Talk:Sheikh Jarrah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seth Frantzman opinion piece being reported as fact[edit]

The following is being sourced entirely from a Seth Frantzman opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post:

In the late 19th century, Sheikh Jarrah incorporated the Jewish neighborhoods of Shimon HaTzadik, founded in 1876; Nahalat Shimon, founded in 1891, and villas owned by leading Arab families. The Husseini family owned six homes east of Saladin Street. In 1918 there were eighteen Arab families living in Sheikh Jarrah. The neighborhood was predominately Jewish until 1948 when the Jews fled following attacks by Arab militiamen.

Per Wikipedia standards regarding reliable sources, opinion pieces in newspapers can not be used as reliable sources about historical facts, but only about what the author believes. It's also interesting to note that Frantzman is neither a historian or an academic but a somewhat controversial journalist. I will remove the material until an adequate source can be found to support it. Factsontheground (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the editor of the newspaper that publishes the opinion pieces post responses that can verify or discredit what is said in the opinion piece? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely ridiculous. Everyone knows that Sheikh Jarrah was predominantly an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem before 1948. Just because some settler spokesman gets to publish some propaganda in JP doesn't make any difference. The editors of JP only have to consult their own newspaper to see the truth. Practically every mention of Sheikh Jarrah before 1948 was in relation to Arab affairs and it is regularly referred to as an Arab quarter (example: PP Jan 21, 1948, p2). As for "Sheikh Jarrah incorporated the Jewish neighborhoods...Nahalat Shimon", this is just puffery. Sheikh Jarrah was not an administrative district, so what does "incorporated" mean? (Answer: nothing.) And how does one explain the clear distinction made in reports, for example "inhabitants of the Nahlat Shimon Quarter of Jerusalem told the police following a heavy attack from the nearby Sheikh Jarrah Quarter" (PP, Mar 7, 1948, p4)? It contradicts Franzman's crazy claims. Also see File:Jerusalem1947.png. Etc etc. Zerotalk 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I collected about 15 excellent sources that describe SJ as an Arab neighborhood during the Mandate period (not even as a mixed neighborhood, though there were some Jews living there in 1948). Also some excellent historical information; example: in 1905 SJ was the "main concentration of Muslims living outside the walled city" with 167 families. (Ruth Kark and Michal Oren-Nordheim, Jerusalem and its environs: quarters, neighborhoods, villages, 1800-1948; p121) Zerotalk 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A blog by a non notable person is not a reliable source so I have reverted the latest edit by Breein1007. – – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are jumping the gun; as you know, you don't have ultimate say on what constitutes a RS. I invite you to join the discussion at WP:RSN about this issue. At this point, I won't be perpetuating the edit war that you have continued here, but if the conclusion is reached that this is a RS, I will be reinserting the material in the article unless someone beats me to it. Breein1007 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Jarrah did indeed incorporate Nahalat Shimon in early enumerations, as well as a number of other localities that have since been forgotten. The two were first separated by the 1931 census, which used the road as a border. This turned dozens of Muslims into residents of the Jewish neighborhood. In said census, SJ had 465 residents, including 24 Christians and 4 Jews, while NS had 496 residents, including 94 Muslims and 4 Christians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.225.246 (talk • contribs)
These numbers do not appear in the official enumeration. Where did you get them? Zerotalk 12:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence that doesn't make sense[edit]

"After the death of George Antonius in 1942, the house became a meeting place for Jerusalem's elite, although Israeli citizens were not permited to live there." Israel came into existence in 1948, so how could Israeli citizens not have been allowed to live there? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Jerusalem is not in Israel[edit]

