Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:34, 26 February 2010

Palestine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? 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.
  • I will replace the Hanina material with information from Cohen. Tiamut 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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?
  • Morris uses both formulations in his book Border Wars. I'll proide a direct link. Tiamut 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Could you specify further what you mean by that? Tiamut 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

The very first sentence of the article is problematic:

Sharafat is a Palestinian village in East Jerusalem. Historically, it was located on the outskirts of the Old City of Jerusalem in Palestine.

The source in fact says neither that it's a Palestinian village, nor that it was "historically ... on the outskirts of the Old City". The first point is problematic because it's located in a territory claimed by Israel; is Umm al-Fahm a Palestinian village? The second statement seems false, although it depends on how you define "outskirts". Actually historically it hasn't been that close to the old city, about the same distance as Lifta, which is described "on the outskirts of Jerusalem", a more accurate statement since it was indeed close to the new developments in Jerusalem, but not the Old City.

On the issue of Palestinian, the source Cohen (1993) also does not mention the word Palestinian, yet it is used in the article in a sentence sourced to Cohen.

I don't think it's disputed that the residents of Sharafat are originally Palestinians (if you refer to Arabs from the region of Palestine), but they are not administered by the Palestinian Authority, therefore it is problematic to call the village Palestinian if the reliable sources don't make this distinction. In reliable Israeli sources, it is usually referred to as an Arab village or neighborhood in Jerusalem, precisely what it is. I don't think anyone can dispute that it's Arab, so let's change it to that.

Another unrelated issue: Why is the Israeli rule over Sharafat called "occupation", but the Jordanian rule isn't? Don't you think that's a rather blatant double-standard?

—Ynhockey 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another glaring omission that I forgot about: Isn't it pretty important to mention in the lead, or at least somewhere else in the article, that Sharafat is in southern Jerusalem? —Ynhockey 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

While you should do this yourself before raising your concerns, let's review together how the sources cited characterize Sharafat's location and inhabitants.

1. The Foundation for Middle East Peace lists Sharafat in table entitled: "East Jerusalem Population and Area, 2000-2002". The table is divided into "Israeli settlement Locales" and "Palestinian locales". Sharafat is listed under the colum for the former.
2. This document on "Jerusalem" published by Le Monde Diplomatique lists Sharafat in a table entitled "Palestinian neighbourhoods in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem".
3. This document from the Baker Institute exloring possible resolution to the ISraeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem notes that Sharafat forms part of an area representing 0.21% of the Palestinian territory where 7,800 East Jerusalem residents live and which is being proposed in one scenario for permanent annexation to Israel as part of a final peace deal.
4. This map by Btselem denotes Sharafat as lying east of the Green Line. The legend indicates that it is a "Built up Area (Palestinian)" and "Area annexed to Israel".
5. This document by the Jerusalem Center fo Public Affairs lists Sharafat under the title "Distances between Arab neighborhoods slated for "Separation" and Jewish neighborhoods".
6. This submission by the permanent representative of Jordan to the UN on "Israeli settlement activity during the months of March and April 1983 in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem," described its location as "Sharafat in the Jerusalem district".
7. This document prepared by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People lists "Gilo Sharafat (Gilo)" in a list of ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON THE WEST BANK and notes that it was founded on land originally owned by "Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, Beit Jala, Beit Safafa and Sharafat".

Shall I go on? Tiamut 11:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Meron Benvenisti describes it as "Sharafat, near Jerusalem".
2. In Shaul Ephraim Cohen's work, on page 12, "The Palestinian villages considered in this study are within or adjacent to the green belt: Sharafat ". One page 82, he writes, "Golo, located on the land of the village of Sharafat (among others)..." and on page 135, when discussing the Ottoman daftars from the 16th century, "Those villages mentioned in the daftar are Azzariya, Sharafat ...." Tiamut 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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