Talk:Israeli Arabs/archive1

Deleted from intro:

Israeli Arabs sometimes consider themselves Palestinian, sometimes Israeli, and sometimes both.

I don't know what consider themselves means. Do they call themselves "Palestinians", and if so what do they mean by that? Palestinian Arabs? Residents of Palestine?

"Israeli" is less troublesome, as it refers to a recognized sovereignty. Hmm, maybe not. Are there any major Islamic countries near by which do not recognize the sovereignty of Israel? Maybe that's the problem.

Anyway, the sentence should be revised and/or moved. It should say something like:

• Some Israeli Arabs call themselves "Palestinian", some "Israeli", and some use both designations.

Does this make sense? --Uncle Ed 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. This makes perfect sense, although previous wording worked also. Zeq 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought the previous description was quite clear: some Israeli Arabs identify with the Israeli nationality and do not consider themselves part of any Palestinian nationality, some say they are of Palestinian nationality and simply happen to live in Israel, while a third group identifies with both the Israeli and Palestinian nationalities. Your proposed description is actually a less inclusive re-wording of the previous (since considering yourself part of a nationality is more than just calling yourself by that nation's name). -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if there were an article on Palestinian nationality then we could link to that. But as there isn't, what then? I come to Wikipedia looking for understanding about the various ethnic and religious groups in Palestine (region) but find much confusing verbiage.

I think I understand a bit about what it means to be "Arabic", unless my stereotype of camels and caravans is utterly mistaken. I've heard of Arabic numerals, the Arab tradition of hospitality. Much of the Arab world (if not most) is intrinsically linked with Islam as well.

What I don't understand is this term "Palestinian" - not in any way that helps me to distinguish the "Palestinian identity" in ethnic, linguistic, or political terms from "Arab". I hesitate to brand it as being manufactured out of whole cloth for political purposes, but I haven't seen a better explanation yet. Perhaps you can steer me in the right direction. --Uncle Ed 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More manufactured than, say, "American"? Regards, Huldra 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I also think that the Palestinian national identity was originally manufactured for political purposes, but currently a lot of people identify with it, and unfortunately this was also caused, in part, by political reality. There actually is an article on the Palestinian national identity, as part of the Palestinian people article. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Ed, I don´t think that your edit: "Human Rights Watch refers to Israeli Arabs as "Palestinian Arabs" [1]" is quite reflected in the ref. article. If you read the article it says that it is some Israeli Arab that defines themselves as "Palestinian Arabs"...Human Rights Watch doesn´t name anybody, they simply reports it, or pass the information along, if you like. Regards, Grandaunt Huldra

I have provided multiple citations to the deleted terms and re-added them. Lokiloki 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lokiloki, even if you provide a million citation for Israeli Arabs being referred to as Palestinian Arabs, it shouldn't be in the lead because the lead should clearly describe how Israeli Arabs can be named, that is, with a name that clearly distinguishes them from other Israelis, and other Arabs. Palestinian Arabs is not a name that distinguishes them from West Bank/Gaza Strip Arabs, or Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who are not Israeli Arabs. I won't delete your edit right now, but please take this into account. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To give an analogy, having your edit in the lead is like saying that The French, also referred to as Eurasians, are a nation in Europe... isn't that completely irrelevant? -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Just as the West Bank article highlights all of the various name possibilities for that area (e.g., Judea and Samaria) in the main intro section, the controversy and conflict necessitates some degree of comprehensiveness in terms of the various names used. As you can probably guess, the other various names are used to reflect different viewpoints (e.g., to not differentiate themselves from other Palestinians elsewhere is presumably one of the goals of one of the other names) and, given the conflict in the region and in the other related topics on WP, it seems prudent to reflect such naming issues upfront. While the naming might be irrelevant to you, it clearly isn't to others who use particular names for particular reasons.

Such usage is not unique to this topic, and we should aim to reflect the construction of other articles. See, for example, Native Americans in the United States ("Native Americans in the United States (also known as Indians, American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Americans, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Original Americans)"), African American, Indian American, First Nations, etc. The use of names is important, and given that many Israeli Arabs, and others, use different names is worthy of record and note up-front.

Lokiloki 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the name without distinction should be presented on par with the other names (and the same extends to those other articles), although I guess if there are many articles which use this, there's not much I can say. Maybe (in an Israel-related context) should be added to that sentence. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Lokiloki 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lokiloki, I looked at the references you brought but unfortunately they did not support your claim. I am awfully sorry about this and did suggest what the references may support. It is all in the edit history. I would appreciate if you can restore my well summarized edits. Regards, gidonb 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, reflected as "Palestinian Arabs within Israel" Lokiloki 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you could derive that from the references but not Palestinian Arabs. This is what I suggested. In Israel would be better than within, however, as it was the common use among the articles. Regards, gidonb 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that I didn't read the entire referenced web article before, but I just glanced at the last section now. It says:

• ...this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" [2]

I think if (1) HRW writes a report and (2) "this report uses" a term, it is equivalent to (3) HRW uses the term - to refer to Israeli Arabs. Thus I consider HRW a primary source for the usage.

Furthermore, HRW says that the terms used for "Israel's Arab citizens" are "highly politicized."

Finally, HRW says:

• this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" because that is how most people we interviewed defined themselves. However, it should be noted that not everyone of Arab origin we interviewed identified herself or himself as Palestinian, and a few rejected the term altogether.

It appears that there is contention over whether there is a generic or neutral term for Arabs who are citizens of Israel.

• Individuals are rejecting the term "Israeli Arab," which is used by the Israeli government, in favor of "Palestinian Arab."

Just glancing at the term from (what I hope is) a neutral perspective, I read "Israeli Arab" or "Arab Israeli" as meaning an Arab who holds Israeli citizenship. It sounds lingustically the same as "Hispanic American", i.e., a person of Latino heritage who is a US citizen.

The term "Palestinian Arab" can mean either:

• an Arab from the region of Palestine, or
• an Arab who identifies politically with the idea of forming a sovereign state in the so-called "Palestinian territories" which aren't yet under sovereignty of any Arab country, i.e., those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which did NOT become Jordan: Gaza, West Bank and possibly also East Jerusalem.

The latter packs a powerful punch - or as HRW says, is "highly politicized".