Brewcrewer, just because Israel controls East Jerusalem, does not mean its part of Israel. This is rejected by the international community:[1]. According to Wikipedia policy npov we should follow the worldview: [2]. Your claim that its in Israel is a clear pov statement and violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, but with a more civil section name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have showed you a reliable source and Wikipedia policy above. Are you gonna bring a policy based argument or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not understand what I said?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The inflammatory section name was changed by User: Supreme Deliciousness [3], thus creating the misleading context above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on ladies. Let's not bicker. I find some sympathy with Brew's POV here. I mean, if it's policed and run by Israelis, and Israelis move freely throughout, it would seem per WP:DUCK that it is part of Israel; however, the counterpoint might be something like Western Sahara. Large parts of that territory are de facto Moroccan, yet we don't call it Morocco, we call it Western Sahara, largely because that's what the international community recognizes it to be.
I think the only way to really settle this would be through strict application of W:V. How many sources can we dredge up calling it part of Israel versus though who call it just part of East Jerusalem. Search engine test perhaps? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an important distinction between the two. Western Saraha is basically uninhabited. There really aren't any Moroccan police officers, Moroccan government garbage collectors, Moroccan government post offices. On the other hand, Jerusalem is a thriving city run by the Israeli government, with Israeli government police officers, Israeli post offices, etc. Thus, any attempt to remove "Israel" from an article on an area run by the Israeli government belies reality and is thus a POV push of the highest order. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your personal opinion of the situation and your personal opinion that it makes it "in Israel". Thats not the worldview of the situation as shown in a reliable source above, Wikipedia policy as linked to above says we should follow the worldview, not personal opinions of Wikipedia users.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
huh? which government hires and pays the garbagemen that pick up all the garbage, in your opinion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that who hires and pays the garbagemen makes it "in" that country is your personal opinion. The reliable source, the international community says something else.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a source that says the de-facto governing entity is irrelevant to its Wikipedia article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to get a source that says that? Wikipedia policy says that we should follow the worldview, and I have provided a source showing the vast majority of the international view saying its part of the Palestinian territories, and you have not provided any Wikipedia policy and source supporting your pov. You would need to get a reliable source showing that the international community views it as part of Israel if you would like the article to say that its "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source that says that Israel's de facto governship is wholly irrelevant. It's that simple.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Based on Wikipedia policy npov I linked to above, we need a source showing the world view, and a source showing the vast majority of the international community saying its Palestinian has been provided above. No source has been provided for even one country saying its part of Israel. And no one is saying that Israel isn't controlling it, but control doesn't mean its part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"And no one is saying that Israel isn't controlling it" It's this admission that I was waiting for, though our NPOV policy would prefer the more neutral "govern" then "control," "rule over", "grip", and other such fighting words. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@brew - "Western Saraha is basically uninhabited." - Parts of it have significant populations. El Aaiún has a population of half a million and is "administered" by Morocco (i.e. they pay the garbage men). It is still in pretty commonly reffered to as being part of Western Sahara.
Regardless, I think we should try to concentrate on a fair way resolve this debate. I like the idea of search engine testing; however, if you guys want to keep on battling it out, that's fine too.

Sheikh Jarrah is in East Jerusalem, the article itself contains a line that During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem, including Sheikh Jarrah. Sources that say Sheik Jarrah is in East Jerusalem are as follows:

I can keep going if you like. nableezy - 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep going if you like, and if you like you can also respond to the issues raised. The issue is not "East Jerusalem" vs. "Jerusalem." The issue is whether all mention of Israel should be removed from this article despite the fact that Israel is the governing entity. Hope this makes things clear for you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly feel free to say "in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem." What you should not feel free to do is to say that this neighborhood which is in East Jerusalem (ie not in Israel) is in "Jerusalem, Israel" as you reverted to do earlier. nableezy - 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your revert (despite not saying so in your edit summary), you removed all mention of Israel, making this sort of a pot calling the kettle black situation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed an inaccurate location as this place is not in Israel. Whereas I removed an incorrect location added first by Reenem and then reverted by your good self, you reinserted a blatant falsehood into an encyclopedia article. But as you seem to want to include the word "Israel" for a place not in Israel, would you like me to add "Israeli-occupied" to the location in the lead? nableezy - 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I thought. nableezy - 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There shouldn't be constant battling over every article on an East Jerusalem neighborhood or West Bank town that has been included in "Greater Jerusalem." Garbage and mail services aside, East Jerusalem is not recognized as being a legal part of Israel. For the world and the Palestinians who inhabit East Jerusalem, including Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territories like the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That's the legal standpoint and that's the consensus. Details on the status of East Jerusalem, both in legal terms and facts on the ground (Israeli administration/occupation), should be discussed in the appropriate articles: Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. This article should state in its lead "Sheikh Jarrah is a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem." I'm not a big fan of the search engine technique and I think we should use reliable secondary sources, scholarly sources, UN sources, and the like instead of a web count, to help settle the issue of East Jerusalem's status on Wikipedia—which, again, should be discussed at the appropriate article's talk page. BTW, I think even a web count would support the notion that East Jerusalem is indeed Palestinian. Keep in mind, Israel's tangible control over and administration of Sheikh Jarrah obviously needs to be included in the article as does Israel's view on the matter. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel pays the garbage collectors in Israeli Settlements, but we don't say that they are "in Israel". They only difference between the two is that Israel annexed East Jerusalem and has not annexed the West Bank. Forget about the overwhelming amount of worldview sources showing that it is a Palestinian Neighborhood in East Jerusalem, if we don't say it for Israeli Settlements, than we should not say it for East Jerusalem. -asad (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no? -asad (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

This article is bogged down by inflated sections and heaps of irrelevant detail that create a totally disproportionate focus on one aspect of the neighborhood. I have pared down some of it, but much remains to be done.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should have more people expanding and cleaning up content, and your efforts are appreciated ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested addition[edit]

Could someone add an entry for the Cave of the Minor Sanhedrin in the "Shrines and tombs" section? I can't add it myself due to the lock status. Thanks.

Suggested text: "Adjacent to the tomb of Shimon HaTzadik is the Cave of the Minor Sanhedrin, another ancient burial site." Ar2332 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that the article totally lack sources, and has done so for years. It should probably be getting a WP:AfD-template; I suspect that would get the sources coming? Huldra (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non accurate quote of source[edit]

Quote: This was done in accordance with a deal reached between Jordan and UNRWA which stipulated that the refugee status of the families will be renounced in exchange for titles for ownership of the new houses after 3 years of residency.[19]”

Quote from source: “However, that did not take place and in 1967 Jordan lost its mandate as East Jerusalem was occupied by Israel.”

The writing is staged. A neutral writer is needed to defend the real full truth of the case. Hanson417 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staged seems like an unwarranted characterization for what could have easily been a slip up. However I have added mention that the exchange did not take place, as the source does indeed state that. NonReproBlue (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mosque[edit]

Sheikh Jarrah and the American Colony in Jerusalem - Survey of Palestine-north-east-sheet (cropped)

I think we are overdue an article about the Sheikh Jarrah mosque. Interestingly, the mosque seems to be located in the American Colony rather than in Sheikh Jarrah, at least according to this 1945 SoP map. The mosque is marked M, just south of the pill box (see modern street view here [4]).

@Zero0000: have you ever looked into this? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see an edit a decade ago [5] stating that the mosque is at the "entrance" to Sheikh Jarrah. It still seems strange to me, with Nahalat Shimon and a large open space between the mosque and the built up Sheikh Jarrah area. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: I understand that the mosque marks the tomb of Sheikh Jarrah, which was there for much longer than either the "modern" Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood or the American Colony. I don't find it strange that the 19th century development occurred somewhat to the north of the mosque. Yes, an article would be nice if enough sources can be found. Zerotalk 03:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021[edit]

The page in English was edited and is now FULL of lies, this is not history, this is a pure antisemitism. Please delete the part that says that Israel is working to replace the population since 1967, this is NOT true!!!!!

