Talk:Israeli land and property laws

message: A major effort needs to be made to find more universally acceptable reference sources for this article, as a scan of the current references reveals a number of heavily partisan sources with little or no balance.
I completely agree. The sources are nearly ALL from extremely slanted sourcesTallicfan20 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the issue is whether the information presented from the various sources is true as far as can be ascertained? The very nature of the topic lends itself to extremely partisan sources.  A corrollary of this is that less partisan sources think twice. In the article, there is a reference to Robert Fisk consulting the Custodian of Absentee property about how much land in Israel was owned by Arabs who had "left" the country.  Here is a fuller description of the episode The Keys to Palestine. In particular, the reaction to the London Times printing an article based on that interview speaks volumes as to why less obviously partisan sources would hesitate to discuss the true ownership  of the land in Israel. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It is noticeable that no  sources  that substantially disagree with the land ownership data given in the article have been produced. Given the clear motive of supporters of Israel to challenge the existing data, conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the accuracy of the existing land ownership data in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.52.117 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the reference sources and neutrality of this article 

message: This entry's title should be changed, since it does not correctly reflect the contents of the article. This entry does not comprehensively deal with land law in Israel, rather with those aspects of land law relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For instance, the important Land Act 1969, which finally abrogated the Ottoman Land Code of 1848, is not discussed.
My impression is that the article is politically motivated, but that is beside the point. What is however pertinent is that the article title correctly reflect the contents of this entry. A possible suggestion: Israeli land law relating to the conflict in Palestine. Tkeu (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about the capitalization? This doesn't seem like a proper noun to me. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready to rename the article per this apparently unopposed name-change request, but is the proposed title really the appropriate one? I'm inclined to relist to get more input. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change entry title 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was move to Israeli land and property laws relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Jafeluv (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Land and Property Laws in Israel → Israeli Land Law Relating to the Conflict in Palestine — Relisting for more input. See Talk:Land and Property Laws in Israel#Change entry title. @harej 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Why no mention of the illegality, under international law, of Israeli land law?===
It should be included that land in the occupied territories does not legally belong to Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: It should be included that land in the occupied territories does not legally belong to Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of the illegality, under international law, of Israeli land law?

message: I inserted a link to Adalah's Interactive Map of Land Expropriation. Stuck in SD with Yaming reverted it, which is not surprising based on his history here, because he thinks the link is "not relevant". The link is about this topic so I don't see how it is not relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant to Israel's laws - it does not even disucss them in a singel sentence. It is a link to a pro-palestinain advocacy site. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? This is about the laws on expropriation so it's mentioned. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. It is about "Israeli land and property laws". It is already heavily slanted by pro-Palestinian propagandists to ficus nerlay exclsuively on the use of those laws for expropriation , but at least that is done using sources that actually discuss the laws. You source does not, and as such it is a pure POV-push, somethign you've been doing over numerous articles. Get consensus for its inclusion and stop edit warring. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said that it's not relevant to Israel's law and I said it is because it is about expropriation and that is mentioned both here and there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant to Israel's laws - it does not even disucss them in a single sentence. The onus for getting consensus is on editors wishing to ADD controversial material. You have no such consensus. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome back to Wikipedia. Just like I said one year ago, the link is indeed relevant because it talks about the expropriation and confiscation of Palestinian land. One other editor has added some to that link and you got reverted by another user. There are multiple mentions of laws concerning expropriation in this article. So how can't it be relevant? --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  I have restored it now (with a working link). The claim that the link is not relevant is astounishing. This article deals mostly with confiscation of Palestinian land, which the link to Adalah tells more about and also shows a map. So how can it be irrelevant? It gives info about the topic (in three languages too). --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to Adalah is relevant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israeli land and property laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927210835/http://www.mmi.gov.il/Envelope/indexeng.asp?page=%2Fstatic%2Feng%2Ff_general.html to http://www.mmi.gov.il/envelope/indexeng.asp?page=%2Fstatic%2Feng%2Ff_general.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi! From the article: “Robert Fisk interviewed the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, who estimates this could amount to up to 70% of the territory of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip”.
I doubt that this is what Robert Fisk claims in the quote given below. I do not know what “land of the state of Israel” shall mean, but I am quite sure that it is not the total territory including occupied territories, since this would be a bizarre claim, those 70% would necessarily include a large amount of uncultivated land in Negev desert … --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Fisk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israeli land and property laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714175245/http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journals/journal/34-01/howlett.html to http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journals/journal/34-01/howlett.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified