Talk:Palestinian Land Law/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Talk:Palestinian Land Law

Archive of discussion at DYK talk page

Palestinian Land Law

  • Removed tickbox as article is still under discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this hook from the queue, as it is clearly not ready for prime time in my view. Both the hook and the article are POV, failing to contextualize the information in any way, for example by providing explanations for why this "law" has supposedly been implemented. In fact, I can't even find a solid reference which confirms this is an actual statute passed by the PA, let alone with the name "Palestinian Land Law". So I have my doubts this article can be redeemed, but in the meantime I'm placing a POV tag on it until at least some of the outstanding problems have been resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed a merge tag on the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned problems with the article seem to be the result of a few major oversights. The article does provide explanations for the laws implementation. As a matter of fact, there's a whole section provided for this issue. See

Palestinian Land Law#Law, the actual law was never implemented by the PA. Rather, it was a holdover law that was originally passed by Jordan, who controlled the West Bank from 1948 until 1967. All this is sourced in the article. Granted, the article's subject is a contentious and sensitive, removing the article from the DYK queue for that reason sets an unhealthy precedent for editors that don't write articles about ships and plants. This article was already verified for a DYK by User:Shubinator. I would request that User:Gatoclass or another editor take another look at the validity of the concerns raised above. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

If sensitive hooks are to be avoided we can go with:
... that the
controlled the West Bank
?
or:
... that Palestinian president
Palestinian Land Law?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment—I don't see a problem with either the article or the hook. Most countries that gained independence recently (especially after WWII), or non-sovereign governments like the PNA, got most of their laws from the previous ruling entity. For example, most Israeli laws are based on British Mandate laws. Therefore, the law doesn't have to be invented by a Palestinian to be called "Palestinian Land Law". There are enough sources in the article stating that this law exists, and the article itself is very clear on how the law originated, the reasoning for it, and how it's implemented. Brewcrewer did an excellent job with it. None of Gatoclass's arguments are actually true, and I invite the any third-party to read the article, examine the sources, and comment here. Personally, I believe the hook should also mention Christians, i.e. ... that under the

Jews is punishable by the death penalty? —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for commenting here, Ynhockey.
I've looked at the sources cited in the article plus a few others. I think it's undeniably true that the sale of land to
Jews is punishable by the death penalty (I like Ynhockey's proposal to add "Christians" to the hook) -- I don't see any reason to soft-pedal that, as it's well-sourced. However, I don't find evidence that the law is called the "Palestinian Land Law", except by one cited source. I'd feel better about this if the name were changed (in the article title and the hook) to Palestinian land law. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I support the move as a temporary solution, although in the long term, it would be best if an Arabic-speaking Wikipedian could find out exactly what the statute was called. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the title to "Palestinian land law" would still be very misleading as it would suggest that this is the totality of the law in regards to property under the control of the PA.
Furthermore, as I've argued on the article talk page, there is no legitimate reason whatever for having a standalone article on this phenomenon when we already have a perfectly good article called
Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority
which exists precisely to document such issues.
It seems to me that the only reason anyone would have for creating a standalone article on a phenomenon that has gained barely a line in NGO reports is to promote some bad publicity about the PA to the front page of Wikipedia. I will strongly oppose any attempt by partisans of any stripe to employ Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for their cause, particularly on a topic as contentious as the I/P conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with
WP:N standard. Although not germane to this discussion, User:Gatoclass's last comment is most troubling. Can an editor (especially one with multiple DYK's on a number of different subjects) write an article that is connected to the I-P conflict without being accused in bad faith of using WP as a promotional vehicle? I'm not accusing Gatoclass of inhibiting this DYK for his advocacy reasons and I would hope that the same accusation not leveled at me for promoting the article I worked hard on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have struck those comments as they probably did not express my views with sufficient clarity. They were not intended as an expression of bad faith in a particular user, but rather as a general comment about the need to maintain vigilance at DYK in regards to topic areas that tend to attract partisan editing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it is clear that only User:Gatoclass finds the article and all proposed hooks to be problematic. The four other editors that have chimed in at this discussion seem to be on the same page regarding the article content and any of the proposed hooks. There's nothing to indicate that any editor has a veto power of DYK's so I think it's safe to say that there's a consensus that this can move forward. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, there is no consensus at all, there is the author of the article, yourself, and YnHockey, one of your political bedfellows who has almost never commented here, in addition to which Orlady and Dravecky have put forward a couple of suggestions which I have said would not address my concerns. Neither of them have since responded, indicating that they accepted my arguments. I have a strong objection to the appearance of this article on the front page in its current state, and indeed I've said I don't believe the topic warrants its own article at all as your sources are not adequate. I have given some of my reasons here and at the talk page in question, until those reasons are actually addressed I will continue to oppose the promotion of this article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't interpret my earlier lack of response as implying acceptance of your arguments. In this instance it happens to mean that I do not devote myself to Wikipedia 24/7, and I have no particular passion about this article. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my "silence" on the topic has been due to me being largely absent from Wikipedia over the weekend, not a quiet sense of contentment in favor of anybody else's views. If I thought the article unworthy of promotion, I would have said so. Instead, I proposed an alt hook (that now requires revision based on more recent data) because I felt the article could be included in DYK if a less inflammatory hook could be crafted. - Dravecky (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with your attacks. Editors are allowed to write articles about subjects that they are familiar with even if they are politically sensitive topics. When they nominate their creations for DYK, they don't have to face your bad-faith abuse. Your repeated personal attacks indicate a lack of objectivity, further weakening the Alamo-like stance you have taken on this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's a "personal attack" and abuse to have merely observed that you and Yn both share pro-Israeli sentiments? I hardly think so. You certainly aren't contributing to any sort of rational discussion yourself if you are going to resort to such frivolous accusations. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a "personal attack" I have written an article about a notable Palestinian Authority law and you're accusing me both expressly and implicitly of being a pro-Israel activist only interested in promoting my political causes. That is an attack. You're accusing me of purposefully violating one of Wikipedia's main tenets -
WP:NPOV. And yes it is "abuse". It is unfair that an editor writes an article about a notable law within the I-P conflict, which always has the potential of putting one side in a less then positive light, and gets yelled at for being a political activist. I'm not a political activist for writing the article and User:Ynhockey, User:Dravecky, User:Orlady and User:Shubinator aren't political activists for agreeing that the article is DYK-eligible. I would make the same protests against any editor that accused you of being a pro-Palestinian activist because of your strong opposition to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
you're accusing me both expressly and implicitly of being a pro-Israel activist only interested in promoting my political causes
Um, no I'm not. I simply said that you and Ny are "political bedfellows" ie, pro-Israeli editors. Noting that you are pro-Israel is in no way tantamount to accusing you of being "only interested in promoting [your] political causes". That is entirely your own assumption, and I can't be held responsible for that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit with your implications about my political views and please quit wikilawyering. Please limit your comments to article content. With respect, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit making false accusations. This is getting very tiresome. If you want to discuss content, I am happy to do so at any time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I will soon be logging off, and won't be able to contribute further to this discussion for some time, I feel I should state some of my objections to this article in order to make them clear.

  • Firstly, there are actually no references I can find that support the claim in the intro that this law applies to Christians as well as Jews. None of the given online references state as much, and of the two offline references, I have found what appear to be online copies of both that clearly state that the law does not apply to Christians. So that's one major statement to begin with which appears to be completely incorrect, and that's only one statement I've investigated;
  • Secondly, in regards to POV problems, which I do not have time to list here or to edit in the article itself right now: the intro fails to provide any explanation for why the law, or rather, the punishment, has been decided upon - which is, basically, because of the ongoing Israeli encroachment of Arab Jerusalem and other Palestinian territory outside Israel proper. Without such context, the article gives a completely one-sided and misleading picture of the law. The article itself has scarcely a word of explanation in regards to the PA's reasons for passing the law, apart from one sentence complete with scare quotes and one direct quote from a mullah which puts the Palestinian view in the worst possible light. But a quick perusal of the sources, even brief ones like the BBC article for example, reveals a much more balanced picture. In fact the BBC article might be considered something of a model for the sort of approach that should be taken with the article itself. Even the Jerusalem Post piece, which only deals with the mullah's comments, is far more neutral in presentation than the article itself, so I believe this article has a long way to go;
  • Thirdly, there is no title, at least none I can think of, that accurately describes the contents of the article, because there is surely a lot more to "Palestinian land law" than one statute prescribing the death penalty, and we should not feature an article on such a topic that deals with only one controversial statute;
  • Fourth, especially given the lack of an obvious title, there is no reason to have a standalone article on this topic at all when it would be much more appropriate to include the contents, such as it is, in the
    Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority
    article. Singling out controversial material for highlighting in a standalone article is the very definition of POV fork.

- This is just a rough outline of some of my objections, in my view the article would need to be completely rewritten before it could even be considered for the front page, and given the amount of debate it has already generated, I see little prospect of the problems being resolved in the near future. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the points have already been refuted above and at the article's talkpage, but I guess there's nothing wrong with a review.
  1. There are 2 sources in the article. Page 22 of this article and this Boston Globe feature article clearly discuss the laws application to Christians.
  2. The
    Palestinian Land Law#Reasoning section of the article does mention that the reason for the law is the "encroachment" of the Israelis. We are limited to the wording of the reliable sources. If anybody finds specific wording that is more preferable in a reliable source, then by all means add the wording to the article. But we can't plaster an article with a POV tag if no alternative is offered.--resolved by User:Orlady[1]brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. We don't really have to come up with a new name if the law is described as the "Palestinian Land Law". Any concerns about the potential connections to advocacy by the author should only apply to actual content, not to the naming of a law that clearly exists. In addition, we will always have the option of using the Arabic name for the statute. Finally, as a number of editors have agreed upon above, the lower case Palestinian land law should satisfy all concerns for now.
  4. Multiple editors both here and at the article talk page have opposed the merger proposal. Although there is a tangential relationship between the two, the relationship is not that connected to support merging two well sized articles. Agreed, that the subject of the article is controversial, but that is what makes it notable. A PA statute that concerns recycling is just not going to lots coverage in the international press.
Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what the Globe article actually says is, "Specifically, Palestinian Christian leaders cite land laws that prescribe the death penalty for selling land to Jews. This law is often interpreted by Palestinians in the street as preventing Muslims from selling to any non-Muslims, including Christians." So that strongly backs up the original hook but doesn't quite back up the ban on the sale to Christians. - Dravecky (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. The Globe is a bit ambiguous. It is unclear to what extent the common interpretation affects the law's application to Christians. I do agree that the original hook, which was specific to Jews, is more in-line with the sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that yesterday I read sources saying that the law applied to sales to all non-Muslims, but I can't find such a source today, so I must have been hallucinating. Some sources do indicate that the law specifies "occupiers," which presumably is intended to mean Jews or Israelis, but could be interpreted broadly (if the translation is correct). The edited version of the article seems to convey that part of the story accurately, indicating that the law applies to sales to Jews but appears also to affect Christians. Accordingly, I think the hook should say "Jews."
In reviewing this item, I have been particularly interested in finding sources that are not particularly associated with a pro-Israel POV. The article's sources now include several such: BBC News, The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and Al Jazeera. IMO, this is sufficient to justify a main-page item.
Regarding the proposed title "Palestinian land law," I agree that it implies a broader scope than this article currently has, but that would make this just one of many articles that could stand to be expanded.