It's very hard to remain neutral when writing about this sort of thing. Let's keep trying, though. --Uncle Ed 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this first sentence has improved with all the edits the last 24 hrs. However, I am a bit concerned that the HWR report is no longer referenced. This HWR reference [3] is the only one I have seen in this article which actually discuss what the Arab Israeli themselves want to be called (though as a side issue, under "Terminology"). I think that it is generally a good principle to call people by the name(s) they themselves want to be called. If anybody finds/knows of a better reference regarding the communitys view of the name-question; then that would be welcome. In the meantime, perhaps we should reintroduce the HWR-reference? Regards, Ms. Huldra 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (never Mrs. Huldra)[reply]

Related and unrelated. Does anyone object that I move the article from Israeli Arab to Israeli Arabs? Plural is the norm for articles about populations. This is also the first term in the article. gidonb 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. Will a search for "Israeli Arab" still find its way, directly, here? Lokiloki 06:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it becomes a redirect with the name change. gidonb 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in israel know that every monh or so a suicide bomber, an arab, explode in their midst. Most often he arrive at the scene with the help of other Arabs, most likley Israeli Arabs. This cause mistrust. Mistrust is not racism.

While many Arabs live in "Jewish towns" such as Tel-Aviv, not a single jew is allowed to live in Taybe, Um El Phaem, Baka and other Arab towns so please stop the nonsense about "Racism" as far as where people can live. I would agree that it is much harder for an Arab to get a job in Jewish places (hard but not impossible, as most Arabs eventually works inside Israel) but it is almost impossible for a jew to get a job in an Arab town. (mot 100% impossible as few do work there) Zeq 07:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, Are there really "arab towns" or are they arab ghettos? Looking at it from an american perspective, would a jew (american white person) really want a job in an arab town (afro-american 'ghetto')? Is there even a job there that a jew could want? WikiTony 22:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "Ghetto"s. Some towns are among the poorer places in Israel but some are not. In some of them there are large mensions in some there are shacks. Many non-Arabs work there, shop there (this has gone down after in teh 2000 riots Israeli shoppers were attacked, but now it is slightly resumed. Zeq 04:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq- If you made a list of the towns in Israel from wealthiest to poorest, all of the Jewish towns would top all of the Arab towns in Israel. The poorest Jewish town is better off than the wealthiest Arab one. -Matt

Poll result can be manipulated by choosing how to ask questions and how to interpret respondent that are not so sure. I suggest to remove the poll results about Racism as it is noting more than a PR stunt commisioned by a an organization that has an agenda. Zeq 07:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: They were reported in a presumably neutral source, Ha'aretz, and, like polls used in many other places in Wikipedia, attempt to quantify the discrimination of Israeli Arabs. If you feel that the polls are biased, please provide citations for such. I have provided citations. Lokiloki 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I did not delete it just NPOV the languge. Clearly the poll itself is not worth much but if you want to inculde it I moved it to the appropriate section in correct terminology. Zeq 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since some groups say that Israeli Arabs is a term favored by one side and opposed by another side, then how about moving the article to Arab citizens of Israel?

The intro of the article should indicate that there is a dispute between side A and side B about what these Arab citizens ought to be called.

Does Wikipedia have a policy on names for groups? Do we contributors go with:

• what the group says they want to call themselves; or,
• what most English speakers call them; or,
• ?????

A Human Rights Watch article claims they interviewed these people (can I say "these people" or will someone take offense?) - and that some objected to the term "Israeli Arabs" while others did not.

• this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" because that is how most people we interviewed defined themselves. [4]

Please note that a page move will leave a redirect in place, so existing articles need not be changed. Any reference to:

• Israeli Arabs will link automatically to
• Arab citizens of Israel

Is this a good idea? Will it make things more clear for our readers? Will it be neutral, or will it endorse a particular point of view? --Uncle Ed 15:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arab citizens of Israel is more neutral, because there are some Arabs in Israel who don't want to be called Israeli, but on the other hand, Israeli Arab is a much more common term. So, I'm staying neutral for now (with leanings to oppose), although this could change. By the way, you can always make Arab citizens of Israel redirect here... it says both names in the lead section. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any difference between Israeli Arabs and Arab Citizens of Israel. The "Israeli" part of Israeli Arabs implies that they are citizens. There is absolutely no problem here. -Matt

Cut from intro:

Israeli Arabs are full citizens of the State of Israel, with equal protection under the law, and full rights of due process.

Is this assertion universally accepted, or is it a claim made by boosters of Israel? I seem to recall claims of legal discrimination, and I'm sure I've heard claims that Arabs are excluded from certain goverment positions.

Perhaps it's like the US in the second half of the 20th century. Laws were passed which said blacks had the same rights as whites, but how long did it take (will it take?) until those rights were actually secured. --Uncle Ed 15:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that sentence is a fact, AFAIK. However, the fact that Arabs don't have to serve in the army (but can volunteer) makes those who didn't serve uneligible for certain government positions (which they often complain about). Actually in this respect, IMO, Arabs have it better than Jews - if they want to, they can volunteer for the army, but they don't need to get Profile 21 if they don't want to serve. Just for the record, Jews who get Profile 21 are also uneligible for the same government positions. Also, Arabs pay less taxes than Jews. They are not entirely discriminated against. However, I don't know of any legal discrimination which contradicts that sentence - which is actually pretty well written in that it does not assert that Israeli Arabs do not face discrimination or get all the same benefits (e.g. infrastructure funding) as Jews, it asserts that they have equal rights under the law, which is true. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, actually they have benefits in getting goverment jobs. Why is it important part of the article: because most people don't realize that such a group (of 1.5 Million) actually exist. They are Both Palestinians and Israeli - which to many is a contrediction. Zeq 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles say that this is a fact "on paper only", similar to the "equal rights" of black sharecroppers circa 1910. Lokiloki 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find good sources and add them. Many Arab citizen who every day use goverment facilities, get social security, use the Israeli court system and vote may not agree with you. It seems you read too much propeganda Zeq 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Orr Commission of Inquiry? [5] Lokiloki 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you get to section 79, 99 and read on.... facanting reading about how the Arab leaders incited the riots. Zeq 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the topic by using questionable distractions. And again, among their findings (of that commission) are:

• "that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'" (I quoted from the article, reference is found there, I hope the user who contributed those quotes don't mind).Zadil 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, can they serve in the Israeli parliament, even rise to the post of prime minister? Can they be judges, even serve in the Supreme Court?

Can they at least vote?

If they leave the country, are they allowed back in?

Are their children automatically citizens of Israel, or must their children convert to Judaism to become Israelis?

These questions interest me. Perhaps they will interest other readers as well. --Uncle Ed 12:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, (and yes , yes yes and yes to all your questions) they are Israeli citizens with equal rights but less obligations. Zeq 13:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an objection I will restore this sentence that Ed had re-removed. Zeq 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do that. Pecher ^Talk 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. As a Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel, with first-hand experience of the discrimination at the airport, where almost everytime my husband and I are pulled over even before getting to the airport building so they can search our car when we say we are from Nazareth (code-word Arab). Or, more generally, consider the fact that we do not get to benefit from low-rate mortgages available to those wishing to be settlers in Modi'in or Ariel, even should we wish to. Low-rate loans are also available in many Jewish areas inside the Green Line, but not in Arab areas inside the Green Line. We cannot even buy land from the quasi-private JNF, who control some 12% of Israel's land base. Even the Israeli state often refuses to sell land to Arabs, who are sometimes forced to go to court to fight for our "equal rights" to be respected and implemented, simply because we are not Jewish. And even when favourable Court opnions are rendered, they often remain unimplemented. I'd say that there is outright, systemic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the failure of the article to address it is amazing. Tiamut 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my cousin went on a trip to Israel and told me only Jews can become citizens of Israel. Does this mean that in other words non-Jews living in Israel before 1948 can be considered citizens of Israel, but no other non-Jews can? Or can only jews be citizens of Israel, period? Thank you, Rakovsky 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rakovsky, Israel has both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and both Jews and non-Jews can and do become citizens of Israel, although for most Jews becoming Israeli is considerably easier than for most non-Jews. Most Israelis are Jewish and most people becoming Israeli are also Jewish. This article discusses the Arab minority in Israel and some of the laws and practices that perhaps brought your cousin to minsinterprete Israeli citizenship. Regards, gidonb 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any person, Jew or non-Jew, who remained in Israel after 1948 is a citizen. Your cousin was probably referring to a recent Israeli law that prohibits any Palestinian from the West Bank and Gaza from citizenship. This law was recently amended to allow some Palestinian men over the age of 35 or 40, and women over 25, to become citizens, but I don't know if it is implemented. As Gidonb said, if you are a Jew, citizenship is automatic. If you are not a Jew, you can apply for naturalization in Israel as you would in any country (which takes effort and time as it would anywhere else), but if you are Palestinian, you are not allowed to apply unless you are above a certain age, whereupon your application can then be submitted but not necessarily (and usually not) approved. Palestinians who want to become Israeli citizens usually do so because of marriage to an Israeli Arab citizen, in order to enable the two spouses to live with each other. The new law has caused many situations where families are separated. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlan Ramallite, thanks for the extra explanations. It may also have been an assumption that the law of return is the exclusive method of becoming Israeli. Some people even think that Israeli and Jewish are synonymous. This relates to the current title of our article because it suggests that Arab Israelis are merely "citizens of Israel" and not actual Israelis. I think it is discriminatory. Do you agree? Regards, gidonb 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have to admit I'm a little lost as to why the title change occurred - was it because some Israeli Arabs don't like to refer to themselves as 'Israeli', and therefore this title is more neutral? On the other hand, from another point of view the title may appear discriminatory as you said. From a WP policy standpoint, the English common name "Israeli Arab" would prevail... and that would also be in line with some other article titles where the common English name is considered 'POV' by some, such as Armenian genocide or Yom Kippur War (although I myself have a problem with neither). In any case, I also have no problem with 'Israeli Arab'. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the law states that a Palestinian may not attain automatic citizenship by marrying an Israeli citizen, unless he/she is aged X or higher (the age was changed several times IIRC). The reasoning behind the law was that it was believed that many young Palestinians created false marriages with Arab Israeli women in order to better be able to assist Hamas etc. in terrorist acts against Israel. I neither oppose nor support this law (both arguments bring up valid points), but I'm fairly sure that a young Palestinian may in fact attain Israeli citizenship through the normal means (e.g. living here for 5 years and then applying). -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yan - actually the law states that no Palestinian at all may receive permission for a residency permit, let alone citizenship. The only exception is in the case of spouses or kids of Israeli citizens, where the applicant spouse must be above 35 (male) or 25 (female) to apply. Other exceptions include medical treatment, or Palestinians who spied on behalf of Israel. The law can be read in English here or in Hebrew here. As for motives, Palestinians question the stated reason (terrorism), and think it is actually because of the so-called 'demographic threat'. Palestinians who are clearly not Hamas/Islamists have been denied permits, including people like Marxists and Christians. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law is based on security concerns not demographic ones. After several suicide bombesr were delivered to their targets but relatives who just got Israeli citizenship the law forbids young people from enemy areas to get citizenship. Zeq 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all countries must put a qouta on the amounts of people it will allow from outside to become citizens, Isreal is no exeption. But since Isreal is a Jewish state, it grants Jews the "right of return" which meens they dont need to go through any major process but can automaticly be eligable for citizenship. Turbonox

It's worth pointing out that Arab Israelis do not have the free choice to form, belong to, or vote for political parties that have not been registered with the state. The state will not register political parties which challenge the "fundamental Jewishness" of the State of Israel. In other words, Israeli Arbas may only vote for political parties which espouse Zionist principles.

Are non-Arab Israelis free to form, belong to, or vote for political parties that have not been registered with the state? Can non-Arab Israelis vote for political parties which don't espouse Zionist principles? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of question is this ?

There are no special limitations on Arabs to form any party they want

The article already sais that they are equal citizens. Any limitation (if such exist) is on any citizen Jew or Arab or Budhist or whatever.

Can "they" vote for a party not registed with the state ?

What kind of question is that ?

Can anyone, in any country, vote for a party that is not registed ? How the .... can the party get on the ballot if the party did not registed.

Do they have to be Zionist ?

What kind of question is that ? Read the article see the political views of the members of knesset from Arab parties and decide for youself if they are Zionists or not. Zeq 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Political Parties (1992) and Section 7A(1) of the Basic law bars from registration or participation in elections of any political party whose platform does not accept that Israel is "the state of the Jewish people". This provision has been used to deny registration to Arab parties seeking equality between Arabs and Jews such that Israel is a state of all its citizens. See: The Legal Status of Arabs in Israel, David Krezmer, Westview Press, 1990.

Ya, right, try telling all the arab members of knesset that they are zionist. Otherwise how could they get in ? Zeq 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are in israel laws against racism and any party (including of jews) that is racist is prevented from running. Zeq 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is already far too long, so please don't extend it even further, Loki. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the statement

Lieberman has made more radical statements in the past; in May, 2004, while part of the Ihud HaLeumi, he proposed transferring 90 percent of Israeli Arabs: "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost."

While this is true, as I point out, the sentence probably doesn't belong in this article, as it appears to have been a one-time off-the-cuff statement, rather than a party platform. It may belong in the Lieberman article, but I can't see why a one-time statement by a politician, which was not even part of the platform of the party he was with, a party which no longer exists, and which was never in government even when it existed, would belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree; if a well-known politician endorses blatantly racist policies, then it is notable. I think a statement of this sort could only be regarded as an off-the-cuff remark if he had withdrawn or apologised for it. Palmiro | Talk 13:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, roughly 60% of the article appears to be directly stolen from [6] and [7] and several other pages related to Arab Israelis on that site. I have deleted some, but the overlap is too great, as it pervades every section.

For example, the entire "Work and economic situation" is directly from [8] and from the Israeli government, who state on their Web site: "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." It is not fair use to copy entire sections as such.

Can you please state which sections exactly are copied from which websites? Rather than sticking a tag on it, it would make sense to fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. Lokiloki 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no copyright material in it now, why do you keep adding the tag? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you kept re-adding the deleted, copyrighted content back, and I assumed, incorrectly, that some was still there. Lokiloki 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't keep re-adding coprighted content. Start checking diffs, and please stop posting to my talk page. I think your point about not liking it because it's from the Israeli govt is closer to the reason you removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin) All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government. Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin)

Copyright violation and infringement is a very serious matter. It is inappropriate to simply "cite" complete theft of significant chunks of this article. Lokiloki 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. All of the passages I deleted were verbatim from the link I provided. I do not have time to rewrite much of the entire content of this page from a biased source. From the copyright warning: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch." Lokiloki 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you restored this sentence: "Improvements in medicine have largely contributed to the increase in the Arab population, as life expectancy has increased 27 years since 1948." That is directly from [9].

Same with this: "The most common health-related causes of death are heart disease and cancer. This could be a result of the large number of Arabs who smoke. Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."

And your "tidying up" also included a direct infringement: "Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."

Before you assume bad faith on my part, please check the citations. These sections need to be completely rewritten from scratch, not just reworded.

Lokiloki 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time to rewrite copyrighted content. Feel free to rewrite it. It is not disruptive to delete copyrighted content, as that is the process that is elucidated under the various WP Copyright pages. Lokiloki 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the content in that article is copyrighted. It is inappropriate to simply change a few words here and there to overcome copyright -- that is still a violation. Lokiloki 01:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your copy-editing of copyrighted content is inappropriate: the copyright is still there. It is insufficient and legally indefensible to simply change a few words here and there, as you are doing. This is still a violation of copyright, and presumably the copyright notification I have applied to the page is appropriate in this instance.

If you feel the retention of large chunks of copyrighted content is permissible, please discuss on the talk page before simply re-inserting.

Please review the notice of copyright by the Israeli government at [10]. The Copyright Infringement notice indicates that users who continually post copyrighted content can be permanantly banned: please can you instruct me on how I can file these charges against such violators?

