to edit wars I prefer to get things sorted out on talk pages first if possible. The article has a lot of problems in my view, structural as well as content-related, and I'd like to get the structural problems sorted out before we start trying to fix the finer details. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning section

In it's current state, the section is POV problematic. The section basically repeats the same exact thing in three different ways - that the law is in place because the Jews are taking over. The repetition violates WP:UNDUE and should be tagged accordingly until the issue is resolved. Moreover, the one editor that has attempted to explain the reason why the POV was initially placed on the article has asserted that this section is POV-problematic for another reason. Thus the POV tag should be moved to that section until this issue is resolved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is on the reasoning of the PNA for the law, how would it be undue to give that reasoning? (and its a lil more than 'the Jews are taking over') Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To phrase the same exact point three different ways till Tuesday is WP:UNDUE problematic. The boiled down version of all three reasons is the "Jews are taking over". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One reason given is the expansion of settlements and fragmentation of Palestinian land, the other is to prevent efforts to Judaize the city of Jerusalem (I know how much you like that word) and you just added the degradation of moral fiber or whatever it is you wrote. First two are similar but not the same. The last one clearly is not. Nableezy (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is on who is being used for perspective and are they being used superfluously. Main voices should be PA official perspective: In general tones and links to a few people saying the same things; Religious figures (also in summary), and opposing view as well - explicitly, Palestinian HR. There is room to close this part with generic view from the Arab world as well. It is ok if each of the 4 repeat the "Israel is taking over" perspective but not if one/more of these voices is used more than once to say the same thing. Jaakobou 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Safety clarification: Voice 1: PA official perspective, Voice 2: Palestinian Religious perspective, Voice 3: Opposing views, Voice 4: Arab view. Jaakobou 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominal request regarding tags

A trend that seems to be picking up at this article is that editors read something in the article that they don't like and just plaster the article with any of the innumerable available tags. Other editors that have then worked at the article have to go to the talkpage and try to appease the tag-placer, trying to figure out the exact wording that will appease one editor's concern. This method is not conducive to the collaborative effort that is Misplaced Pages. From now on, if you have a specific concern with the article, first try editing the article. If other editors find your edits problematic and a discussion at the talkpage does not result in a consensus either way, then tag away. Thanks and happy editing, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already stated on numerous occasions, the first thing that needs to be fixed here is the article title, which is inaccurate, and secondly the article's basic premise, which is that there are a bunch of laws expressly prohibiting the sale of land to Jews. So far I've had very little response to these concerns, but until these basic issues are resolved, there would seem to be little point trying to tackle other issues, which tend to flow from them. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you are the only person left beating the horse after it has died, consider the possibility that you should stop". Your solo arguments re the article name and the law's notability have long passed. Let's move on please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing about notability in the above post, and the fact that you have declined to address the concerns I have already stated does not make those concerns any less valid. The article's opening statement claims that "The Palestinian Land Laws are Palestinian Authority (PA) laws that prohibit Palestinians in the Palestinian territories from selling land to Jews", but you have no solid sources in support of this statement, and indeed many of the sources contradict one another on this point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to try and help resolve this concern as much as possible.

Gatoclass,

Could you please assert your hopes for the change in the lead paragraph? I'm fairly certain I'm following your arguement but I'm not sure I'm following the hoped for end-result.

With respect, Jaakobou 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can put something together to explain in more detail some of my concerns. It might take me a little while, I may not be able to finish it tonight, if not I'll post something tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass: Two days ago you placed tags on the article and claimed that you don't have time to explain. Now again, you want us to give you time. I understand you have real life issues but so does everyone else. Please see the introductory comments to this thread. Please provide a solid rationale for your tag placements or content removal before you place tags and remove content from the article. This longstanding method of editing here at Misplaced Pages has proven to be most beneficial to a collaborative effort. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer,

Another couple days for Gatoclass won't destroy the page. Its a shame about the DYK, which I believed should have passed, but at this point we should strive for finding a way forward. Gatoclass, I'm sure you can understand an editor who gives a serious attempt at writing a serious article and presenting all points of view in a reasonable manner who finds his article shot down and then locked down. Please find the time to elaborate on points and work on them sooner rather than later. The article, in the meantime, is really not in that bad of a shape and I'm fairly sure most outside perspectives would agree that it doesn't look like it should be completely disputed.

Warm regards all, Jaakobou 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This tag-warring against consensus is not only disruptive, but is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to revert you but concerns have been posted about 2 separate sections with discussions of those sections ongoing. Lets work out those issues and then take the tag off. Nableezy (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, my concerns are for the most part satisfied, but just give others a chance to respond to issues that they have raised. The issues I have are the inclusion of the following:
In April 2009, Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamini, asserting that the Israeli government was attempting to alter the demographics of Jerusalem by expelling Palestinians from the city, ruled that it was a "grave sin" to sell land to Jews.
and:
"The city of Jerusalem is the religious, political and spiritual capital of the Palestinians," he said. "The Jews have no rights in Jerusalem. This is an occupied city like the rest of the territories that were occupied in 1967."
as the fatwa discussed does not support the basic premise of the law, that it is a capital crime to sell land to Jews, rather it says that it is a sin and people will be ostracized by their families and communities. Nableezy (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this issue already resolved?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not those, the source quoted is fine for receiving Islamic law backing, but not for the inclusion of fatwas that do not support the premise of the law, ie dont proscribe the death penalty for these actions. Nableezy (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article were to be defined as discrimination against selling or renting property to Jews in the Palestinian territories then both those, as well as the spreading of "moral, security and political corruption", as that fatwa related to banning the renting of homes to Jews, would be perfectly fine. But if this article is about the laws then I think we need to limit the fatwas to the ones that actually proscribe the death penalty for selling land to Jews. Nableezy (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

could call it 'Property rights in the Palestinian territories' Nableezy (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nab. To be honest, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what you want. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the quote above and removal of the fatwa that does not proscribe the death penalty of for selling land to Jews. That or a redefinition of the scope of the article to discrimination in property rights in the Palestinian territories. Nableezy (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title -- "Palestinian Land Laws" -- captures this topic far better than the suggested -- "discrimination in property rights in the Palestinian territories" -- rephrase. I disagree with the introduction of the term "discrimination" since it is judgmental on the law system implemented by the Palestinians. It would be offensive to pro-Palestinians just as the "apartheid" bullshit is offensive to Israelis. Also, fatwas are part of the legal system in the Arab world, so I don't see the need for "redefinition". Btw, I have a great book for you about the history of Arab law if you're interested. Jaakobou 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles