Talk:Palestinian land laws

Untitled

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

CAMERA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New title

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

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

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

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

unreliable source

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

Non-existing Land laws

This whole article consists of hot air. Not a single source refers to Palestinian land law(s). Only THIS article from a non-neutral source, not about the subject, mentions once: "In clear violation of these provisions, the Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews." Without giving any source or mentioning a particular law. In absence of a land law, I changed the title to Palestinian landownership. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

After a second thought, I changed it to Landownership in Palestine. Palestinian landownership can also refer to land outside the Territories. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your logic, please point to the sources that use the term "Land ownership in the State of Palestine", the term you finally decided on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You also made a lot of changes to the article without discussing it even once on the talk page. A lot of the changes are problematic including the overabundance use of http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/fact%20sheets/NSU%20Memo%20Txns%20Pal%20property%20FINAL%20%28Oct%202008%29.pdf (a dead link) the use of which appears to be original research. I'll put it back to the long standing version and invite you to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree please propose you changes here so we can discuss them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As the few good sources in the article make clear, there is indeed no Palestinian Land Law of this nature. However there is a Jordanian law (actually several) which Palestinian courts have held to apply in the West Bank. (Note that Israel also applies Jordanian law in the West Bank when it suits.) The article at the moment is a mess built mostly from from bad sources, or sources that are cited but ignored. Zero^talk 10:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The PLO-NAD source is excellent and in fact in accordance with general international views. Please give reliable sources that show that this information is wrong, and give reliable sources that show that there is specific Palestinian Land Law. I am not obliged at all to discuss here the removal of unsourced shit. The improper use of sources makes them invalid. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we can work on this in an NPOV way. I'll ask the above question again. You moved the article from "Palestinian land laws" to "Land ownership in the State of Palestine" because "Not a single source refers to Palestinian land law(s." Before I begin defending the original longstanding name with reliable sources, I ask you again, what sources use the name to which you unilaterally moved the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)