Lokiloki 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government. Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are re-editing the content, it would be nice if you could add additional sources. Instead of saying misleading things like, Education has improved 500% since 1969... (how hard is it to go from, say, 1% to 5%)... it would be nice to start off with some hard figures, as in, actual current percent and actual numbers, rather than rates of improvement which are misleading. Lokiloki 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were the one that earlier moved the polls showing that many Jewish Israelis discriminated against Israeli Arabs. And now I see that you are glossing over that racism and discrimination, and including no references in the intro. Lokiloki 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the last paragraph of the intro is trying a little too hard to convince us that Arab Israelis are (undeservedly) well-off. This paragraph probably doesn't belong in the intro to start with, but regardless, it should be rewritten in a more neutral tone, as right now the selection of facts and statistics seem deliberately chosen to convey the POV that Arab Israelis are free from oppression and, in fact, very well-off. The paragraph briefly mentions that some Arab groups do not share this view, but no explanation of the opposing POV is made. Kaldari 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that international human rights organization do not share this view, neither does the European Union.--Marielleh 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that the introduction provides all these glowing details about the status, wellbeing, and fame of Israeli Arabs, and then presents only a gloss of the discrimination and racism that they experience (and in the previous version, these facts were counterclaimed with even more statistics about their relative well-being compared to other Arabs elsewhere) is POV. I am placing a POV dispute on this article. Lokiloki 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the Discrimination and Racism section is somewhat POV. Instead of being a list of debating points (and a rather huge list at that), it should concisely summarize the main points and provide references if people want more detailed information. Kaldari 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the original title of this section. The vast majority of is a POV reproduction of an American report on discrimination, not racism. The notion that Jews and Arabs are different "races" is, itself, rather racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more... the quote from Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the article other than the vague implication that Arabs are trying to take over Israel my multiplying faster than Jews. Is there a reason we want this in the article? Kaldari 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded to this, I've gone ahead and removed the quote. Kaldari 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Palmiro | Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Zeq 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the demographics section of the article is not about the conflict, it's about demographics. I have cut the quote to include only what is relevent to demographics. Political POV is not appropriate in that section. If the quote were in a section about Jewish/Arab conflict I would feel differently. Kaldari 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Demographics is becoming an important aspect of the conflict so the quote is relevant. Please stop trying to hide it. Zeq 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to hide it. If you want to include quotes about the conflict, that's fine with me. Just don't put them in the demographics section. The quote in question is an extremely provocative quote from a figure with a political point-of-view. Tacking it onto the end of the demographics section (which is otherwise occupied with striaghtfoward NPOV statistics) is inappropriate, and frankly seems to be motivated by a desire to push a particular political POV. For example, if you do a search for the quote on Google, many of the places it is mentioned are in articles of political commentary which are anti-Arab Israeli. Yes, it is sourced, but because something is sourced certianly doesn't mean its not POV. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? This seems to be a rather obvious POV example if you ask me. Kaldari 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you see it this way but I disagree. It is a relevant quote as I explained above. If you want you can find something to add (if you think the quote is POV and you must balance it with another POV) but in any case please don't remove sourced content. Zeq 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that one person's provocative assertion that Arab Israelis need to out-reproduce Jewish Israelis is important and relavent enough to include in the demographics section of an encyclopedia article about Israeli Arabs? Do you believe that such a quote would be included in a similar article by Britannica? Do you really believe that having equal numbers of provocative POV quotes in a article is what the NPOV policy endorses? Would you recommend that I add some provocative quotes by Avigdor Lieberman to balance things out? Kaldari 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is charateristic. And yes, if you find a quote by Liberman that is charteristic of the situation please include it. Make sure it is a recent one. Zeq 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote you added is not currnt and not charteristic. Libermen said this is not his plan, the party Ihud lemi no longer exist. Please change the quote to Liberman current plan (change of borders to undo what was done in 1949 in Wadi Ara area. Zeq 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and the Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid quote is from 5 years ago. How many times has he changed his stance since then? What difference does it make anyway? It's all just political posturing and has nothing to do with the actual demographics. I still stand by my opinion that the entire paragraph has no place in that section. Kaldari 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • We included the Liberman quote although He Clearly changed his mind .
    • The issue is becoming the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can say it is not relevant but others would disagree with you. hence all the recent interst in Liberman (who rode the demogrphic ticket to a place in th Israeli goverment...) Zeq 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why don't we put it in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article where it belongs? Do extremist political views really have to permeate every section of every article about Israel or Palestine? Why wouldn't a sentence such as "The increasing population of Muslim Arabs within Israel has become a point of political contention in recent years" work just as adequately as the provocative quotes (and without catering to either POV)? Kaldari 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote obviously doesn't belong here; it was a one-off statement, and never part of the party's policy or platform. It only serves to inflame, not illuminate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the only thing we all agree on. What do you think about the rest of the paragraph? Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the quotes before seeing Jay's comment above. I will edit it again to shorten it and to remove the non relevant Liberman quote. Zeq 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now it is just absurdly POV. In case you haven't done so, I would encourage you to read over the Wikipedia NPOV policy and seriously consider how it relates to this paragraph. Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, both of your recent additions to the article seem to consist of news stories chosen to portray Israeli Arabs as violent, oppressive people. However "characteristic" or "relevant" you may deem these stories, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy is not optional. Please edit this article with the goal of producing a well-rounded, neutral article that will stand the test of time. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kaldari 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldrai, This is the reality. It maybe that in Israel, because there is free press, one can actualy know what is going on. I am sure this also occur else where. In any case, I have self reverted. Please be specific what would you like to add to NPOV the issue. It kind of frustrates me ( to say the least ) that women are being killed and assolted and all you care about is what image it give to man of specific group. But go ahead NPOV it. I 'll be glad to see how. I want to learn. Zeq 20:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your frustration and convictions are admirable, and believe it or not I am sympathetic to most of them. I have no interest in downplaying the abuses that muslim women face or violence perpetrated in the name of religion or "honor". There are places on Wikipedia to illuminate those issues: Women in Islam, Religious violence, etc. "Israeli Arabs", however, covers a broad range of people, cultures, politics, and history and it is not proper for us to stereotype or systematically characterize them in a negative light here. Our job as encyclopedia editors is to present a balanced view that readers on all sides of the conflict could read without feeling attacked or slighted. It is also important to paint with broad strokes. Scattering anecdotes, news clips, and quotes throughout Wikipedia articles tends to lower their overall quality. Instead of picking and choosing example facts to relate, we should be providing a synthesis of all known facts and points of view related to the issue and then providing references to specific examples. If you do use a specific example, explain what that example is supposed to illustrate rather than just adding it to stand on its own. Wikipedia articles should be explicit and confident (but fair) rather than relying on inuedo, propaganda, or selective evidence. Sometimes it is useful to practice writing for the enemy, in order to make sure that your own biases are not skewing an article. Also, try to make sure that you are adding information where it is most appropriate. For example, if you want to add information about Bedouins in general, it would make more sense to put it in the Bedouin article rather than here. The Bedouins section here should specifically be about Israeli Bedouins and their unique characteristics (so as not to be redundant). Information about "Honor" killings (which is not unique to Israeli Muslims) would be more appropriate in an article about Muslim fundamentalism or Religious violence. Piling it on here seems like we're trying too hard to force the issue where it may not be most appropriate. Some time in the near future I would also like to work on editing down the discrimination section, so that it provides an overview of the issues rather than a laundry list of complaints. It's easy to pile on examples of bad behavior to support one side or another, what's hard is to provide a fair synthesis of facts and opinions that (most) everyone can agree on. Kaldari 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer but not the NPOV example I was looking to get from you.

1. The situation of Israeli bedouin women is unique. On one hand they are part of a very traditional Islamic society on the other hand they are part of modern democrtic country. This is unique situation that need to be expended on. try this : http://www.lakiya.org/aboutsidreh.asp and combine it with the deleted section .
2. honor killing in Israel (and the west) should be covered because in Israel it is ileagl while in Saudi Arabia it leagl .

Zeq 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it seems the taboo conerning this issue is startng to break. So Kaldrai here is your opportunity to write about this in a more general way : http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-04-07T112952Z_01_L04162888_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-SYRIA-WOMEN-DC.XML&archived=False

