Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Israeli law in the West Bank settlements[edit]
... that as a result of Enclave law, Israeli civil law in the West Bank applies only to Israeli settlers?Source: John Ehrenberg; Yoav Peled (29 July 2016). Israel and Palestine: Alternative Perspectives on Statehood. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 192–. ISBN 978-1-4422-4508-2.
Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC).
- Comment:This clearly not true as it applies to Palestinians as well for example minimum wage. --Shrike (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your statement is incorrect. Per the source provided by Icewhiz below, "a 2008 high court ruling that Israeli labor laws apply to relations between Palestinian workers and Israeli employers in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem". So Palestinians are not covered by these laws unless they are within the Israeli settlement enclaves. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) Hook issues - there are three issues with the hook. The first is that "Enclave law" is an informal term always or almost always scare-quoted in sources (including the source cited above) - there is no single "enclave law" - it is a very large amalgamation of legislation (that applies Israeli code, e.g. the income tax, on Israeli residents of the Area) and military orders (that extends Israeli legislation to areas under the military commander). Second - saying this "applies only to Israeli settlers" is incorrect - even per the simplistic source cited this also applies to Israeli settlements. For instance, Israeli labour law applies to Palestinian workers in settlements and industrial zones - e.g.
And for the roughly 3,300 Palestinians who work in Barkan, the appeal is clear. They are treated equally in the workplace, earning the same salaries and benefits as their Israeli counterparts under Israeli law.
NYT or Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011. Third - not all Israeli civil law applies - but large portions - see this source, for examples see - this and this for examples of legislation that do not apply. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- See amended version below, reflecting Icewhiz’s points. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
... that as a result of Enclave laws in the West Bank, large portions of Israeli civil law apply only within Israeli settlements...?
- I would suggest -
... that through a process of "Enclave law", large portions of Israeli civil law applies to Israelis and Israeli settlements in the West Bank...?
- The stmt of "only within Israeli settlements" is incorrect - e.g. Amira Hass who resides in Ramallah is liable for Israeli income tax (as well as other legislation (usually - obligations) applied to Israeli citizens in the area) as it applies to any income of an Israeli citizen in the Area (is also explicitly includes area A) - income tax code, clause 3A. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is a good improvement, thanks. Two points:
- (1) Under your revised formulation of both Israeli residents and settlements, the word “only” can now be correctly added back.
- (2) I haven’t seen a source for the word “process” here, unless applied to the “pipelining” method discussed in the article. So we could say “through a process of pipelining of Enclave law...”
- Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Point 1 - I would avoid "only", as it may be imprecise in other regards (e.g. some possible aspects of roads in area C come to mind) and I don't think it would clear with such wording that portions of Israeli law applies to Palestinians when they are in israeli settlements/zones. As for point 2 - I am not married to "process" (which is also somewhat imprecise) - however I do take issue with "Enclave laws" or "Enclave law" as an entity - there is no such entity at present and hasn't been - what there is (and one of the sources used "pipelining" for only one aspect of this - the military ordinances) is a hodgepodge of Israeli legislation applying obligations to Israeli citizens/residents in the area as well as military ordinances ("pipelines") applying copies of the Israeli law to areas under the authority of the military commander. Rubenstein (who is the original for this quote) described the resulting situation as "enclave law". "enclave law" refers to the situation created by the amalgamation of legislation - but not to the legislation itself (e.g. see the example I linked to from the tax law [1] - at a random point in 1978 the Knesset applied this specific bill to Israeli residents/citizens in the Area by adding a very small clause to bill (they then fixed this in 1994 to clarify the situation due to Oslo, and also updated following unrelated tax changes (e.g. the move from territorial taxation to worldwide personal taxation in 2002). On the VAT bill - [2] - they added a similar clause - but at a different random point in 1986 (and again, updated in 1994 due to Oslo). We could perhaps refer to a resulted in a situation of "Enclave Law" ? Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Lest I be accused of OR above - per Israeli police traffic enforcement guide (page 3 in the PDF) - enforcement in Area C vs. Palestinian citizens is exactly the same as in Israel with the exception of changing the law/ordinance name (פקודת התעבורה turns into צו בדבר התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון) - and "תקנות התעבורה" turns into "תקנות התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון)" - however clause numbering is the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Your “resulted in” formulation would require a restructuring of the sentence - do you have something in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about -
- ALT1
... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "Enclave law" to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territories? - ALT2
... that the term "Enclave law" has heen used to describe the application of large portions of Israeli civil law to Israelis and Israeli settlements in the West Bank? - The first follows the description in ACRI of what Rubenstein wrote in 87. The second is more contemporary.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Either fine with me. It would be nice to end ALT1 with "in place of the word apartheid", using the two sources at the bottom of the article, but something tells me you might object to that!
