Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sharafat, East Jerusalem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:07, 25 February 2010 editTiamut (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,614 edits Dubious and incorrect statements← Previous edit Revision as of 22:19, 25 February 2010 edit undoTiamut (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,614 edits at least start classNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Palestine|class=start}}


== Dubious and incorrect statements == == Dubious and incorrect statements ==

Revision as of 22:19, 25 February 2010

WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dubious and incorrect statements

There are a number of dubious and/or clearly incorrect statements in the article, not all attributed to reliable secondary sources. Here's a fine example:

  • Two-thirds of the lands of Sharafat were confiscated in 1970 and granted to the Keren Kayemeth (Jewish National Fund), and much of Sharafat was renamed Kibbutz Gilo after the establishment of that Israeli settlement there in 1973. Non-Jews cannot live in Gilo.

All the statements presented here range from dubious to ridiculous. The statement is attributed to a primary source of unclear notability (Seriously? A comedian?), which does not satisfy WP:RS.

  • Two-thirds of the lands of Sharafat were confiscated in 1970 and granted to the Keren Kayemeth (Jewish National Fund) – dubious. This statement might be true, but it's not clear why the Israeli government would hand over land to the JNF that was intended from the start for an urban neighborhood.
  • much of Sharafat was renamed Kibbutz Gilo after the establishment of that Israeli settlement there in 1973 – aside from the statement that it was renamed "Kibbutz Gilo" (Flatland was renamed to State of Sphereland?), it is not correct to say that Sharafat was "renamed" to Gilo—rather, Gilo was built on lands allegedly belonging to Sharafat (probably true, but such a statement cannot be attributed to a primary source). There is also no evidence that Gilo was ever a kibbutz, and this is probably incorrect. Lastly, the notion that it's a "settlement" is disputed.
  • Non-Jews cannot live in Gilo. – completely ridiculous claim that has no basis in reality. There are no Arabs in Gilo because they have no reason to wish to live there, just like there are no Jews in Umm al-Fahm.

Other problems (keep in mind that these are just from a skim-through, not a careful examination of the article which will likely present more problems):

  • the village came to form part of Israel's Jerusalem District. – misleading; it became part of the Jerusalem Municipality, which is part of the Jerusalem District. The sentence as it stands now appears to contradict itself.
    • There is no contradiction. The expanded Jerusalem Municipality forms part of the Jerusalem District and post-1967, Sharafat forms part of both. I'll try to make that clearer. Tiamut 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out a raid, collectively punishing the village, because it was "thought to be a base for infiltrators who had committed acts of sabotage or murder in Israel." – attributed to Morris; I am guessing it's the book Border Wars, but the article doesn't say. Where am I supposed to look? The language is also full of polemic and offers no actual information. I am guessing that it serves as a summary for the rest of the section, but in actuality it just seems like an extra sentence to highlight that the IDF are bad. It says that the IDF "thought" that it was a base for infiltrators, while in the next sentence it implies that it was a base for an infiltration. Which is correct?
  • The two sections, 1948–1967 and 1967 and afterwards, are just collections of specific incidents which don't actually tell anything important about Sharafat (I have fixed the title of one section). This is clear undue weight, especially a fairly large paragraph about a specific family in the "1967 and after" section. The information about the comedian Ray Hanania is also undue weight.
    • If you have sources you would like to see included, please present them. I've searched considerably and these are what came up. I don't see an undue weight problem here at all. Tiamut 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref formatting problems – some refs are difficult to read or unreadable.

Again, this is just a very brief read-through, I haven't had much time to go over the article in depth. I will report more problems if they are found. —Ynhockey 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to address most of your concerns. If there is more you would like to see, it would be good if you could respond to my requests for clarification. Regarding Ray Hanania, while I've rmeoved the information taken from him about how much land was epxropriated from Sharafat and other factual info not attributed directly to him, I would like to point out that he has written extensively about this issue and owns land adjacent to Sharafat himself (). He also won a pultizer prize for his articles on this issue as well. So I do think he is an RS, at least for information attributed directly to him. Tiamut 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories: