Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Notes on terminology section

I have shorted what supposed to be a small note that have balooned to a large paragraph. Also removed parts which are unrelevant to the subject matter. Zeq 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What you removed was highly relevant. I have restored it. Tiamut 08:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"highly relevant" - not at all. in fact if you want to use WP:undue the terminlogy section is the place to start. This article is way way too long. Zeq 08:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The material you removed was directly relevant to the definition of Arab citizens. The paragraph preceding the one you removed is less relevant and could be taken out if your concern was the length of the article. As it is, the material together provides balance and context. I don't want to fight over it and suggest you leave well enough alone. Tiamut 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

I stand by my right to revert POV edits that WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Tiamut 08:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You shoud explain why you think they are OR or undue on talk page. Zeq 08:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, we already discussed this issue when you attempted to insert similar material above. I don't need to repeat myself over and over like a broken record. Read the comments above, they still apply. Tiamut 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have when you tried to insert similar material previously. Please read my comments before making false accusations.

Not similar at all. How can you compare. One is a list of terror incidents by Israeli Arabs and the other is the reaction of the courts, police and goverment to these crimes - reaction which infulance policy discussed (without due context) in the relavent section. Sorry but your arguments are far from convincing. Also don't describe other people words as "false" - please applogize. Zeq 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Same subject different interlocuter. If you feel strongly it should still be added, please add it to the section where this subject is already discussed: i.e. intercommunal relations. Tiamut 08:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained it is not the same . The section starts with the words "Tensions between Arabs and the state rose to a boiling point" so the material added is highly relevant. This section (2000) needs more work anyhow. (Zeq) //subheading added by HG:

Inter-communal violence

As for the "intercommunal relations" section - it includes by name a long list of Arabs who were accidently killed when Terrorists target israelis - these arabs are just a fraction of the victims of Palestinian terrorism - conducted in part with the help of Israeli Arabs. Your interpratation of WP:undue is not accepted: You leave in place a list of minority phenomana and remove a list that shows a trend which infulance the over all "intercommunal relations" . so thats ection needs work as well. Plaese note that the fact that Arabs were also killed by Arabs has nothing to do with ""intercommunal relations" so this will be removed. Zeq 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(Observation) Though I don't have a position on the disputed texts, the level of edit warring here is unacceptable. I believe there are 3RR violations. While some of the discussion mentions the dispute, cooperative editing means that you all continue discussing until you reach a mutual understanding of disputed texts -- without reverting etc in the interim. If I have time, I'll submit the appropriate reports; in any case, I urge all parties to stop reverting and reach consensus. HG | Talk 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a 3RR violation on my part it is a mistake. I would have self revrted if I would have noticed it. Next, I am sorry to say that your method would render the article without any change for a long time. I agree that edit-warring is bad but I don't agree that we should not allow people to edit at all - just because there is a disagreement. We need to resolve the disgreements but It is fine to make BOLD edits without seeking prior aproval and if someone does not like it he/she can revert as long as they have a good reason. The best of course is that they would propose an alternative. Zeq 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The 3RR report was dismissed, I'm sorry if I responded prematurely. It does seem to me that the Bold-Revert approach really depends on the Discuss stage, esp once you realize you're dealing with touchy issues. Instead of the "argue via Edit Summary" approach, let me try to comment on a few disputed items that deserve fuller discussion here.

1. You folks disagree over this: "...some Yemenite and Mizrahi that do self-identify as Arab Jews." Since it looks sourced, what's the nature of your objection, Zeq?
2. Zeq would like to see better coverage of the connection (however it's characterized) between Arab citizens and anti-Israeli terrorism/violence. While I imagine it shouldn't be given undue weight, isn't that a plausible item to add to the 2000-present chronology?
3. Similarly, Zeq wants to add more about this connection to the Inter-communal violence section. Zeq's edit summary: "Adding more data which shows this is a system wide reaction to a trend." Zeq, it seems like your trying to add data to make the case for a trend. But is that our role as editors? Instead of adding data to prove something, I think you need to find a secondary source (preferably a scholar and fairly neutral, maybe not Israeli) that identifies this trend. If Zeq finds such a source, do folks have any other objections to this point?
4. Hmmm. Again on Inter-communal violence section, I see edit warring over the 1st sentence. Well, I feel readers need a brief lead-in and context, not merely disparate reports of violence. We're editors, so some level of "editorializing" is required for readability. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the opening is so helpful or balanced. Currently: "Though many point to such attitudes as evidence of racism in Israeli society, other counter that these attitudes are attributable to the security situation, as there have been some cases where Arabs inside Israel have been arrested for aiding terrorists." No offense, but this is somewhat weak for the opening of a new section, because the reader can't quickly parse what "such attitudes" refers to. Indeed, this sentence seems to draw a conclusion about "Public attitudes" and hence belongs more properly at the end of the preceding section. (If it's a personal opinion rather than from a secondary source, then it may be the kind of editorializing that's not warranted.) I don't have the perfect substitute to propose. Maybe something like: "The tensions between Arab and Jewish Israelis are expressed not only through antagonistic personal attitudes but also through intermittent violence. Small numbers of Arab citizens have been implicated in terrorist violence against Israel and, as local residents, also fallen casualty to such violence. ...." Ok, I hope you all will accept this as a constructive effort on my part to help resolve your disagreements. Thanks! HG | Talk 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, it'd be better if you put all your comments after mine, not interspersed, and label by corresponding number if you wish. Thanks! Also, as part of my mea culpa, I've added some other bibliography cites in the article. Perhaps these will be useful? HG | Talk 06:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SorryI tried to give you an answer in context. Zeq 06:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've re-arranged your comment below. Thanks! HG | Talk 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's reply to HG's questions (moved by HG):

(1):Relevancy, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and more. simply not relevant to this article.

(2)It is a infulancing much of the internal politics regarding Israeli-Arabs in israel. One can not understand Israel w/o taking into account that "48 Arabs" not only see themself as "Palestinians" and as enemies of the countries they live in but also some of them take part in active terror campaign. Read the judges verdict - judges not write such words lightly.

(3)See the words of cheif of police, members of parliment etc.. the fact there is a trend is clear and it also infulance legistlation (legistlationmentioed as 'discrimination" in the article)

(4):I object in raming this whole article in the context of racism. This is highly POV. Zeq 06:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zeq. A few comments while waiting for other replies. (1) Well, it seems ok to clarify that Jews from Arab lands don't identify as Arabs. Perhaps it's an undue weight issue, insofar as a few folks promote the identification of Jews as Arab Jews. Or maybe it's a rare exception nowadays, insofar as some a small number of people do identify as Arab Jews. Either way, I suppose there shouldn't be more than a brief clause or link. But even exceptions and fringe theories can be noted in mainstream articles like this. (2) Assuming that it's highly relevant, as you say, then we should focus on good, reliable sources to show the impact and relevance. (3) These various quotes are primary sources. See my #3, above. (4) I agree, it's sounds like apologetics. Indeed, it may be perceived as patronizing, since presumably numerous Arab citizens may feel racism (as agents or targets of racism) without resorting to violence. Comments on my suggested wording, above? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

sources

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article2886439.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3471145,00.html

Majadele said, "I am a Muslim first, and a government minister second."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925030.html

some academic sources on the Arab-Israeli POV: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=obTYDj0rNZgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Shafir%22+%22Being+Israeli:+The+Dynamics+of+Multiple+Citizenship%22+&ots=VmAq8Y17qy&sig=tKyzmeXD6VbiqxhaCyHuXx9WubA#PPA127,M1 page 127

The desire to get israeli citzenship and become an israeli Arab": http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/palestinians_applying_for_israeli_citizenship_in_droves/

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/07/palestinians_seek_israeli_citizenship/4712/

and this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3473006,00.html

Zeq (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mada-research.org/archive/sru12.htm Zeq 06:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes

According to this Haaretz article all Israeli arabs drive mercedes: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=927861&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y . it is OR but I know that is not true. --Zeq (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Zeq, that's not even what the article claims. It states that ONE storekeeper in Beit Hanina (in 1967-occupied Jerusalem) makes this claim; neither the author nor Haaretz makes such a ridiculous assertion. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Roland, read the article pelease before making more claims. It sais that this is what most Palestinians think about the Arab israelis: That they ALL drive mercedes. The one shopkipper is just the start of the article, do read more.....

"Of course this was just one man's opinion, but there is little doubt that it is representative of a widespread feeling among our Palestinian brethren, who expresses an objective reality. "

--Zeq (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, this is an opinion piece. The author says that it is his opinion that Palestinians generally view Israeli Arabs and privileged and rich. I think he is in a reasonable position to arrive at that conclusion. I don't think the Palestinian literally meant that the author drives around in a Mercedes. I think he was being figurative. At any rate, this is hardly solid evidence that all Israeli Arabs drive around in Mercedes. Of course... it would be nice if we all did. Screen stalker (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Academic source

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355492,00.html Zeq (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Allegations??