As for the merge proposal, I don't think the merger is justified. This article is not about human rights so much as it is about property law and ongoing territorial disputes. Moreover, even if it's about a human rights topic, where is it written that there can be only one article about human rights topics related to Palestine? --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about such a shocking and draconian law is bound to engender sentiment against the Palestinian cause in many. But it is not POV-pushing on the part of Wikipedia to write such an article, always providing it is not written in a sensationalist way. The POV is in the opinions of those readers who find such severe punishments shocking and in those that would legislate and maintain such laws. An encyclopedia is about facts, especially interesting facts, and there are few things that can be more indisputably factual than a piece of written legislation. So yes, this article should be promoted to the front page, despite its controversy. That's what makes it interesting. SpinningSpark 02:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not that it is "POV-pushing to write such an article". My primary concern is that the article itself is POV. As it happens, I see the article has improved a tad since I last looked at it, presumably from the contributions of Orlady, but I am still not entirely satisfied as to its neutrality.
My second concern is whether this information merits its own article, or whether it would be better included as a separate section in the
Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority
article. Given that the NGOs who have written about this law have not seen fit to make it a separate topic, but have included it in broader discussions of civil rights under the PA, I see no reason why we should be highlighting this in a separate article of its own.
My third concern is that I feel the current title is unsatisfactory as it does not accurately reflect the contents. I've still been unable to think of a satisfactory alternative, which is part of the reason I feel the topic is unsuitable for its own article.
Finally however, if there is a consensus amongst DYK regulars that the article be promoted to DYK, I will not stand in the way, although there is still the issue of finding a suitably neutral hook. Apart from that, I might try and tweak the article a little myself some time today if I can find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as there's a consensus to promote the article, I want to consolidate all the hook options here in one place so that the final promoter can just choose a hook. As mentioned above, the inclusion of the ban of Christians is iffy so I'm removing that as an option. We're left with:

Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think well of the first one, but I would put in the lower case; either through the name change or by piping. I think there is not question that this article would have been promoted had it been "Lilliputian Land Law" or soemthing else that people don't care about intensely.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last hook is acceptable, the previous two are not, although (did I say so earlier?) I still think the article title is problematic.
Also, I am currently working on an alternative version of the article, so I would appreciate it if the existing article was not promoted to the queue until I have finished. If for some reason I am unable to do so, I will leave a note here to that effect. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass: Every single editor that has chimed in at this talk page has agreed that the article can be promoted to DYK. Similarly, not one editor has questioned the legitimacy of the original verified hook that you unilaterally yanked off the DYK queue. This whole "discussion" is filled with your debunked POV claims and your unwanted comments about editors' political views. It's time to move on here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the hurry? I think we can wait a few hours yet. There are plenty of other hooks to choose from on this page, and since I still have some NPOV concerns, it won't hurt to give me a little time to address them. Also, since I started the rewrite, I have found numerous factual errors in the article as it stands, so it definitely needs a cleanup before it goes to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third hook gives no clue what the law is about and is not very "hooky". It would be good if the law was already widely known but I do not think this is the case. Also, the qualifying article is at the end of the sentence thus detracting from it. SpinningSpark 09:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very "hooky" but then the other hooks are not very neutral. But if the third hook is unsatisfactory, I think we can still probably come up with an alternative hook that is still "hooky" while complying better with NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PA seem to believe that this law is fully justified. It cannot be POV against them to factually state a law which they themselves are in favour of. POV against Jews? POV against the lawbreakers? Don't think so - and no-one else is mentioned for there to be POV against. If anything, it is the third hook with its rather apologist tone that is POV. SpinningSpark 10:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV states that facts must be presented neutrally. The problem with a hook like "Did you know that under the
Jews is punishable by the death penalty
?" is that one could easily form the conclusion from reading it that this is simply a racist, discriminatory law with no possible justification. Your own response above is itself a pretty good indication of the kind of response a hook like this is likely to elicit.