It is currently the center of a number of property disputes between Palestinians and Israelis; Israeli nationalists have been working to replace the Palestinian population in the area since 1967.[4] Over a period of five decades, a number of Israeli settlements have been built in and adjacent to Sheikh Jarrah.[5]

The truth—-

The site of Shimon HaTzadik’s tomb was recognized as Jewish territory during 20 the Ottoman era, and the Arabs termed in “Al-Yahudiyyah” (the Jewish [place]). The site was Arab-owned throughout these years and testimonies from the 19th century indicated that Jews who visited the site received a key to the cave from the “Ishmaelite” owner for which they were required to pay a symbolic entrance fee, ������ as “payment for damages” because of the harm that visitors caused to the trees and vegetation that grew in the ���� near the tomb.21 In 1876 the heads of the “Sephardic Community Council” and the heads of the Ashkenazi “General Council of the Congregation of Israel” united and, for 16,000 francs, jointly purchased the cave of Shimon HaTzadik and the cave of the Small Sanhedrin, as well as 17.5 dunam (one dunam is about 1⁄4 of an acre) located nearby. According to the contract signed between the trusts following this purchase, it was agreed to divide the territory between the two Jewish communities (not by parceling and registering ownership but as an internal arrangement) with the exception of the caves, which were ������ as joint property. The entire property was registered with the Ottoman authorities in the name of Rabbi Avraham Ashkenazi.

Source: https://jerusaleminstitute.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PUB_sheikhjarrah_eng.pdf 77.124.49.80 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: A few times contour revision, the characters that you are using are showing up as boxes i.e. are not supported on all devices and browsers. Please can you change them to the correct format. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done the Israeli think tank cited by the IP, Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, clearly confirms on pages 25-31 the sentence that the IP is objecting to. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Mohammed El-Kurd article[edit]

This article references Mohammed El-Kurd. We recently created an article about him, and this article should link to it, as it's an orphan right now. I don't have edit permissions here, so I'll leave it up to who does have those permissions. Many thanks! --Majdal.cc (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021[edit]

not to be confused with eviction dispute between two NGO's and 6 arab families over 6 houses in the near jewish neighbourhood "Shimon the just" see the page "shimon the just". Huyjdjdjfjfjfjdjdjb$4 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request (09 Dec 2021)[edit]

Hi, I would like to change the following passage due to an incorrect (and lacking citations) claim in the "Jordanian and Israeli control" section:

" The Minister of Justice stated that "if the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property in East Jerusalem sold a house to someone and received money, this house will not be returned”, implying that the deal with UNRWA would be respected.[22] Nevertheless, in 1972, the Sephardic Community Committee and the Knesset Yisrael Committee went to court to contest the ownership of the property in the neighborhood. In 1982, they demanded rent for this property and the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in their favor. The tenants were allowed to remain as long as they paid rent."

The section "...Nevertheless.." implies that the residents of Sheikh Jarrah that were involved in the supreme court purchased their houses from the Jordanian Government (due to the preceding sentence and the word 'Nevertheless'). However, this claim is factually incorrect: the Jordanian government *leased* this house, rather than sold it, which is what enabled and led to it appearing before the Israeli supreme court. Citation A - skip to page 78, they have a scanned copy of the agreement between the Jordanian Government and UNRWA, stating its nature as a lease. Citation B - skip to Part 2 second bullet:

"...and that the agreement with the families is an agreement under the concept of rent and lease for a period of only three years..." and "Following the expiration of the 3 years period ... demanded the Jordanian Land Department to register the houses under their names... until the Director of the Land Department discovered conflicting papers and documents". In other words, the houses in question were never formally sold to the Palestinians living there, hence enabling it to reach the Israeli Supreme court (see first sentence of edit request).