Zeq 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a valid angle if you can cite references for it: the conflict between Islamic customs and Israeli laws. The trick here is to make sure that you're not doing original research, i.e. it would be tempting to cite articles which present examples of backwards islamic customs and then say "look, this conflicts with Israeli law", but that would be original research and POV-pushing. If you can find some articles that discuss the legal conflict, however, that would be fair game and totally relevent (assuming you keep the tone as neutral as possible). I think information like that would be an interesting addition to the article. Kaldari 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to an Arab israeli writer http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/073/784.html there is an increase in honor killing among Israeli Arabs. Zeq 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to get this page in shape. I've put the in-use tag on it and I'd appreciate it if that could be respected. If anyone wants to make an edit, please e-mail me. I'll see that faster than a post on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, are you not going to allow me to do this edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can... sorry, I was editing a specific section open for some time which I thought wasn't the whole page, and I made no changes apart from the title. Anyway, go ahead... Lokiloki 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make an extensive copy edit of this article, because it's a mess. I placed the tag on it, and left a note here. Despite that, you made an edit and continue to post progress reports to the talk page. I have only just started!! Please let me do it, or tell me you're not going to let me, so that I don't waste any more time. Every time I have any dealings with you, there's a huge amount of talk and time-wasting, Loki. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of good content to discussion should be about 1:10. That is, there should be 10 times as much discussion, analysis, and debate as there is good content. This seems to generally be true on most articles. Content should go through the boiler of scrutiny and discussion. Presumably that is the purpose of talk pages. By the way, I noticed you qualified the Ha'aretz poll on racism today as being from a pro-Arab group: interesting to see this in light of your edits elsewhere which denied such qualifications of other authors. Lokiloki 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting dangerously close to violating NPA, which I assume is your intention, so I'll keep this brief. There is no point, no point at all, in discussing an article as badly written as this one. It needs to be rewritten almost from scratch. I was about to try to do something like that, then you'd have had something to discuss. And I did not qualify the poll as being from an Arab group. Stop posting to me, stop annoying me, stop interfering with my edits, don't post to my talk page again (ever), don't make accusations, and stop trying to tell me how to write and use sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck trying to get the page into shape. If you look back at the history, I tried to do the same thing once, and almost succeeded, but the page became a mess again over the next few weeks. Hopefully though, since you have this whole talk page to use as a guide, you can avoid the POV accusation issues which I faced. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 09:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yan, sorry not to have seen your comment before now. I may come back to this at some point in the near future. If I do, I'll set up a draft page for the rewrite because it's likely to take a few hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: You keep deleting my messages to your discussion page and tell me to take it to the article talk page. Okay... but it isn't related to the article. In my talk, you accused me of trying to get a high edit count. I asked on your talk page what the benefit of such is, and why make such accusations. Thanks for answering. By the way, feel free to return that "in use" tag... I was editing specific sections rather than the page itself, but I won't do that either... Lokiloki 03:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post to my talk page again about anything, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey. Do not post on my talk page again, either. You have done so 5 times today. Lokiloki 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been answering you! I take it you will now allow me to continue to work on the encyclopedia? Remember, if you edit while the tag is on, I will get an edit conflict when I try to save, so please don't. That is why I left the note above, asking people to e-mail me if they wanted to edit, which you have now also done, but you went ahead and edited anyway. *blink* SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you answer about the high-edit accusation you leveled against me? (Incidentally, I spend 10 hours per day on Wikipedia, so high edit count seems natural). Lokiloki 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I've changed my mind. I'm too angry to edit now. Mission achieved, Loki. You may spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia, but nine of them are devoted to annoying people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Israeli Arabs are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." The author of this sentence probably meant: "Most Israeli Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense because 170,000 Bedouin cannot be a subset of 150,000 Muslim Arabs as the current version of the sentence states. Pecher ^Talk 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• you are correct. Zeq 11:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher and Zeq, I had just started what was going to be a rewrite/copy edit, but was interrupted by Lokiloki who had objections, so I gave up. Therefore, the intro may need tidying. Feel free to go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't give up just because one user annoyed you. This article can really use a copyedit, and you were already working on it. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ynhockey. This is a complex subject that very few people know about. With Liberman proposal of redrawing the borders to exchange territory (where 1/3 of israeli Arabs live) this subject will get interest. Zeq 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any objections, so I moved Israeli Arabs to Arab citizens of Israel. If you want to move it back, go ahead. I don't care. I just think all this fuss over what they should be called isn't that important.

Unless it's important to them or to others who have a strong interest in them. In which case, every significant point of view about what their "real" or "proper" name is, should be described fairly somewhere in the body of the article. I moved the terms out of the intro and made it the first named section. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name should be Arab Israelis, as these people are not just citizens but part of the Israelis in every respect. I think that the new name is POV and discriminating as it suggests that Arab Israelis are less Israeli than Jewish Israelis. I had serious issues also with the previous name, which are perhaps now not very relevant. gidonb 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I am fine also with Palestinian Israelis for those who wish to call themselves as such, the only issue is that it doesn't capture the entire population. gidonb 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by how they call them self it will have to be "Palestinians of 48". I also think that the previous name was better as this is how they are now known. Zeq 05:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had no opposition because not enough editors noticed the proposed title change. Now that I think about it, Arab Israelis was better. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, actually the name Palestinians of 48 is more commonly used by Palestinians in the Westbank, Gaza Strip and diaspora for this population. Many Arab Israelis, with a strong Palestinian identity, strongly object to this name. As I implied before there are also Arab Israelis who object to be called Palestinians, especially Druze and Bedouin of Galilee. One has to respect that in Jordan and Israel, unlike naturally the PA but also countries with Palestinian refugee camps, the Palestinian identity is a voluntary identity. It is a very common identity. Best regards, gidonb 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone then please do a little research (not "OR", of course) and tell us how most Israeli citizens who are Arabs like to refer to themselves? By Israeli, law they are Israelis, i.e., "citizens of Israel" just like by United States law I am a "citizen of the United States".

But perhaps they (or some of them) wish to emphasize another aspect of themselves, beyond their legal connection to the state of Israel. I suppose this additional aspect is related to the nationalistic aspirations of the population group the PLO's Palestinian National Charter [11] calls "Palestinian Arabs". And much of the political rhetoric I've read about Arab nationalism in Palestine emphasizes identity, by using terms having political overtones.

I was trying to choose for this article a title which had as few political overtones as possible, thinking this would be "neutral", i.e., in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. I believe article titles should not express a point of view, unless the article is entirely about that point of view. Within a neutrally entitled article, I would like us contributors to describe every significant aspect about the topic named in the title.

Please, let us describe the history, ethnicity, political rights and aspirations, social & economic conditions, etc. of Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship. If what they are called (or call themselves) is also significant, then let's cooperate to write a section about that aspect also. --Uncle Ed 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any so-called research, but can tell you off-hand that Arab Israelis vastly differ in their ideologies and there isn't one name they'll all agree on to call themselves. For example, the Israeli Druze are loyal to Israel but mostly prefer not to call themselves Arabs at all, while others, like many residents in Baka Al-Gharbiya, prefer to call themselves Palestinian Arabs and do not acknowledge the 'Israeli' part. Arab Israeli, however, is a term used by Israelis to refer to Arab citizens of Israel in general (sometimes including permanent residents of East Jerusalem, who are not citizens, as the article states). Arab Israelis would also be a more standard name, considering there are articles such as Mexican American and Cuban American. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can move the article again (from Arab citizens of Israel to Arab Israelis) or even just move it back to Israeli Arabs. But why fuss about the title?

Is our intention to settle on one "correct" term for this population group and then use the article title to show Wikipedia's endorsement of that term? I'm suggesting we move in the opposite direction to that approach.

I think we should make the article title as bland and general as possible. If the the "true name" of the population group is a big issue then we should describe that issue within the body of the article. Remember, Wikipedia's job is not to settle disputes, but to describe them fairly. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good move. The previous title is one that lots of the people in question don't like and indeed reject; the current one is neutral and factual. Palmiro | Talk 13:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new name is unwieldy and not in line with the other similar Wikipedia articles, as Ynhockey pointed out. Also, I see no consensus for the move on the talk page. Pecher ^Talk 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ynhockey and Pecher, the move is not a good idea.

I am still mistified why, after getting an answer, Ed Poor (who asked question such as "Do they have to convert to Judasim to become citizens" have removed this:

"are Arabs who are citizens of the State of Israel. Israeli Arabs are full citizens of the State of Israel, with equal protection under the law, and full rights of due process.

If I removed this (from the article entirely), then I was wrong to do so. I intended only to move it down a bit. If it's out of the article please put it back (or just revert me, whichever's easier). If it's too far down, then maybe the section on political rights should be moved higher up. --Uncle Ed 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This line was there exactly for people who think that in israel only jews have rights.

All in all, I think Recent edits made this articl worse than it was before these controversial edits were made. Ed, please reconsider what you are doing. Zeq 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, with the exception of Druze and Bedouins, most israeli Arab are clearly Palestinian and identify themself as such . Zeq 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very bad idea for an article about an ethnic group to go under a title that many mambers of that group reject and that their own organizations rarely use, when there are alternatives available such as this one. So I would be entirely opposed to reversing the move. Palmiro | Talk 14:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/remarks.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=409643&contrassID=2

Zeq 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone saying that the Arabs who bear Israeli citizenship are a distinct ethnic group? If so, who's saying it, and what's the ethnic distinction between Arab citizens of Israel and other Palestinian Arabs? (Or is the claim that Arab Israelis aren't Palestinian Arabs?) --Uncle Ed 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed,

There is no such distinction. these are on many cases people of the same family.

Even the Druze only date back to about 11th or 12th century at the time they stopped intermarry with others. Some of the bedouins (who as the Druze see themself as different that the palestinians) can trace their origin 400 years back to Saudi Arabia. The rest (which are the majority) now call themself palestinians and some of them (those the article is about) have israeli citizenship. Zeq 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an odd thing Joseph Agassi wrote, I wonder if I can believe it:

Israel officially considers her non-Jewish citizens as Arabs, including the Christians among them. [12]

Does the Israeli government lump all non-Jewish citizens together as "Arabs"?

Are the actual Arabs of Israel just ordinary "Arabs", or is there a distinct group of "Palestinian Arabs"?

• When the press mentions "Palestinians" these days, do they mean "Palestinian Arabs", or is there some distinct political or ethnic group of "Palestinians" who aren't "Arab"?

Is there any place at Wikipedia where any or all of these questions have already been answered? --Uncle Ed 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Israeli government lists Jews, Arabs and 'others'. Arabs are further divided into Muslims, Christians, Bedouins and Druze, as this article details. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YnHockey is 100% correct. Not all non-jews are Arabs.

Israel is divided between Jews, Druze, non-Arab christians on one side and the rest which see them self mostly as "palestinians" Zeq 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I was wrong on one account, apparently the Israel MFA does not classify Druze as Arabs, according to their website. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Palestinians" a political or ethnic designation? Is it synonymous with "Arab Palestinians" (as the PNC initially said), or what? --Uncle Ed 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is not, Jews who lived in Palestine before the first Aliya, as well as other non-Arab inhabitants, are also supposed to be Palestinian, according to the PLO's definition. However, in practice we all know that the PLO propagated the murder of all Jews in 'Palestine', so maybe a different definition may need to be looked at. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on Ynhockey, you know it's not true that "the PLO propagated the murder of all Jews in 'Palestine'". Even on the most critical reading, nothing in the PLO charter can possibly be interpreted as meaning that. And of course there are Jewish members of the PLO, who presumably are not calling for their own murder. RolandR 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRW claim that "on the basis of their parents' military service". In israel, many Jews and many arabs do not serve in the army. Thus it is not a discrimination against any specific ethnic group. Haredi jews for example are also exempt from military service and as such are suffering from the cut in vetren benefits. Zeq 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted The one exception is Arab residents of East Jerusalem. In 1967, the East Jerusalemites were given a one-time offer for citizenship. Most refused and today, the majority of that population do not receive voting rights. because it was long and not totally factual (being as residents of East Jerusalem are eligible to all social benefits and vote in municipal elections). Is there a source that residents of East Jerusalem are no longer able to apply for Israeli citizenship? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haretz article also include this: "Poor Arab families with many children will not receive the new payment (though wealthier Arab families actually will). But Haredi families with many children will receive it. Arab children will not benefit, but Haredi children will. It is impossible not to ask what exactly the people who reached this brilliant agreement were thinking. "

So clearly the quote was part of the article, not telling the whole story and thus POV. Zeq 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. A report in Ha'Aretz criticises the new government for an agreement which, although apparently neutral, in effect (and presumably intention) will benefit Jews, but not most Arabs. The article goes on th say "The time has come for even Israeli politicians to understand: In a democratic country, there is no way to encourage birthrates among one ethnic group while discriminating against the children of another ethnic group... it must be clear that all children are equal: All poor children are equal, and all hungry children are equal - even if they are Arabs". It is bizarre to pterend that this article somehow denies the official discrimination in the Israeli state.RolandR 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nither for you nor for haretz publicist. If you don't quote in an NPV way the whole quote will have to go. Zeq 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the quote will not "have to go". I quoted it perfectly accurately, and in context. The quote directly relates to a previous assertion in the paragraph where I inserted it, and shows that policy -- or implementation of policy -- has changed this week. You are trying to censor from Wikipedia an article from Israel's leading daily criticising a racist policy, in order to hide the fact that this policy exists. You are the one attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. If you don't like the quotation, I suggest you try to change the facts, not the reporting.RolandR 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Haaretz Editorial to the "discrimination" section, and removed the author's irrelevant comments about "chutzpa." This may require further attention. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recerted Tewfik's POV changes. The article is NOT an editorial, but a signed opinion piece. It belongs where I placed it, since it directly challenges the claim (which I have not removed) that Orthodox Jews and Palestinian Arabs face the same deprivation of child benefits. Tewfik's other alterations, which he failed to mention, were equally tendentious. RolandR 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roland, Yes, it is a signed opinion piece, and not a Haaretz news item. It discusses a possible coalition agreement, does not document the agreement as actually happening, and it speculates as to the motivations behind the possible agreement. I added an accurate representation of the passage, and I moved it from the already extended introduction to a more appropriate place. I'm not sure which other tendentious alterations I failed to mention, as the only other edits I made were to correct misspelling. My edit-summary reads move; rmv POV; copy-edit. Additionally, you seemed to have accidentally deleted the end of the article. Please WP:Assume good faith, and if you must revert, do so after addressing the substance of my changes, which I detailed above when I made them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I removed part of the article. It was entirely inadvertent, and I think caused by a hiccup in my browser. In fact, it's just done it again and only loaded part of an article, so I had to again reinsert what I'd accidentally deleted/

On substance: I have removed the phrase "however the cuts will also affect the children of the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox who don't serve in the military", since, even if it was true at the time (which I dispute), it is no longer. Nor does the quote reflect accurately the source, which went on to say, in the same sentence, "but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children". Since the disputed claim is no longer in the introduction, I agree that there is no need for the Ha'Aretz article to be noted there, and I'm happy for it to remain where Tewfik has moved it. I've not reinstated the quote from the article, as readers can easily click on the link. However, Ha'Aretz tends to delete English language articles from the archive after a while, so I will watch this, and if necessary insert a different URL or even insert the quoite again. I have also amended "editorial" to "op-ed" and "alleging" to "noting". It was NOT an editorial, which, as per the reference you provided, is " a statement or article by a news organization"; while "alleging" suggests an element of doubt. The facts are not in doubt, only the interpretation. I hope we can agree on these changes.

By the way, I see now that if I edit an article, and then look at a preview, although all of the text is in the preview itself, half of the original is missing from the edit pane, and unless I am very careful when I save it truncates the article. I had rthe same problem when attempting to edit the Law of Return article. I don't know whether this is a fault with my own set-up, or a general Wikipedia bug -- can anyone advise?RolandR 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roland,

No apology necessary, as I mentioned above, I was just illustrating WP:Assume good faith in reference to the "tendentious" edits you had claimed I made. Just consider that it's a weighty accusation and others may not respond well to it. I'd also like to point out that op-ed redirects to editorial, which does have a subsection on the topic. I repaired the link to reflect that, but the [moot] point that I was making previously was that the piece wasn't subject to the rigourous standards of objectivity that a news article would be, a fact not clear from the initial wording of the passage. Finally, I replaced the "Haredi" line because it wasn't related to the op-ed, which alleges discrimination based on salary/employment, and not benefit from military service. In any event, it is unclear that the op-ed's discussion was actualised into policy. If you have a source to that effect, then we should update the article to reflect that. You may want to use Wikipedia:Footnotes to avoid problems with dead links (vis-a-vis Haaretz). As for your technical problems, you may want to check Wikipedia:Computer help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'd also like to commend you on engaging in constructive dialogue, which is key to the success in Wikipedia. I hope that you have a great experience here. Tewfik^Talk 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the phrase "however the cuts will also affect the children of the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox who don't serve in the military", since it is still untrue, and it still does not reflect accurately the source.RolandR 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I cannot take seriously several entries here, and the general weighting of the material chosen (another way of dressing up POV). It would take a long essay to reveal the POV hidden in this entry. So instead I will focus on the most egregious example: the line that Israeli Arabs (or whatever you want to call this group) have “equal protection under the law”. No one who knows anything about the subject will read past this false statement. Israel lacks a constitution, so I wonder in what ways the writer(s) of this line believes such protection is offered. The only overtly human rights legislation Israel has on the books is the Basic Law on Freedom and Human Dignity (1992), but that doesn’t posit equality as a fundamental right, nor freedom of religion and expression. It also defines Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, as do many other recent laws, thereby giving official recognition to group rights for Jews but not for Arab citizens. Although officially Israel may enshrine equal individual rights, the country’s legislation ensures groups rights (for Jews only) take precedence. Off the top of my head, here are a few ways in which Israeli Arabs lack “equal legal protection”:

1. The Law of Return offers only Jews automatic citizenship. Palestinians are denied all citizenship rights under the revised Nationality Law. This means that an Israeli Jew can bring relatives to Israel under family reunification principles, while an Israeli Arab is legally excluded from doing so. How is this equal protection? 2. Some 100,000 Israeli Arabs (mostly Bedouin) live in communities the state refuses to recognise under the Planning and Building Law (1965). In other words nearly one in 10 Israeli Arabs is denied all public services such as water and electricity, and their homes are subject to demolition, by law. Only Israeli Arabs live in such communities because of the way the law is framed. 3. The Jewish National Fund and other international Zionist organisations are offered special quasi-governmental status under Israeli law. The JNF owns 13 per cent of the land in Israel (inside the 1948 borders), most of it given to it by the government in especially prized areas for habitation. The JNF is bound by its charter to discriminate in favour of Jews, and given its special status nothing can be done to challenge that in the courts. 4. Under the Absentee Property Law (1950), the state has confiscated the land and property of all Palestinians not considered to be inside their homes inside Israel on a specific date during the war of 1948. They have no rights ever to reclaim their property or return to their land. This law targets only Arabs, not Jews, and continues to deny the rights of 300,000 or so Israeli Arabs (the original dispossessed and their descendants), who are are effectively internal refugees. That's about one in four of the Israeli Arab population 5. Let’s not forget that Israel still has a set of emergency laws it inherited from the British Mandate that, though technically can be applied to all citizens, are in practice used almost exclusively against Israeli Arabs with no oversight from the courts. This is hardly equal protection.

I’m not even mentioning the myriad forms of not-so “covert legal discrimination” documented by David Kretzmer.

Also, can anyone cite a reference for 200,000 Palestinians entering Israel under family unification? I don’t accept as proof the Population Administration, which was shown by a Haaretz investigation to have fabricated similar figures. According to Haaretz, they found 6,000 such cases. I think the 200,000 figure includes the 170,000 illegal entries (not a unification issue) and I think this latter figure too is dubious. This is part of the government's demographic timebomb discourse.

And finally, why no reading list of the seminal works on the subject: Sabri Jiryis’s The Arabs in Israel (1975), and Fouzi el-Asmar’s To be an Arab in Israel (1976)? It would also be worth directing readers to other important recent works, including David Grossman’s Sleeping on a Wire (1993), Dan Rabinowitz’s Overlooking Nazareth (1997), Susan Nathan’s The Other Side of Israel (2005), Dan Rabinowitz and Khawla Abu Baker, Coffins on our Shoulders (2005), and my own Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (2006). JCook10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article currently claims that only 4% of Bedouins serve in the IDF without citing it's source. I have twice queried this claim, only to find the "citation needed" I placed removed and the source still not verified. I simply would like to know where the this statistic comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.39.127 (talk • contribs)

according to this the number vary between 5% to 10 % : [13] Zeq 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]