The basic hook fact acquires a quite different hue, however, in the light of ongoing expropriations of Palestinian territory by the Israeli state, demolitions of thousands of "illegal" Palestinian homes, and so on. Palestinian society is under siege from the expanding Israeli settlement project, and if Palestinians were to sell what remains of their property to Jews, pretty soon there would be no prospect whatever of a viable Palestinian state. So from their POV, they are simply trying to defend what remains of their territory. In that light, there is nothing racist or discriminatory about this law at all. A truly NPOV hook would therefore not merely assert the simple fact, but add a word about the Palestinians' reasons for passing such a law. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try this, SpinningSpark 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hook would have to say that it's the reason given by the PA (although I don't think we have any sort of quote from a PA official). We don't know why they made the law. Indeed, the law is a holdover from when Jordan had control of the West Bank, where there were no settlements allowed. Secondly, the law also prohibits the sale of land in middle of Arab cities where "settlement" is not possible. After all is said and done, the original verified hook that was placed on the DYK queue is still the best hook. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From links in your own article:
Nour Odeh, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the West Bank, said: "The reason why this transaction is considered an act of treason is because it is being sold to Israeli settlers who are literally taking up Palestinian land that does not belong to them. They are settling in the West Bank against international law, and in effect, undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood."[2]
Sheikh Tamimi said that the ban was necessary to counter the Israeli government's efforts to change the Arab and Islamic culture of Jerusalem by expelling its Arab residents and turning it into a Jewish city.[3]
Fatah legislator Hatem Abdel Kader, who also serves as PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad's adviser on Jerusalem affairs, told The Jerusalem Post that the new-old 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. He said that Jerusalem was facing a "fierce onslaught" by the Israeli government and Jewish settler groups. He said that Israel's ultimate goal was to change the demographic and topographic reality in Jerusalem, as well as its cultural and religious identity.[4]. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I proposed the hook on the basis of the article's The PA enacted this law in order to halt the expansion of "Jewish Settlements"..., admittedly without reading the ref. However, I have now looked and its ref says, The Palestinian Authority said this week that it would apply the death penalty to Palestinians or their agents who sold land to Israelis. The action was taken to halt expansion of Jewish settlements. The law itself might be an obsolete old law but the source is clear on the reason for the current application of the death penalty. SpinningSpark 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. However, the hook must state that it's the reason given by the PA. Their claim is a bit iffy considering the law was on the books years before any "settlements" and the law applies (and has been applied) to non-settlement situations. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about:... that the

Palestinian Authority, to limit Israeli settlement? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

"According to the Palestinian Authority" makes it sound as if they are liars. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement like these are qualified throughout Wikipedia. Every "according to" in Wikipedia does not imply any lies. All the reliable sources that give this rationale qualify the rationale to claims by the PA. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the Palestinian Authority" is an ostentatious phrase that casts undue doubt upon the veracity of the PA's rationale. I really don't see any reason why we need to include a disclaimer at all, least of all one as ponderous as this. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It casts as much doubt as other "according to"'s that are prevalent throughout WP and are especially ubiquitous in I-P articles. WP is not more accepting then all reliable sources. If the reliable sources can qualify these claims without being accused of calling the PA liars we certainly can qualify these claims with being accused of calling the PA liars. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in my two arogot:
ALTX: ... that violating the
Palestinian Land Law by selling land to Jews, including settlers, is considered treason by the Palestinian Authority, and is punishable by death?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's cool.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt's hook fails to address the rationale behind the law. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that a full rationale be given and there's no requirement that the hook take into consideration all political views. A hook is a hook is a hook.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, that's not the attitude that was taken when
Lydda Death March hook. The objections against that hook were loud and long. Is there one standard for hooks which portray Israelis in an unflattering light and another for Palestinians? I hope not. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I was not involved in any hook discussions for that article and don't know what you're referring to. Again, there's no DYK requirement that full rationale's and all political views be included in the hook. This is not the
Lydda Death March and I hope that this forum is not being hijacked to even out some sort of political score. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Not at all! I'm simply in favour of applying a consistent principle. We can hardly insist upon scrupulous neutrality for one party while taking a casual attitude with another, because then we really would be engaging in biased editing. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if there's "no requirement that full rationale's ... be included in the hook", then I guess we could drop your "according to the Palestinian Authority" phrase, couldn't we? Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how a qualifier can be confused with a rationale. But if you're referring to the removal of the entire rationale, not only the qualifier, then we're in agreement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, so you'll be happy to go back to the original POV hook. Sorry, but we've been there already. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've been there and a like 6 other editors have been there as well. And you are the only one that finds the hook problematic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the
    Jews, on the basis that such transactions undermine Palestinian aspirations to statehood? Gatoclass (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Fine with me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as long as the link to the article "one-state solution" is removed, because that's a personal interpretation and thus WP:SYNTH. Therefore, the final version:
    • ... that the
      Jews
      , on the basis that such transactions undermine Palestinian aspirations to statehood?
