Talk:Sharafat, East Jerusalem

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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 ^(Talk) 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 ([1]). 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^talk 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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. [2] 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 formerlatter.
2. [3] This document on "Jerusalem" published by Le Monde Diplomatique lists Sharafat in a table entitled "Palestinian neighbourhoods in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem".
3. [4] 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. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] 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^talk 11:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. [9] Meron Benvenisti describes it as "Sharafat, near Jerusalem".
2. [10] 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^talk 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. [11] Daphna Ephrat, whose book is entitled Spiritual wayfarers, leaders in piety: Sufis and the dissemination of Islam in medieval Palestine, outlines to the role of Sufi awliya. On page 159, she writes of the movements of a member of the Badriyya family in the 13th century that, he "moved to a village named Sharafat on the outskirts of Jerusalem ..." Given that the Jerusalem of the 13th century is not the Jerusalem of today (its boundaries have been expanded more than tenfold by Israel), using the "Old City" is one way to differentiate between what Jerusalem was then and what it is now.
2. [12] Kark and Oren-Nordheim use "village" to discuss Sharafat. On page 258, they also describe it as a "hamlet in the Jerusalem region". Tiamut^talk 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. [13] Hoda Lutfi describes it as "al-Sharafat village in the vicinity of al-Quds" in the context of its 14th century dedication to the Badriyya family as a waqf. Tiamut^talk 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. [14] Ma'oz and Nusseibeh's work lists Sharafat in a table entitled "Palestinian communities in the Jerusalem District", and in the column "type", the entry for Sharafat reads: "village". Tiamut^talk 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have reviewed the literature, let me respond to the points you raised, one by one.

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.

As you can see from the sources cited above, the majority of sources refer to Sharafat as both "Palestinian" and a "village". I haven't reviewed what the majority of sources say about Umm al-Fahm (and that's not really relevant to our discussion here, is it?)

About the issue regarding "outskirts of Jerusalem" as more accurate than "outskirts of the Old City of Jerusalem", I've changed the text to read, "in the vicinity of the Old City of Jerusalem". As I explained above, the Jerusalem of historic Palestine is much smaller than the Jerusalem of Israel today. I'd prefer not to confuse the reader by leading them to an article on a modern megalopolis whose boundaries extend far beyond that of the historic 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 think you can see from the sampling of sources above that even if that were true (and it is not, Cohen does describe Sharafat as a "Palestinian village"), there are ample other sources that do use this description as well.

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.

As you can see, reliable sources freely call the village "Palestinian". This is because its inhabitants overwhelmingly identify as such, not because it belongs to the PA. As you can see from the sources though, while it is not administered by the PA, it is claimed by them as part of their Jerusalem Governorate, and some of ths sources indicate that Sharafat properly forms part of occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. the territory east of the GReen Line occupied by Israel in 1967).

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?

No. Reliable sources call the territory occupied by Isral in 1967 "occupied". They don't do that when it comes to Jordan. You are mixing apples and oranges.

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?

Is there a source that says Sharafat in located in "southern Jerusalem"? I don't see one above. If you have one, please provide it, so we can consider including that opinion as well. Tiamut^talk 12:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

1. I am satisfied that enough sources use the word Palestinian. Leave it if you wish, but please source each statement to its actual source, not to another source. It just creates confusion.
2. There are ample sources which describe Jordanian rule over the area as "occupation", like this one, or Foreign Affairs, vol. 58, p. 956 (hopefully working link): "Jordan occupied the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 and purported to annex it in 1951. But only Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank". In any case, this isn't a WP:RS issue as there are enough sources describing both as occupation; rather, it's a neutrality issue. It is slander to refer to one as "occupation" and another with a different word like "rule", which implies legitimacy, despite the fact that it was only recognized by Pakistan, and later Britain.
3. It's funny that you ask about sources for saying that Sharafat is in southern Jerusalem. Assuming that you read the sources that you yourself used in the article, several of them say that it's in southern Jerusalem. For example, here Cohen explains that Gilo/Sharafat are in the south. Also, the map that you used fairly clearly shows Sharafat in the south. Please keep in mind that the term East Jerusalem refers to the north, east and south of the city (as can be seen on your map).

