Talk:Sheikh Jarrah controversy/Archive 2

Requested move 27 August 2021

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

Moved. While there is much open opposition to any page rename below, most of that is discounted because most of the oppose rationales are weak compared to those arguments that oppose the present title and have suggested other names besides the proposed title in this request. In accord with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS the closer chooses from available options, which are:


 * 1) Palestinian displacement in Sheikh Jarrah – Selfstudier (proposed title)
 * 2) Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah – Number 57 – June not moved
 * 3) Attempts to evict Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah – Number 57
 * 4) Attempts to displace Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah – Number 57
 * 5) Disputation of Palestinian property rights in Sheikh Jarrah – Barrelproof
 * 6) Sheikh Jarrah Jewish–Palestinian property dispute – Barrelproof
 * 7) Sheikh Jarrah dispute – Shrike
 * 8) Sheikh Jarrah controversy – Selfstudier

&#35;1 as proposed was unpopular due to usage of "displacement". #2 won't be chosen because there was consensus against it in a previous RM, so it should not be proposed again until next June at the earliest. The rest received a little support with the exception of #7, which was well-supported if and only if accompanied by a moratorium to disallow move requests for a time. So #7 is out of the running because under NOGOODOPTIONS there can be no such moratorium. #3 is just an end run around #2, so that's not going to happen. Frankly, all of these titles appear to have unpopular aspects in terms of what has been discussed below, such as POV neutrality, concision, over-precision, and so on. Objectivity seems to demand that only #8 be chosen as the best of the lot. So the new title for this article, Sheikh Jarrah controversy, will hopefully be a keeper. Also in accord with NOGOODOPTIONS, the closer has to make it clear that Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 10:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute → Palestinian displacement in Sheikh Jarrah This RFC concluded that "...the attempts to find a clearer and more neutral title may, and should, continue." A subsequent effort between 2 editors failed to reach agreement on an alternative title. and this proposal is an attempt to break the logjam. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "displacement" seems like an odd term to use when there are much clearer terms available, and I think the wording should be moved around slightly, as the current order of words is somewhat ambiguous as it doesn't make it clear that Palestinians are being displaced (it could be that they are displacing other people). I still think "Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah" is a clear and unambiguous title, but see this was rejected in an RM that I missed above (several editors !voted on the basis that no evictions had taken place, which is untrue). Perhaps "Attempts to evict Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah" might be a more acceptable combination/order, or if people are still massively against evictions for whatever reason, Attempts to displace Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah, but this seems rather mealy mouthed to me. Cheers,  Number   5  7  11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Number57's analysis is spot-on, and I would commend his proposal that we write  Evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah. The opposition to 'eviction' seems to arise from the distaste for the precise legal terminology current everywhere, Israel included whereas 'displacement is an euphemism, and, as Number57 again acutely observes, when defined by 'Palestinian' can lend itself to an invidious ambiguity. That the title we have is itself POV emerged in the earlier discussion and closure. Those who continue to object to any alternative that might cut the Gordian knot should be under an obligation, in their dissent votes, to suggest a compromise title. We have a POV title, so we are trying to get one that is less so. Just saying no to any alternative translates as supporting what the closing admin said was an unsatisfactory term.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the "protected tenants" situation contemplated by a court does not involve eviction, but does involve removal of the asserted ownership of the property. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem that those tenants don't pay rent to the owners so they are squatters Shrike (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite disgraceful, Shrike. You may have some excuse because as I now note, Michael Ben-Yair's story was cancelled by some editor. He is now waging a case in an Israeli court to get settler 'squatters' out of his former home, which by the law cited is rightfully his, in order to restore its tenancy to the Palestinians 'evicted'. Most of the editors commenting here do not appear to have read the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is the ethnic cleansing and denial of basic human rights by the occupying power. See how it doesnt help when we say things that have nothing to do with the move request?  nableezy  - 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion of the article title. As far as I can tell, the "squatters" comment above does not have clear relevance to the article title. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is not a neutral title. Repeated requested moves to similiar POV titles is not helpful. Free1Soul (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do something. The article title should clearly identify the nature of the topic, and this one does not. Consider something like . As one basic suggestion, the title should include the word "Palestinian". —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @BarrelProof This is a very practical proposed title. I'd missed it earlier, but it quite elegantly resolves a number of the sources contention, keeping it specific to 'property' as a number of editors seem to refer, but expanding the framing of the nature of the dispute to one of rights - in a more accurate reflection of the situation. Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It has now been 14 days since I made that suggestion, and 4 days since you suggested to focus on it, and 10 days since Shrike and I suggested, and no one has objected to either of those titles. Are we ready to declare a consensus for one of them? Both myself and Iskandar 323 seem to prefer . —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with any compromise without a moratorium on moves like I said earlier and anyhow I oppose the second title as it disputation of Jewish property rights too. Shrike (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Yep, I'd still agree that this is an improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"The case is not just a dispute over a single property: It is part of an effort by Jewish settlers to cement Jewish control of East Jerusalem, a process many Palestinians see as a slow form of ethnic cleansing. A similar dispute in the nearby neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which could lead to the eviction of Palestinians there to make room for settlers, led to protests, clashes and finally war this past month between Israel and Hamas, killing more than 240 people."
 * Oppose, this is not a neutral title. Suggesting a title that was just rejected a few weeks ago makes it hard to assume good faith. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Would go back to a new request with evictions. The argument that no evictions have taken place is just factually wrong and should be ignored, and all the me toos parroting that bogus line should likewise be ignored.  nableezy  - 18:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Freedom Is a Place: The Struggle for Sovereignty in Palestine, Ron J. Smith, 2020 is a high level scholarly summary for those not familiar with the background.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current title is as neutral and factual as it can get. This article is about disagreement (dispute) regarding who owns real estate (property) in Sheikh Jarrah. "displacement", "eviction", "explusion" etc are potential results of one of the possible outcomes of this dispute, but they are only part of the real subject of the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An RFC has already decided that the current title is not neutral, we are attempting to find one that is. Dispossession is another possibility used quite frequently.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the previous RFC did not determine that the title is not neutral. It determined that there are many editors that are unhappy with the current title. It's not a sufficient reason to replace the title with one that is far less neutral than the current title. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 23:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * RFC -> "...the attempts to find a clearer and more neutral title may, and should, continue." and yet you continue to insist on said non NPOV title. I think that says it all really.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "RFC has already decided that the current title is not neutral", which is not true. It determined that a more neutral title, if can be found, is preferable - which is completely moot, it's already a pillar of wikipedia, we always strive to be as neutral as possible. Regarding current proposal, I !voted is that it's far less neutral than the current title and expressed belief that there is no more neutral title that can be found. No reason not to keep trying, though. Perhaps we can discuss first, and not start an RFC for every bad proposal. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed, for a long time now, including most recently, for a month following the RFC, between two editors, no other editors having felt the need to join in. Therefore this RM, seemingly headed in exactly the same direction as all the other discussions ie a POV blockade in favor of a non neutral title.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title is less clear about the scope of the article than the current title, which is a perfectly accurate description. See fuller comment in section above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For those saying the current title is fine (contesting an RFC en passant), here is A House Divided: A Palestinian, a Settler and the Struggle for East Jerusalem, NYT, 7 June 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is rethoric used by one side in a property dispute, in an attempt to steer the discussion away from the real matter at hand - disagreement over legal rights to a piece of real estate. Parroting the argument used by one side in the title of the article is as POV as it can get. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only "rhetoric used by one side" is that used in the current title as shown clearly in sources (many of them, not just that latest one above) and the result of the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title is fine and meets WP:NDESC because that what it is a property dispute. I would agree to change it to Sheikh Jarrah dispute as proposed above if it will stop endless move discussions --Shrike (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would accept Sheikh Jarrah controversy for the same reason.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with either of these two. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is "controversy" better than "dispute"? Why not "strife" or "tribulation" ? And how is dropping the word "property" better? It just makes the title less accurate. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * controversy" is not better than "dispute", they're equivalent, and I'd be ok with both. In the sprit of trying to find some compromise, I'd support dropping the "property" part, because some view that as one side's point of view (yes, it's a dispute about property ownership, but one side claims that's just a legal façade for a desire to remove Arabs).Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Controversy is better than dispute because it refers to something of a persistent long term nature rather than the passing dispute that you and I are having. Per numerous sources, it is not just about property (that's why IsGov tries to restrict it in that manner, in order to avoid the other more important issues).Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's just something you invented. Take a look at Kuril Islands dispute which has been on-going for far longer than this one, and contrast with Killian documents controversy which came and went after a few weeks. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not invented by me, sorry. "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." (Oxford and several other dictionaries, similar).Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Definition of controversy 1: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : DISPUTE . They are synonymous. Inf-in MD (talk)
 * You may use your dictionaries and I may use mine, it is somewhat academic since no one else has endorsed the term in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's literally about properties... Per the lead: over the ownership of certain properties and housing units ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh...First line of lead..."The Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (as described by the Israeli government and their supporters)"...exactly what the RFC concluded as well. QED.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As one basic suggestion, the title should include the word "Palestinian". The reader should be given some clue what this is about. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked your indentation, I hope that's OK. I don't disagree, just trying to find a way through. If "Palestinian" is included then the title necessarily becomes longer and the obvious question is Palestinian what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original indentation. It is not an entirely new comment, as it basically repeats something I said earlier in a top-level list entry. It is a reply to the two comments above that suggested "Sheikh Jarrah dispute" / "Sheikh Jarrah controversy". I think those titles are insufficient to identify what is notable about the topic. They seem a bit like calling the Assassination of John F. Kennedy the Texas School Book Depository incident. Yes, the title probably needs to be more than three words long. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , We can say that is "Sheikh_Jarrah Jewish Palestinian property dispute" Shrike (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that would be punctuated as "". I'm not sure I like it, but I think it's better than what we've got now. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well part of editing is to find compromises Shrike (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strangely, no one else is replying to the suggestion of "". Do you think that means that no one objects to it? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Three days later, it has been a week since that discussion of 31 August and there is still no objection. Perhaps a consensus for that name can be declared. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @BarrelProof Your other suggestion was better. The use of the term 'property dispute' is one of the main points of disagreement, as it couches the article in the terminology of one side in the dispute. (This is written in the article!) The fundamental disagreement is over international law, Palestinian rights and whether Israeli courts even have jurisdiction on the issue. Adding 'Jewish-Palestinian' as a descriptor in front of this doesn't really improve the situation; it just makes the title less concise. Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I like the other one better too, but I think both of them are better than the current title. No one else responded to that suggestion either. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comment I'm pretty sure you cannot have two move discussions going on at the same time, the other needs to be closed first.Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but it seems pretty obvious that the above move request isn't going anywhere. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment ...and the main fruit of the talk above was other options, including 'Sheikh Jarrah Dispute' Iskandar 323 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose [Sheikh Jarrah dispute]. It's an acceptable title, just not as good as the current one. Dropping the word "property" doesn't improve the neutrality of the title but does reduce specificity. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree with the assertion that the proposal does not make it more neutral. The neutrality point has been extensively covered. 'Property dispute' is the preferred terminology in Israeli sources. Forced eviction or displacement is the preferred terminology from a Palestinian perspective. Dispute is more neutral, but if anything, it arguably still tilts decidedly towards the preferred terminology in Israeli sources. Dispute alone is better, but not perfect. It is also more concise. The word 'property' only makes it more specific selectively, focusing in on the property and land deed angle rather than on the international law and treaty angle. It therefore arguably makes it more specific, but at the same time, less accurate. Iskandar 323 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The bike shedding over this page's title is so bizarre. And I'm not being funny but all but one of the cited sources ostensibly given for "property dispute" actually say "real-estate dispute". I have tagged it thus. international law and treaty angle What treaty? The word "treaty" doesn't appear in the article even once. Even insofar as it relates to international law, it's still a dispute over land... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally consider property and real estate to be entirely interchangeable, and that it is splitting hairs to think that these words are treated significantly differently in normal usage. The real 'dispute' is not over property but international law - i.e. A) whether Israeli jurisdiction even applies in the first place, and B) whether under the Fourth Geneva Convention (a treaty), the evictions on the premise of Israeli laws permitting land expropriation in defiance of its responsibilities under treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbid population transfer, are permissable. The 'property dispute' is the preferred battleground of the Israeli courts, but I believe the Supreme Court itself has refused to directly address the issue of jurisdiction precisely because there is no interest in moving the conversation and media coverage in that direction. Palestinians have engaged with the Israeli courts because they are willing to explore all avenues of legal recourse, but their fundamental position is that the Israeli courts have no jurisdiction. Therefore the 'dispute', as much as the term applies, could equally be viewed as one of property from one perspective, and as one of international law from the other. Whether the article itself does this points sufficient justice is quite another matter again, but I think there is enough clarity about the 'dispute' from the Palestinian perspective as pertaining to international law for the term 'property dispute' to be considered bias. Iskandar 323 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty. And no, the international law issue is not a dispute over land, it is a dispute over the rights of an occupied population.  nableezy  - 18:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose [Sheikh Jarrah dispute] This RM of 8 July above already proposed this title and I repeat here what I said there: "Personally, I can see no policy reason why the majority view of this situation as internationally illegal displacement/eviction/expulsion (ethnic cleansing per the Palestinians and some others) should not be reflected in the title. The only reason there is any "dispute" is because of illegally applied discriminatory Israeli law in occupied territory.Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In the section above, you proposed "Sheikh Jarrah controversy", but here you oppose "Sheikh Jarrah dispute", which uses a synonym for controversy? What sort of game is this? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What about you @ Inf-in MD? You said you were fine with either dispute or controversy before. Are you not in support? Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I support either controversy or dispute. they are synonyms. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant this Move Request proposal to remove the word 'property'. You agreed to this in principle in the previous discussion, but based solely on your commentary underneath this Move Request your position could be read somewhat ambiguously. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, as soon as the previous one closes. This is not proper. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe read what I said more carefully?Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely this Move Request and your preferences aren't mutually incompatible? You could support this request to remove the word 'property' for now and still continue to press the case that controversy is a better word than dispute without issue. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to have stopped reading when you got to this point, look down the page.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, you got me. I missed your comment at the bottom. Iskandar 323 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This is somewhat disingenuous Selfstudier, as the 8 July discussion of the proposed title was ended based on the technicality that an RFC was in motion. There was never any substantial discussion of the proposed title in its own right, nor was a consensus reached. Your objection to the word dispute in general meanwhile may be merited, but this discussion is not really about this - this is focused on whether the word 'property' unnecessarily warps the neutrality of the article. You could probably argue the case for 'eviction' or 'forced displacement' to be included in the title till the end of time, but based on all of the discussions on this page, you would never attain a consensus. In the meantime, the non-neutral title 'Sheikh Jarrah property dispute' will stand. I believe that some incremental progress and improvement would still be better than absolutely no movement at all. Iskandar 323 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, a bit, but note the technicality was remedied, not the case here, we have 2 rms going on at once, it still refers to the previous one on the front page.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe tell Dinkytown he's supposed to be commenting this one not the other?Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support [Sheikh Jarrah dispute] as an improvement from the current title, but still intend to propose Evictions as a title with some additional evidence compiled. But this improves the status quo from the odious look of framing the issue in favor of those proposing a literal war crime.  nableezy  - 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support on that basis.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I oppose Sheikh Jarrah dispute .I thought it as compromise proposal but if its only a step to futher move discussions then this is no go. I would support such title if there will be moratorium for one year for any move request or RFC about renaming --Shrike (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Second RM merged as a sub-thread of the already open one, adding "[Sheikh Jarrah dispute]" to clarify responsive comments. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment But it is a compromise proposal. Nableezy notably caveated his intent to continue to pursue his own preferred title by noting that he would wait for additional evidence to be compiled. It is perfectly reasonable to change a title again if the burden of evidence shifts. For the same reason it is slightly unreasonable to attempt to impose ultimatums on future editing, because you never know how the facts will change. It would be better to address the Move Request based purely on its own merits and not on potential permutations of future events. Iskandar 323 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 *  Support Oppose "Sheikh Jarrah dispute"  (or controversy) - Unless if it puts an end to these moves- That is, I support the change, but with the same stipulation that Shrike (talk) made- that we have some lengthy moratorium on further move requests. I supported this in the previous discussion as a compromise, in order to resolve the issue (and I still do), but now I am concerned that some editors see this as just a stepping stone to a different title and will start yet another request as soon as this one is closed. That's not a compromise in my book. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the comments by Nableezy and SelfStudier, it seem obvious they will start a new move request as soon as this on is done. I don't like being played this way, and clarified my vote accordingly. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above comments. Support with lengthy moratorium, as this is like the 6th RM/RfC in 3 months and bordering on disruptive, otherwise oppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, utter nonsense. This is an improvement, and I will not stand in the way of an improvement. But if the evidence supports a better name I will be proposing a better name, and especially after an RFC concluded that we should continue working to find a better name you and the no consensus by filibustering to maintain the current POV name crowd arent going to prevent me from working to improve this articles compliance with our policies. We already had an RFC that determined that this name does not have consensus, and every single comment that tries to enforce this non-consensus based name as though it did should be outright ignored as being well past the border of disruptive.  nableezy  - 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposed title was rejected exactly two months ago. The reasons for rejection, as summarised in the close, remain. Opposing editors believe that evictions are only one part of the property dispute, and the article covers the entire dispute, not just the evictions. Some editors would support some other move to a different name, but not the proposed move. It is exhausting to re-propose rejected proposals in such short time frames. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was closed with no consensus. It was not closed with consensus against it. You cant pretend that a no consensus close cannot be challenged and re-discussed. We literally have an entire policy on what to do when there is no consensus. It is exhausting trying to get you to understand that "no consensus" does not mean "consensus against" or "rejected". It does not mean less discussion, it means more with as wide an audience as possible. And given the number of editors in that move request that made straightforward dishonest arguments (nobody has been evicted yet), I actually think that close could have been challenged. That editors have successfully filibustered this POV name into remaining does not mean that others (myself or any other editor) may not attempt to continue to improve this article's compliance with our core policies. And efforts to stymie that with bs ultimatums like "I will only allow a move if no other moves are proposed" are "disruptive".  nableezy  - 23:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It says no such thing. It says "not moved", which, per WP:NOTMOVED, means Consensus to not move/Not moved should be used when a consensus has formed to not rename the article(s) in question. ... this notifies other editors that they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change. There is a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is. which is distinct from the "No consensus" option. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then I would challenge that close, and will do so with a new move request. And you and all the filibusterers in the world can complain then, cool? And we had an RFC that explicitly determined there is in fact not a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is.  nableezy  - 02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The place to challenge a close is WP:DRV. I assume you're already aware of that. I will probably request an administrative moratorium of RMs at AE if that title is proposed again, as it would be textbook WP:DE to have a 7th RM on this page, with an attempt to retry a title already proposed and clearly rejected. You're not being "filibustered"; you can either come up with a novel reasonable proposal, or you can agree to this compromise, or you can put up with the current title, but you cannot exhaustively force through RMs on titles that the community has made clear it does not approve of. The RfC - which provides room for finding alternate titles - doesn't change the status of a particular rejected title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Too late for a DRV, and do whatever you want. In that move request we had socks of banned editors, multiple editors making flat out untrue statements, and several more making claims without any supporting evidence when evidence provided directly refuted them. You can do whatever you like wherever you like. I call bs on clearly rejected. I will continue to call bs on clearly rejected. And you know what is clearly disruptive? Adding ultimatums to your votes. I will only vote for something if I get my way, otherwise I have my preferred POV as the title already so I reject any attempt at progress. That is basically your vote. You either support this title or you do not. I support it over the present. I may well support another over this one in the future. You dont want me to do that? Ah well, the world doesnt always give us what we want.  nableezy  - 04:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s called compromise, nableezy. I don’t like this proposed title of “dispute”, as I think it’s too concise and loses descriptive meaning, and thus does not meet the WP:CRITERIA. But if it makes some folks happy and stops perpetual RMs at this talk, I’ll support it. If the perpetual RMs will continue anyway, then I don’t see this as attempted compromise so it doesn’t seem worth it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And if not you will maintain what several reliable sources explicitly call the POV of an involved party as the name? That is not compromise, that is hostage taking.  nableezy  - 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Also why have two RMs been merged together? Now comments don't make sense in the context they were made. Can someone undo this big giant refactoring? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's at least 3 editors who think it isn't right to have 2 rms at once.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then sub-section it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not causing me any problems and no-one else is complaining (yet).Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any restrictions on any editor. I agree completely with Nableezy idea of an rm (or another rfc) widely advertised so as to produce a real and independent consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed change, as too narrow in scope; the article covers more than the potential evictions, including the initial Jewish displacement, and the continued claims related to that. As the proposed title is based on being descriptive, rather than common, I don't believe it is appropriate. Conversely, I consider the alternative of "Sheikh Jarrah dispute" as too broad in scope, but have no strong objections to it and would be able to support it if it came with the discussed mortarium on additional proposals, to give time for this matter to settle and a name to emerge in academic sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support [Sheikh Jarrah dispute] I support the move to 'Sheikh Jarrah dispute' with or without a moratorium or temporary ban on further moves, although I would disapprove of this additional step on principle. Iskandar 323 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @Nableezy: I appreciate your pragmatic thinking in approving the change in principle on the basis of it being an incremental improvement. In terms of your wider contention that the framing of the article is wholly incorrect, I actually disagree. I think a title based on terms such as forced evictions or displacement would be too narrow for this article, which draws on both questions of international and local law, as well as recent events. The contention over Sheikh Jarrah is a fairly unique legal case with a specific Jordan-UNRWA agreement further layering the debate over its legality under international law. To enrich Wikipedia's coverage of the forced eviction and displacement theme, I think your energies would be better directed elsewhere, for example by expanding on the eviction theme in Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem and Judaization of Jerusalem, which currently make little to no mention of Sheikh Jarrah. Another level up, Population displacements in Israel after 1948 is woefully underwritten, and you could always go ahead and create a broader Forced evictions in Israel article in line with similarly structured pages for China, Baku, Nigeria, Cambodia and Indonesia. Iskandar 323 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not right, the "local law" you are referring to is Israeli law which is of no legal effect in the context of an occupied territory (where local law is supposed to apply not Israeli law). What is more, source after source describes these laws, apart from their nullity in IL, as discriminatory. Why do you say Forced evictions in Israel? We are not talking about Israel. To be clear, all this stuff is completely out of the question in IL and the only reason it is a question is because Israel refuses to accept IL (for anything at all, never mind this, wall, illegal settlements, its a long list).Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem is a work in progress at a higher level, I haven't as yet added anything about the different specific cases because the sources that treat even just Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah together are relatively few.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Well here you come up against the discrepancy between de jure and de facto. Israel is not the de jure sovereign in East Jerusalem under international law, but it is the de facto sovereign, and, as it stands, its legal rulings are enforced. But you're right, it could also be titled Forced evictions in the occupied Palestinian territories, which Forced evictions in Israel could redirect to on matters of East Jerusalem while also covering other punitive evictions, such as in the Negev. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Israel is a de facto and de jure occupier, not a sovereign, it has assayed a formal annex of territory but that annex is recognized by no-one except itself. The proper term that is supposed to be used and is used by the agencies is "forced displacement" (The UNHCR defines 'forced displacement' as follows: displaced "as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence or human rights violations".) where I usually leave out the forced bit because of the likely ensuing angst. Its a bit like the A's B's and C's in the Opt, they are all occupied no matter what they are called, the legal acrobatics are of no account and the same applies to "evictions" - if you go way back to the beginning of all this, I wanted to propose evictions (as a compromise!) on the basis that it would be OK if properly explained in the article itself. Even evictions implies that someone has a right to evict (the landlord /tenant idea beloved of IsGov) and they don't have any such right.Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bit semantic. The article is about a legal dispute between two opposing parties at the level of both international law and local property law, such that it is, as well as the evictions/displacements and other related events. I oppose evictions as equally as I oppose 'property dispute', because it misportrays the nature of the dispute as being more narrow than it actually is. I thought the Kuril Islands dispute comparison was instructive. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We had an RFC that specifically called for efforts to find a neutral title to continue because this current one is not. That a group of editors insists on maintaining an a non-neutral title is unsurprising, however they very much are going against a consensus on that and are saying dishonest and disingenuous things when they attempt to claim a consensus for what there is very much an explicit lack of consensus for. And they should be ignored. This is not a negotiation, you either support this move request or you oppose it. You do not get to make demands on future concessions. If I find that balance of reliable sources suggest that a different title be proposed then I will propose it. That has zero to do with this move request, so every vote that has some bullshit stipulation should be ignored.  nableezy  - 13:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current title is neutral and factual. These neverending move requests are disruptive and need to stop.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is only the second proper rm, there was an rfc in between and that is why we are having this one, hardly "neverending" and entirely appropriate. Will there be another? Very likely.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thta's' false. Ignoring the one improper move request you initiated (without a new title ) which was withdrawn, there have been 3 move requests and one RFC on the article title since May, and this one is the fifth. And in it, you and Nableezly are already saying that as soon as this on is closed favorably, you will start a new one. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of this page, there is a summary of the RMs, the first two are withdrawn and then there are two more with an RFC in between. Not sure what you mean by "favorably"? I am clear that I will support without any restrictions on what I may or may not do in the future, including starting a new rm or rfc if that's what I think is the right thing to do. At that time, you can challenge my good faith but not now you can't. The main point I am making is that since the RFC said that the search for a neutral title should continue, said non-neutral title is still there and rm/rfc will certainly continue as long as it is.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A withdrawn request move is a proper request move (and it does not escape me that they were withdrawn when it became evident to the proposer that his proposal is not going to be accepted). So this one is 5th or 6ht (depending on how you count the RfC) in the span of less than 5 months. By "favorably" I mean that the suggest new title will be accepted. When this is proposed as a compromise, and you say you will immediately start a new one with the "compromise" just achieved as new starting point, that is not good faith. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a place to take allegations like that, I invite you to do so else refrain from making them. Nor am I here to count rms, I will leave that to you.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You seemed pretty eager to count requested moves when you thought it was a good argument. You made a false claim regrading the number of requested moves, and I corrected you. It obviously reflects poorly on you and the arguments you are making here, but that's life. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Geshem Bracha When you state things are 'neutral and factual' without explanation, it doesn't come across as if you yourself are neutral. I have explained the problem with the neutrality. You are simply refusing to engage with the substance of the discussion. If you are engaged, engage. 'Factual' is not part of the naming WP:CRITERIA, which includes, recognizability, naturalness, conciseness, consistency and precision. Names do not contain facts. They are subjective. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a slight misrepresentation of what the RfC concluded. Yes, it said that effort to find a "more neutral" title should continue, but it did not say the current one is not neutral - just that there is no consensus that it is. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't meant constant move discussions one after another as it started to be disruptive as them same titles proposed with slight variation proposed over and over again --Shrike (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just had that discussion, there is no "over and over again" other than in your imagination.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good time to remember that the Universal Code of Conduct prohibits psychological manipulation. That includes telling someone it's all in their own head when, above, another editor said in direct words they'll propose the exact same RM again because you disagree with the results but refuse to appeal them, and you said (I quote) If that also fails to produce a clear consensus, then we will just have to keep doing rms until we get one that does. Now, there are 5 past RMs (per the header). There is this unclosed RM, which is really two RMs (and was at one point, until a weird refactoring happened), which makes 7 RMs. This hypothetical RM that repeats a previous RM would, then, be the 8th RM on this talk page in three months. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW several of those withdrawn RMs were SNOWing in opposition to the proposal, thus the "Withdrawn" was really a "Not Moved". So it seems fails to produce a clear consensus is being defined as "any RM that results in consensus against the proposal", which is a rather perverse definition. Consensus means working to find an acceptable title, not necessarily a first preference but an acceptable solution, not this disruptive RM fatigue in combination with a flurry of WP:ASPERSIONS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The cognitive dissonance in one saying that the Universal Code of Conduct prohibits psychological manipulation and then following it up with a flurry of WP:ASPERSIONS is strong with this one.  nableezy  - 01:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the disscusion where you falsely claimed this is only the 2nd such request move, and when that was shown to be false, declared "Nor am I here to count rms"? That discussion? Inf-in MD (talk)

PR, you seem to be under the impression that an RFC that calls for efforts to continue to find a better name should mean that such efforts should stop. I give zero care to the number of discussions on a topic if there is no consensus determined. And as the RFC found, there is no consensus for this name, and as such I am free to find a better one. You and the filibuster crew can keep attempting to maintain an abjectly non-neutral name if you like, I will continue to work on correcting that issue. Without one whit of care given to how many discussions or how long it takes. You know how many discussions and how many years it took for us to call Israeli settlements "Israeli settlements" and not "Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria"? Neutrality is a core policy of this website. I intend to attempt to make this page, and its title, abide by that policy. I welcome anybody who wants to help. And I will ignore any filibustering based on bogus and non-policy compliant reasons. You can continue waving your hands and saying we had 30 discussions about this. Guess what? They didn't result in a consensus, and on Wikipedia that means more discussion, not less. Take a look at Talk:List of cities in Israel for an example of when an editors effort to get more and more involvement and more and more discussion in the face of editors attempting to filibuster "no consensus" into maintaining a non-neutral article was successful. If you think that after an RFC explicitly called for more attempts to find a more neutral name you will be able to shut that effort down well then I guess I wish you good fortune in that effort.  nableezy  - 15:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What is happening here is that we (at least that's what I am doing) are attempting to implement the result of the RFC, all this other baloney is quite irrelevant and requires no response.Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, as you're the proposer, can I ask whether you think there's a consensus for your given proposal? My reading is no, the consensus is against it. So... we can wait a few weeks for a willing closer to appear, read through this crap and close it as such (and in the interim this conversation may well balloon to double the length) OR both sides can decide this is indeed a not moved and draw a line under it?It seems Sheikh Jarrah dispute may have consensus, combined with a . Is that an acceptable compromise to you or not, or do we want to continue this indignation that is unlikely to result in an actionable proposal to change the page's title? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I already answered this question.Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let PR speak for himself, but as for me, I don't think good faith efforts to find a more neutral name should stop, and in that spirt, I supported the current proposal, if it will be a true compromise. You don't seem to be interested in that - it's your way or the highway, and once the supposed "compromise" is reached you'll just continue to push for your version. That is not a good faith effort. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My way or the highway? I voted for this proposal. It is an improvement. That does not mean that I will seek to stop improving it. The number of editors just barely over extended confirmed who just so happen to speak like old hands might make one say this is not a good faith effort, but maybe thats just me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've indicated you will start another request to move it to the article name you prefer once this is done. That is is not a good faith effort to find a compromise. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much looking forward to striking through some comments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * feel free to strike through whatever comments you regret having made. I won't hold them against you Inf-in MD (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * im glad you still have your sense of humor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment Given comments made, seems this is not going any further and I have requested a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re not in source
Hi, you added some material to an edit I had made but this material is not in the source. Do you have some other source dealing with this particular case? I never even heard of it until the other day, it seems a completely new case, not settler led, it is the municipality making a confiscation, nothing to do with the other cases afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I found https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/high-court-orders-evacuation-of-arab-owned-property-in-sheikh-jarrah-683663 and it also says it is owned by Arabs same as original source (and https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-court-allows-land-confiscation-in-jerusalem-s-sheikh-jarrah/2409039 as well) so I am changing the edit back to the way it was before.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And here is a proper explanation of it https://peacenow.org.il/en/verdict-to-evict-a-car-wash-and-parking-for-busses-in-sheikh-jarrah, "The land did not belong to Jews, neither before 1948 nor after, but was owned by Palestinians." I will add to body in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

| Article version that I fixed said that the property discussed in the latest court ruling belonged to four families, which is not correct. JPost source above explicitly says "the properties belonged to Jews before 1948" about the four families's claim, and that it's a different issue from the most recent one. Current version of the article makes it clearer that these are two different issues, so it seems ok to me. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Material from Sheikh Jarrah article for possible merge here
In 2001, Israeli settlers moved into a sealed section of the al-Kurd family's house and refused to leave, claiming the property was owned by Jews. In 2008, the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the Shimon HaTzadik property belonged to the Sephardi Community Committee. The Arab families had protected tenant status as long as they paid rent but several families refused to pay, ending in their eviction. The al-Kurds were evicted in November 2008. Muhammad al-Kurd, the head of the family, died eleven days later. The court ruling was based on an Ottoman-era bill of sale whose authenticity was challenged in 2009 on the grounds that the building had only been rented to the Sephardi group. Fawzieh al-Kurd continued to protest the eviction, moving into an encampment in East Jerusalem.

Lawyers for the Jewish families argued that documents from the Ottoman Empire originally used to prove that a Jewish Sephardic organization had purchased the land in question in the 19th century are indeed valid, while Palestinian lawyers brought with them documents from Istanbul's Ottoman archives indicating that the Jewish organization that claims to own the land only rented it, and as such was not the rightful owner, the Kurd family claims that when they pressed the court to look at the new evidence, they were told "it's too late". Moreover, the Palestinian families and their supporters maintained that Ottoman documents that Israel's Supreme Court had validated were in fact forgeries, and that the original ruling and therefore evictions relating to that ruling should be reversed. The lawyer for the Israeli families emphasized that the land deeds were authentic, according to many Israeli courts. The Israeli court decision (resulting in the aforementioned evictions) stated that the document presented by the Palestinian families was a forgery, while the document of Jewish ownership was authentic.

In August 2009, the al-Hanoun and al-Ghawi families were evicted from two homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Jewish families moved in based on a Supreme Court ruling that the property was owned by Jews. The United Nations coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert Serry condemned the decision: "These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace." The US State Department called it a violation of Israel's obligations under the Road map for peace. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said "Tonight, while these new settlers from abroad will be accommodating themselves and their belongings in these Palestinian houses, 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep." Yakir Segev of the Jerusalem municipal council responded: "This is a matter of the court. It is a civil dispute between Palestinian families and those of Israeli settlers, regarding who is the rightful owner of this property... Israeli law is the only law we are obliged to obey." Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

New file
You may want to add the new image (the page is locked). 🙂  מקף⁻‽–&rlm; (Hyphen)  12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Problematic and biased POV and information in the article
The first paragraph says as follows: "In East Jerusalem, Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over property held prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over property that they owned prior to 1948 in Israel proper."

Now let's look at what the law really says. The "law" mentioned isn't cited, but I can assume it is "חוק נכסי נפקדים" or "Absentees' property law" from 1950. .

The law defines what is an "absentee" is and in what conditions should the state receive their property, and applies to residents of the British Mandate who left their homes in the 1948 war. The law holds no distinction between Jews and Palestinians. The law has an extension from 1973 defining compensation for people whose property was taken due to the 1950 law. That law, too, holds no distinction between Jews and Palestinians. Claiming this law discriminates by religion or ethnicity is nothing short of false and empty claims.

Also, the introduction has no referring to the Israeli POV besides the Israeli definition as a "property/real estate dispute" and a quote from the deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, compared to the rest of the introduction which is Palestinian POV. It doesn't mention the fact that (according to the Israeli court decision) the disputed houses belong to Jews, though this description exists in the "background" section. It is harmful for Wikipedia's neutral POV that when one opens the article to get a quick understanding of the controversy and sees the introduction, they face an almost fully Palestinian POV.