--Ynhockey (Talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heck, sorry, that was meant to be a link to two-state solution. I'll fix it... done. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much more likely, although I still believe it to be an interpretation. Palestinian aspiration to statehood do not equal the two-state solution. Are you opposed to simply removing the link? —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep the link in. It is the official position endorsed by the PA, after all. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is talk of the law's application to Israeli Arabs as well, which doesn't exaclty jive with the whole two state solution thing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can speculate endlessly about what the Palestinians might really want, but one cannot base an encyclopedia on speculation. The fact is that the PA has endorsed the two state solution. AFAIK so has Israel, so why not link the article? Gatoclass (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re the speculation and that's why it is probably best to avoid the two-state pipe link. Using an endorsement from one context and applying it to another context is a classic
WP:SYNTH, imo. Moreover, the law is also supplemented by a religious fatwa. Those that use Islam as a basis for anti-Israel anything, don't generally distinguish between land on either side of the Green Line. However, I'm really sick of discussing this, and if a silly OR-like pipe link is what is holding up things, then just do whatever you want. It's fine.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, dear, where to begin? I think it is clear that the sale of land to Jews is "punishable by the death penalty," but it's not clear to me that the Palestinian Authority actually "seeks the death sentence," since multiple sources state that Mahmoud Abbas (head of the Palestinian Authority) does not authorize executions. I would oppose any hook that says 'seeks the death sentence". Indeed, the wording "punishable by" seems like a particularly good choice, since it means "can be punished by" death, not that violations are necessarily punished by death.
Further, the sources don't actually say that Abbas must "sign off on the verdict." Rather, he has to sign off before the sentence can be carried out. Failure to execute a person who given a guilty verdict by the court is not executed does not invalidate the guilty verdict.
It seems to me that all this talk of how the law relates to matters like the two-state solution serves to emphasize that the article topic is about property and territory, not "human rights". However, I don't like the idea of trying to write a hook that explains the motivations for the law. The sources that describe motivations are all essentially interpretations and speculations, which makes it hard to write a hook that is fully supported by facts. Keep the hook simple and factual, and let the reader go to the article (and possibly the sources) to learn about the motivations for the law.
Having said all that, here's my candidate for a hook:
I believe that hook is factual and is fully supported by sources. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the hook is factual and fully supported by sources, it's whether the hook meets
WP:NPOV
. The hook you propose is clearly prejudicial to the PA, as without an explanation for the reasoning behind it, it gives the strong impression that the law is simply an expression of ethnic hatred.
I do think your concerns about my proposed alt hook have some validity. However, I think your objection can be addressed simply by changing the word "sentence" to "penalty". As I said on your talk page:
Yes, you are quite correct to say that the PA imposes the death sentence, so to say it only "seeks the death sentence" is somewhat misleading. I have altered the hook slightly so that it says "seeks the death penalty". The PA imposes the sentence, but it cannot apply the penalty without the agreement of the PA's president Mahmoud Abbas, from whom it has to seek approval.