Suggested sentence: replace the word "Nevertheless" with "Specifically in the case of Sheikh Jarrah, the houses in question were leased to the Palestinians rather than sold, hence not falling under the Minister of Justice's stated criteria for respecting the Jordanian-UNRWA deal. Because of this, "

If you believe this not to be the case, please provide ample citation. Xland44 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring this request to the talk page of the article Sheikh Jarrah controversy which is devoted to this case, there are many references there to consult and relevant discussions on that page. Although it is true that there was a lease, it is not quite as simple as that, and your phrasing "hence enabling it to reach the Israeli Supreme court" rather overlooks the illegal (under international law) methods used by the Israeli government to bring this about. Once we have an agreement at that page, then we can summarize it and introduce it here in this article. This will avoid litigating the entire affair all over again at this page which is principally about the place not the legal issue. Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selfstudier, thanks for commenting on my request. To clarify, this request isn't intended to justify, support, debate, or comment on the Israeli Government's actions in any way or form, merely to correct an uncited claim. The article currently claims that the cases' arrival in the Supreme Court directly contradicts the directives stated by the Israeli Minister of Justice. To put in simpler terms, the article currently states that its presence in the Israeli Supreme Court is breaching *national* directives and law. As mentioned in the request, the case reached the israel supreme court as per national israeli laws, rather than in spite of them, unlike the quoted claim.

The matter of breaching *international* law is outside the scope of this edit request, and is not something this edit request is attempting to comment on in any way or form, whether directly or indirectly.As such, I believe that this edit request is still relevant to this page, and if it is not, please add or provide a citation to the currently-uncited claim. Thanks, Xland44 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it will be better if this is first sorted out at the main page for this matter, Sheikh Jarrah controversy and only then here, the material here is wrong in various respects, rather than doing everything twice, better to do it at the "main" article. Material here should only be a summary of the material there. If you like we can simply delete the majority of material that is here and then make a summary of the other for inclusion here, at least that's the way it's supposed to work usually.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have deleted the material that has no citation.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For information, I have included at Sheikh Jarrah controversy this ref..[1]..to clarify the relevant agreements.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dispossession & eviction in Jerusalem :The cases and stories of Sheikh Jarrah (PDF) (Report). The Civic Coalition for Defending Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem. December 2009. A set of three independent contractual agreements defined the project's inception and underpinned the legal status of the families' residency in Sheikh Jarrah. The first agreement was between the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property and the Minister of Public Works and Housing through which the Custodian released the property to the Minister for a period of 33 years, allowing them to lease the land to the Palestinian refugees. In the second agreement, between the Minister for Public Works and Housing and UNRWA, the latter agreed to fund the construction of the homes in Sheikh Jarrah.The third and final agreement was between both the Minister of Public Works and UNRWA, and the 28 Palestinian families. The agreement stipulated that in exchange for nominal rental payments, adherence to various conditions, and the forfeiture of their refugee ration cards, the families would lease the homes for three years at which point they would then receive legal title to the property. After the indicated duration lapsed the families did not receive legal title to the homes despite having kept to the terms of the contract.
I have rejigged the material here, all that needs doing now is to put here a summary of the material from Sheikh Jarrah controversy article when it is ready.Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the whole story?[edit]

Why isn’t the fact that Jews actually did buy the land isn’t mentioned. What about the fact that the squatters were supposed to pay rent which they haven’t for 50 years, and that finally the court allowed to get the squatters out?

Propaganda piece, meant to gaslight readers. 100.35.162.227 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Sheikh Jarrah controversy.Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not mentioned here, though? This article is overwhelmly Palestinian POV. 2A00:A040:197:1220:18C:B1B3:1E1A:C14E (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned here and a link provided to the details.Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request: The page is filled with Palestinian POV, for Wikipedian neutrality, the Israeli POV should also be presented[edit]

2A00:A040:197:1220:18C:B1B3:1E1A:C14E (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idk what this means.Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2022[edit]

In the Jordanian and Israeli control section, it said there were 2021 clashes in March, but it was actually in May. fix it. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023[edit]

Change the part about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem link on the part about the hotel to that of Amin al-Husseini's rather than just the general Grand Mufti of Jerusalem wiki page. Whatoaejfeas (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheikh_Jarrah&oldid=1203003982"