Request: Update the introduction to also include the Israeli POV from the rest of the article. Remove the sentence that claims "In East Jerusalem, Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over property held prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over property that they owned prior to 1948 in Israel proper.". 2A00:A040:197:1220:18C:B1B3:1E1A:C14E (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence is sourced and very easy to have more similar. This article has had many eyes on it and has been discussed at length and the first sentence/paragraph of the lead includes the Israeli POV and summarizes the essence. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahistorical nonsense that the laws do not discriminate, when they were very specifically intended to do so. Absentee was applied to those who fled to Arab countries or territory under those countries control, which only included the Palestinians and not Jews. The law very specifically was designed to allow for the seizure of Arab property, and the corollary law allowing for claims on property in the territories Israel later occupied applied only to those who fled those territories, which included only Jews and not Palestinians. The veneer of the law does not discriminate is entirely specious. And countless sources make that clear. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Absentees' property law does not specify "Jew" or "Palestinian", nor does the law that grants compensation for the confiscation. For example, Israeli Arabs aka. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live in Israel can get their property back or compensation. The law uses terms like "citizen" or "resident". Do you imply all Israelis are Jews? That all Israeli residents are Jews? This is ridiculous. In fact, Israel did give compensation to Israeli Arabs per the law.. In comparison, Jews who fled from Arab countries never received any compensation of any kind. It would make more sense if the phrasing was something like "In East Jerusalem, Israel's laws allow Israeli citizens or residents (both Jews and Palestinians) to file claims over property held prior to 1948. However, the law does not apply to non-citizens or non-residents, thus preventing many Palestinians from claiming back their property."

For Selfstudier's comments I already explained in my section why the sentence is wrong. The source claims for racial/religion discrimination ("Jew" and "Palestinian") while the law, as I explained, does not discriminate by them. You're more than welcome to read the law — the primary source. As per SECONDARYNOTGOOD, a secondary source isn't necessarily better than the primary source it depends on.

"This article has had many eyes on it and has been discussed at length and the first sentence/paragraph of the lead includes the Israeli POV and summarizes the essence." Summarizing the essence is good, given that the other POV is also summarized in essence. In practice, as I explained, few sentences explain the Israeli POV in the introduction while '''the rest is dedicated for the Palestinian POV. How is that neutrality in any way? Even the part that is supposed to represent the Israeli POV cites a quote by Jerusalem's deputy mayor which shows his personal opinion on the topic''' — an opinion not backed up by any official Israeli statement from the court or the government. 2A00:A040:197:1220:C906:DC8E:22D7:84CE (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It only matters what reliable sources say about Israeli law(s) and there is an abundance of sourcing that refers to the effect of Israeli law as discriminatory. If reliable sources exist saying that the laws are not discriminatory we can consider those. It is not the function of WP editors to interpret law. This discussion has been had once at length and does not need to be repeated.Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from this, there are UNSC resolutions declaring that the application of Israeli laws in occupied territory as well as any other changes in Jerusalem are of no legal effect.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Arabs who live in Israel who did not flee have no property to claim. Arabs who did flee to territory controlled by Arab forces were treated as absentees and may not reclaim property. You can continue to pretend otherwise but the sources here are clear on this point. The laws were very specifically designed to allow claims by Jews and disallow claims by Palestinians for property lost. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "It only matters what reliable sources say about Israeli law(s)"
 * How can a source be deemed reliable if it goes against what's written in its cited source?


 * "If reliable sources exist saying that the laws are not discriminatory we can consider those."
 * I have attached a source showing, for example, that Israeli Arabs do get compensated by the law, because as said, the law does not distinguish between Jews and Arabs, only Israelis and non citizens / non residents. I also wrote an example for a more accurate sentence taking this into consideration. It seems you have ignored both of these.


 * "This discussion has been had once at length and does not need to be repeated."
 * The length of the discussion does not matter for the fact that what's written on the page now is false information.


 * "Apart from this, there are UNSC resolutions declaring that the application of Israeli laws in occupied territory as well as any other changes in Jerusalem are of no legal effect."
 * What does it have anything to do with the topic we're currently discussing? We are not discussing the international legality of the law.


 * "Arabs who live in Israel who did not flee have no property to claim." (emphasis mine)
 * That's true, but the ones who did flee but stayed in Israel rather than abroad, and then became residents, are still subject of the law, as shown in the source I attached.


 * "The laws were very specifically designed to allow claims by Jews and disallow claims by Palestinians for property lost."
 * Pretty amazing how a law manages to address ethnicity without mentioning it... Again, are you implying all Israelis are Jews? 25% of Israeli citizens (without even counting non-citizen residents who are still subject of the law) aren't Jewish, and are eligible for suing for their property or for compensation.


 * Also, you have not responded about the introduction's problematic Palestinian POV to Israeli POV ratio and about how the tiny Israeli POV portion is a strawman built to fit the Palestinian POV.

2A00:A040:197:1220:C906:DC8E:22D7:84CE (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Your questions have been dealt with here and as well back up the page.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you made a claim that sources directly dispute. And here that is something we need not consider. And no, Arabs who fled went to areas that were held by "enemy states" and by the law are treated as absentees and may not reclaim their property. You can keep bsing here, but the sources are clear on this point, and I for one will no longer engage with such pedantic bs. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

To the IP editor: Your personal knowlege and opinion are not reliable source that we can use here. If you can find such sources, please show them to us and then, assuming they pass some criteria, we'll talk about changing the article to present each of the conflicting points of view.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)