So the new proposal reads:
  • ... that the
    Jews, on the basis that such transactions undermine Palestinian aspirations to statehood? Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Having given this a little more thought, I think we can resolve this simply by combining the two proposals, as follows:

I'm sorry, I don't fully see the point. If this law is embarrassing to the PA, they can repeal it. They have not, it appears, done so. They choose to stand by it. If they are not embarrassed by it, who are you, Gatoclass, to be embarrassed by it on their behalf? Orlady's version seems quite adequate, and I suggest we just go with it and avoid the "that's true, but there are REALLY good reasons to kill someone for selling land" of Gatoclass's. It is what it is. Just say it, get it on the page, it will be gone six hours later, and the world will still spin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of embarrassment, I wonder what prompted you to unilaterally add this to a hook about to go to the front page a couple of weeks ago? But I guess context is not such a bad thing when it's in a good cause, huh? Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My change was based on the article as it appeared at the time I checked it; I had no reason to believe that it was the subject of an ongoing edit war. What's that got to do with the price of pita? Is this about putting an appropriate hook up, or about getting perceived payback? If it's the latter, Gatoclass, I'd like to propose that I/P articles either be banned from DYK or that they be submitted on a special page. We don't need hooks held up by one person jihadscrusades endeavors in this manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did more context become a bad thing? Shubinator (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never, I guess. If you like context, then ... that two people have been executed by the
selling land to Jews and that Human Rights Watch accused the PA in the murders of three others? There you go, plenty of context, nu?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, let's see just how much negative material about Palestinians we can cram into one hook. You've got a whole 200 characters after all, no sense wasting any of them. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks are more effective when they are concise, which often means omitting clarifying details and contextual information. In general, that is a reason for examining hooks closely to see if they contain unneeded details or contextual info. (The purpose of a hook is to pique readers' interest to get people to read the article, not to fully satisfy their curiosity with the one 200-character hook.)
In this specific instance, I don't believe that we the sources pretend to provide authoritative information on the "basis" for the law, and there definitely is no authoritative indication that it is because land sales undermine aspirations to statehood. This document indicates that the predecessor law in Jordan (the one that was in place under the PA in 1997) said that sale of immovable property to Jews was "a crime against state security." Al Jazeera provided a statement from an Al Jazeera correspondent that does include the words "undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood" (preceded by the words "in effect") but goes into far greater detail than that, also saying "this transaction is considered an act of treason is because it is being sold to Israeli settlers who are literally taking up Palestinian land that does not belong to them" and calling Israeli settlement of the West Bank "against international law." Probably there are multiple legal grounds for the law and multiple political reasons for it, with the political reasons changing over time. I don't see a solid basis for selecting one item from the Al Jazeera article to highlight in the hook.
As for "seeks the death penalty," I don't understand the reasoning for including this and I don't think it is factually accurate. Gatoclass indicates that the source for that wording is the Human Rights Watch report that says that in 1997 the PA announced that "it would seek the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of selling land to Jews, pursuant to Jordanian law, which remains in effect in the West Bank." I have a hard time using that language to say the PA currently "seeks" the death penalty. Moreover, I am not aware of any theory under which it is valid to say that the PA "seeks" the death penalty (or seeks death sentence for violators) but is overridden by its own president. Since when is the president of the PA not a part of the PA? As I understand it, the law says that violators may be punished by death, but the PA is not actually carrying out that sentence.
Additionally, changing "land" to "Palestinian land" and linking the term to Palestinian territories could be perceived as pro-Palestinian POV-pushing. All the sources indicate that this law is about "land" plain and simple, not about selling the entire Palestinian territories. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the sources ... provide authoritative information on the "basis" for the law - Orlady.
You may well be correct that we don't have an "authoritative source" for that statement. It's the summary of an al-Jazeera journalist, as it happens. But we do also have statements from senior PA figures in some of the other refs which plainly support the journalist's interpretation.
However, if it's "authoritative sources" you are insisting upon, I might just as well point out to you that we don't actually have an authoritative source for the claim that this law prohibits the sale of land to Jews. What we actually have are a bunch of contradictory accounts of what the law says, with some saying the ban is on sale of land to Jews, and others saying it's a ban on sale of land to Israelis. Which is it? You yourself added a source which indicates that the actual law may be a prohibition on sale of land to occupiers, ie the Israeli government and Israeli settlers. In short, we don't have an "authoritative source" for the basic premise of the article, let alone the hook. If it's authoritative sourcing you are concerned about, shouldn't that also be a concern to you? Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that some sources indicate that the ban is on sales to Israelis. However, the fatwa issued earlier this year was prompted by a land sale to American Jews (per the Jerusalem Post article[5]), and other sources[6][7] state that the ban is on sales to "Jews". This 1997 NY Times article uses both "Israelis" and "Jews" in different places, and this 2009 news article uses "Israel" in the headline, "Jews" in the subtitle, and "an Israeli company" in the article text. If you are troubled by the mention of "Jews," then substitute "Israelis" in the hook.