- A DYK reviewer is best placed to decide between the two options. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tying in Jeff Halper's or Jonathan Cook's opinions onto Rubenstein would be a BLP issue vs. Rubenstein. Both are probably undue in the article regardless. But I'm happy we're at agreement regarding the hook.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Your “resulted in” formulation would require a restructuring of the sentence - do you have something in mind? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Lest I be accused of OR above - per Israeli police traffic enforcement guide (page 3 in the PDF) - enforcement in Area C vs. Palestinian citizens is exactly the same as in Israel with the exception of changing the law/ordinance name (פקודת התעבורה turns into צו בדבר התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון) - and "תקנות התעבורה" turns into "תקנות התעבורה (יהודה ושומרון)" - however clause numbering is the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Point 1 - I would avoid "only", as it may be imprecise in other regards (e.g. some possible aspects of roads in area C come to mind) and I don't think it would clear with such wording that portions of Israeli law applies to Palestinians when they are in israeli settlements/zones. As for point 2 - I am not married to "process" (which is also somewhat imprecise) - however I do take issue with "Enclave laws" or "Enclave law" as an entity - there is no such entity at present and hasn't been - what there is (and one of the sources used "pipelining" for only one aspect of this - the military ordinances) is a hodgepodge of Israeli legislation applying obligations to Israeli citizens/residents in the area as well as military ordinances ("pipelines") applying copies of the Israeli law to areas under the authority of the military commander. Rubenstein (who is the original for this quote) described the resulting situation as "enclave law". "enclave law" refers to the situation created by the amalgamation of legislation - but not to the legislation itself (e.g. see the example I linked to from the tax law [1] - at a random point in 1978 the Knesset applied this specific bill to Israeli residents/citizens in the Area by adding a very small clause to bill (they then fixed this in 1994 to clarify the situation due to Oslo, and also updated following unrelated tax changes (e.g. the move from territorial taxation to worldwide personal taxation in 2002). On the VAT bill - [2] - they added a similar clause - but at a different random point in 1986 (and again, updated in 1994 due to Oslo). We could perhaps refer to a resulted in a situation of "Enclave Law" ? Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would suggest -
New reviewer requested. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, there is an outstanding merge proposal and multiple cleanup tags in the article. Given the sensitivity of the topic, strongly recommend resolving them before asking for another review. Catrìona (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: Hi Catriona, the clean up is now complete. The merge proposal did not gain consensus, and the tags have been resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- General eligibility:
- @Catrìona: Hi Catriona, the clean up is now complete. The merge proposal did not gain consensus, and the tags have been resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Slightly over required 1500 characters readable prose, but I would consider this a stub. It just doesn't give much information.
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Striking rejected hooks. Strongly recommend against the word "apartheid" which is highly/unecessarily controversial, even in terms of an analogy. Should it be "Enclave law" or "enclave law"? Catrìona (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Catrìona. I think lower case is better. Per readable prose, I will lengthen it from the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please note the ongoing discussion at Talk:Enclave_law#Concept_vs_terminology_-_source_dispute. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Onceinawhile, given that the article has been moved to Israeli law in the West Bank settlements, please propose updated or new hooks that incorporate the new name. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- alt1 and alt2 updated/trimmed -
- ALT3 ... that Amnon Rubinstein coined the term "enclave law" to describe Israeli law in the West Bank settlements?
- ALT4 ... that the term "enclave law" has been used to describe Israeli law in the West Bank settlements?