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for conceding the point about "Palestinian". I'll do as you've asked and place citations supporting that phrasing directly after the sentence shortly.
2. I'll look at the issue of "occupation" in reference to Jordan's rule most closely and get back to you about that.
3. Cohen does not say that Sharafat is in south Jerusalem. The phrasing he uses is as follows: "Gilo, located on the land of the village of Sharafat (among others) anchored the city from the south, and, with its expansion over the years, formed a wedge between Jerusalem and Beit Jalla/Bethelehem." This wording indicates that Gilo does not form part of Jerusalem, but rather that is located directly to the south of Jerusalem. If Gilo were part of Jerusalem, Cohen would not say it lies between Jerusalem and Beit Jala. The map on the page shows that Sharafat lies east of the Green Line. It is denote as being an Arab area in East Jerusalem (by colour) and Gilo is denoted as being a "Jewish area in East Jerusalem". There is no mention of south Jerusalem. Tiamut^talk 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About "occupation" terminology and when to use it ... google book searches for:

• "Israeli occupation" + "Sharafat" garner 16 hits
• "Jordanian occupation" + "Sharafat" get 0 hits

Furthermore, above, there are a number of sources who are used and cited in the article that refer to Sharafat being a part of "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (referring in this case to the territory occupied by Israel after 1967). There are none that characterize Jordan's rule over Sharafat as an occupation.

In short, I do not think it is NPOV to use the term occupation with regard to Jordan's rule over Sharafat. The inhabitants certainly did not see Jordanian rule as an occupation and the United Nations did not use that terminology to describe it. Conversely, in the case of Israeli rule over Sharafat, the United Nations does not hesitate to use the word "occupation" and the residents overwhelmingly see Israeli rule in those terms. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1. By "southern Jerusalem" I didn't mean specifically that phrase, but the point that Sharafat is in the south, not the east. Look at the map again if you don't believe me. The phrase "south of West Jerusalem" (or a variation thereof) would also do.
2. About occupation: It was a neutrality issue all along, as I said before. I could live with using the term occupation for Israel somewhere as it's more commonly used (this I admit), however, when it's used as every second word in some sentences, it's a POV caricature of the real picture. Especially problematic is the use of the word in the title of a section—a section which, in fact, has nothing to do with occupation, and merely lists a number of individual incidents. I believe the section should be titled something like "Incidents after 1967", or if you plan to insert more information there, then "1967 war and after", or something like that.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the title heading is a fair one. I will change it to "1967 war and aftermath". Tiamut^talk 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Things to add

• [15] (Lutfi, p. 109) indicates that patches of grass and dry scrubby land in the village made it ideal pastureland for livestock. There are also sinppet references in other books indicating that the inhabitants were agriculturalists and pastoralists well into the 20th century. I can't see the full text however. If anyone has more information that would help construct a section on this topic, that would be great. Tiamut^talk 14:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• 1943 British census (for animals?) counted nine adult donkeys and one draft cow. I've asked Zero0000 if he knows about the 1943 census to see what we can add from there. Tiamut^talk 14:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Just like all other articles (ie: Ariel (city)) this article should be named properly. A long time ago a user unilaterally moved this from Sharafat (village) to it's current awkward name. It should be moved back so it's the same as other articles. 24.114.235.37 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Palmach photograph

I am not confident about the photograph I have added though the Hebrew seems to identify it as Deir Sharafat. There are two other photographs in the same part of the archive which are also identified as Deir Sharafat. They are of a monastry with a tall statue of The Virgin Mary on top of a tower. She is visible in the photo posted. But there is no mention of a monastry in the article. Padres Hana (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)