As for your statement about the "authoritative source," I believe that a higher standard of verifiability is needed when describing the Palestinian Authority's motives for this law than for describing what the law requires. There are plenty of sources that support factual statements there is a law against selling land to Israelis and/or Jews (and note that it is reasonable to assume that "Israelis" and "Jews" are essentially interchangeable in this context) and that the law allows for the death penalty for violators. However, before identifying any one single factor as being PA's motivation for having the law, I'd want to see something like an official statement, rather than a varied collection of interpretations from an Al Jazeera journalist, a Fatah legislator,[8], a NY Times article, etc. This is a perfectly good hook without adding a statement about why the law exists, so there's no point in undermining the hook by adding a statement that can't really be substantiated. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think we have any solid sources which specifically state that the current law prohibits sale of land to Jews. We do have a couple of statements, from a Palestinian legislater and a cleric, that the PA has placed either either a ban or a fatwa on the sale of land to Jews, but a ban is not the same thing as a law. And in fact many of the sources indicate that these land dealers are being convicted of treason rather than selling land to Jews, specifically. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orlady and see no reason why her hook can't be promoted. It is not "negative information" about Palestinians, it is something which the PA has freely chosen to retain on its books. If it were "negative" and they were to be scorned in the eyes of the world for it, presumably they'd repeal it. I don't see any reason to withhold this hook any longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point about information is that it can be made to look either negative or positive depending on the presentation. My concern here is that the presentation of this information may be unduly negative. Whether or not the information itself is negative or positive in such a case probably depends upon one's POV. Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm still not satisfied with either the hook or the article, but as I'm tired of discussing the matter and have attracted little support for my position thus far, I'm throwing in the towel. If an uninvolved editor wants to promote it at this point, I won't stand in the way, but please don't expect me to promote it myself as I still consider the article to have both OR and POV problems. Gatoclass (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this one. We're getting a beer, would someone please promote whichever hook was decided on and get this off the page? Got an encyclopedia to build and it won't wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having second thoughts about brewcrewer's proposed alt hook. Although it's still not ideal, I think it's more NPOV than the alternative, and could work with a little tweaking. Suggested alts:

* ... that the

Palestinian Land Law, which authorizes the death penalty for the sale of land to Jews, exists, according to the Palestinian Authority, to prevent the further expansion of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories? Gatoclass (talk
) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Oops, I should have checked those hooks before proposing them, they are both too long. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose promotion of this article under any hook given. The length of this discussion is justification enough. Way too controversial an article. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, needless to say perhaps, I'm inclined to agree. I am always prepared to try and work productively with editors to get their hooks promoted if possible, but I still have many misgivings about the factual basis of this article, not to mention its still somewhat one-sided presentation, or my view that a merge of whatever reliably sourced information it contains into
Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority
would be a more appropriate treatment.
The problem is that it becomes very difficult to sort out issues in a contentious article like this when it's just dropped onto the suggestions page without warning. We had some similar problems with Tiamut's
Lydda Death March article not long ago. I suggested to her then that next time she is proposing to nominate an article which deals with politically sensitive material, she should keep it in namespace and ask for input from editors with a variety of political views before nominating the article. That way, all the issues can be thoroughly canvassed and sorted out before the "hook countdown" begins. It puts reviewers in a very difficult position when this sort of material is just dropped into our lap at the last minute. Brewcrewer surely must have realized his article was likely to make waves, if he'd made an attempt to consult more widely before nominating it we wouldn't be in this position now. Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_Land_Law/Archive&oldid=1071652455"