- Icewhiz (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I support either of these proposal. I would like to suggest that Icewhiz and Shrike are also given DYK credit for this nomination, given their efforts in collaboration here. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Mifter: reminding you about this in case you have a chance to review. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Both hooks look good. The article appears to meet the length and other requirements for a main page appearance. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 14:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Onceinawhile want to propose additional changes [3] to the article that maybe controversial so I am not sure it wise to promote till we have a stable version of the article --Shrike (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mifter: reminding you about this in case you have a chance to review. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I support either of these proposal. I would like to suggest that Icewhiz and Shrike are also given DYK credit for this nomination, given their efforts in collaboration here. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- alt1 and alt2 updated/trimmed -
Thanks Shrike, I missed that. Honestly, I would be in favor of scrapping this nomination. It's been open since 15 October last year and is not really "new" by any stretch of the imagination. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: this nomination has been unchanged since 4 December. It doesn’t seem to be fair that my nomination suffers when there’s nothing I could have done? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, considering the non-stability of the article and the fact that it's been up for three months, it might be for the best to take up Buidhe's recommendation and let this be closed as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: there have been just four edits to the article in the last month, one of which was a minor copy edit. That is very stable. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Shrike: has some outstanding issues with the article and this can't be approved unless those are lifted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:I think its OK if no one will make substantial changes.It may be wise to get this article protected till the DYK is over --Shrike (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure about that: with very few exceptions, pre-emptive protection is generally frowned upon. I'm aware of ECP for Israel-Palestine related articles though and this may fall under that, but ECP and its implementation is beyond my line of expertise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: what Shrike is saying is that he doesn’t want to see the words “apartheid” or “creeping annexation” in the article while it’s up on DYK. We haven’t had time to discuss it properly, and this DYK has already been delayed far too long. If it will allow us to proceed here, and in light of the long delay to get to this point, I am willing to hold off from that discussion until after the DYK has been and gone. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the active ArbCom discretionary sanctions on anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm not sure if "holding off" would be a good idea. We really need to be careful with how the article is handled especially if it's going to be one that will be on the front page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Narutolovehinata5: please could you explain further? I don’t understand your point. The article has been purged of any strong statements which supporters of Israel prefer are not publicized. As a result the article is stable and bland. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about the obtuseness, this wasn't exactly my expertise, and I'm willing to let another editor take a look at this instead. What I simply meant to say was that Shrike's issues need to be resolved before this can be approved for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: ok, thanks for clarifying. Shrike has said above “its OK if no one will make substantial changes”. And Buidhe marked the article as good to go on 8 January; the article is unchanged from that date. So there is no issue to be resolved. There is a potential issue, which started this side discussion, but I have agreed not to open that until after the DYK has been and gone. So the only thing stopping the article proceeding is your “DYKno” logo above. Please could you consider striking it? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The one who has an objection is Shrike, not me. I'd suggest asking them if their concerns have been addressed; they did mention that quote above, but a confirmation would probably be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Shrike: are you happy to proceed with the DYK on the basis of the above commitment (see my comment at 18:07, 16 January 2019)?
- Onceinawhile (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The one who has an objection is Shrike, not me. I'd suggest asking them if their concerns have been addressed; they did mention that quote above, but a confirmation would probably be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: ok, thanks for clarifying. Shrike has said above “its OK if no one will make substantial changes”. And Buidhe marked the article as good to go on 8 January; the article is unchanged from that date. So there is no issue to be resolved. There is a potential issue, which started this side discussion, but I have agreed not to open that until after the DYK has been and gone. So the only thing stopping the article proceeding is your “DYKno” logo above. Please could you consider striking it? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry about the obtuseness, this wasn't exactly my expertise, and I'm willing to let another editor take a look at this instead. What I simply meant to say was that Shrike's issues need to be resolved before this can be approved for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Narutolovehinata5: please could you explain further? I don’t understand your point. The article has been purged of any strong statements which supporters of Israel prefer are not publicized. As a result the article is stable and bland. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the active ArbCom discretionary sanctions on anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm not sure if "holding off" would be a good idea. We really need to be careful with how the article is handled especially if it's going to be one that will be on the front page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: what Shrike is saying is that he doesn’t want to see the words “apartheid” or “creeping annexation” in the article while it’s up on DYK. We haven’t had time to discuss it properly, and this DYK has already been delayed far too long. If it will allow us to proceed here, and in light of the long delay to get to this point, I am willing to hold off from that discussion until after the DYK has been and gone. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure about that: with very few exceptions, pre-emptive protection is generally frowned upon. I'm aware of ECP for Israel-Palestine related articles though and this may fall under that, but ECP and its implementation is beyond my line of expertise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:I think its OK if no one will make substantial changes.It may be wise to get this article protected till the DYK is over --Shrike (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Shrike: has some outstanding issues with the article and this can't be approved unless those are lifted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: there have been just four edits to the article in the last month, one of which was a minor copy edit. That is very stable. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)