I am wondering why the title is "Allegations of discrimination". I mean Wikipedia is about stating facts, but here we are saying 'allegations`. Allegations mean that all the sources are not neutral or have a POV, in most cases it favors refusal. I want to ask: Why state department reports are considered correct in others articles but not this one. Why International Human Rights Organizations are considered a reliable source in others article but not this one? Why Israeli Human Rights Group are considered a reliable source in others article but not this one? Why Haifa University is considered a reliable source in others article but not this one? All these are saying that there are discrimination with different levels, but it exists, it is a reality. Bestofmed (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

just forget to mention that ynetnews.com (Israeli website) is considered reliable here but the BBC not?? I am wondering again.Bestofmed (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that this is a controversial issue. May sources believe that Israel engages in discrimination against Arabs. Many sources disagree. In order to give credence to every major POV, we must make sure that it is clear that this debate exists. We don't have to say that one side is right and the other is wrong; we just have to let people know that there are two sides. Screen stalker (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources cited in that section claim represent major POVs that claim that Arabs are not discriminated against? The US State Department report, the Human Rights Watch report, Israeli human rights reports are reach similar conclusions, speaking of institutionalized or pervasive discrimination. Tiamut 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So we should put the word "allegations" everywhere (because we have many POV on all issues)!? Whenever we have a disputed section or article, just add "Allegations". we all know that there is always an opposite side, another POV! However you will find that most if not all Wikipedia articles do not use the word "Allegations" but they include always a criticism or a response paragraph or section (they use common names or objective terms). An example to make it clearer, the Sudanese government and many other sources are always saying that there are no massacres or a genocide in Darfur, so according to you we should change the title to "Allegations of genocide". I mean we should have a standard policy toward using the words "allegations" and "claims" (we do not have one). May be we should include the opinions of Al-Qaeda and Ben Laden according to you. May be we should say "Allegations that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11". If we will adopt your POV, may be we should check all the racism and violence against Jews and add "Allegations" also, sorry to say that most government and officials will never confess. I hope that my point is clear. Bestofmed (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the format of the last two edits slightly. If this bothers you, please change it back. I hope you don't mind.

@ Bestofmed, I understand where you are coming from, but please understand that when you compare Darfur and Israel and you are comparing apples and oranges. It is a fact that there is violence against Christians and Pagans in Darfur, just as it is a fact that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 (Osama Bin-Laden has confessed to this). Discrimination is something somewhat less tangible than violence or terrorist attacks. It is not quite so clear cut whether or not there is discrimination against Arabs in Israel, which is precisely the reason it's up for debate.

@ Tiamut, I must say that you are right; there are no sources currently quoted in the article which attempt to refute allegations of racism against Israeli Arabs. I will endeavor to change that ASAP. I'm a little busy right now with real life, so I will not do much more than wikiforage for quotations. Please assist me in representing the other side of the story in this article. Screen stalker (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi ScreenStalker. I don't know of any sources that claim that Arabs are not discriminated against in Israel, besides partisan Zionist sources. Good luck with finding some though! Based on the sources that we do have, which all describe institutionalized or pervasive societal discrimination, the heading Allegations of discrimination is both inaccurate and WP:WEASEL. I suggest that we change it to Discrimination' until we find reliable sources that suggest no discrimination exists. Tiamut 00:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I must disagree (which, I suspect, comes as no surprise). Articles such as Allegations of Iranian state terrorism remind us that things in this world are not all black and white. Even on an issue so clear-cut as Iran's support for terrorism, it is important to use the word "allegations," because it falls into a gray area where there are claims on both sides.

As you know, I would like to add more sources supporting the other sides of the story. Unfortunatley, real life takes prcedence over Wikipedia, and I am currently indisposed to search for a good deal of sources. I hope you understand that these things take time. I hope you will help me find such sources. Screen stalker (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Demographic threat (Israel) section

I have moved that section to an article as titled in the heading above. I did that because the article is long, the discussion is related but can stand alone on its own though linked to this article. Beit Or (talk · contribs) restored it again and redirected the new article back here. I restored the old changes. Jaakobou (talk · contribs) just restored it again. Can someone please explain why the farming out of this information to a new article is problematic for them? We could include a paragraph on the subject here along with a link to the article. Does that sound better? Tiamut 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

to be frank, the section is not that long, but you've made a reasonable case for a desirable change - i.e. to shorten it to a one-two paragraphs and add a 'main article' link at the top. be sure to write that paragraph fairly though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering that Jaakobou. Why don't you write a draft paragraph of what you'd like to see included. Tiamut 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

legal standing of arab citizens in israel

due to recent revs, there is the issue of what word to use in front of a statement that "The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army."

suggestions included:

• 'explains'
• 'asserts'
• 'writes'

trying to avoid personal perceptions/pov, i suggest we first list down known differences that this person neglected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Explains" suggests that the statement is objectively true, and that the source is "explaining" this -- possibly to someone of limited understanding. "Writes" likewise assumes that the statement is true, but does not have the possibly negative connotations of "explains". "Asserts" carries the implication that the statement is, at least, subject to challenge. Since the very title of this sub-section, "Allegations of discrimination", has itself been challenged, as implying that the claimed discrimination does not exist, it is necessary for us to be very precise and NPOV in our terminology. I suggest a different formulation; to preface the quote with "According to Bard". I think that this formulation is more neutral than any of the terms previously used, and avoids implying either the truth or the untruth of the statement.

I hope that this formulation, which I will introduce now, will not become the subject of continued revert warring. If it does, then I will introduce, as I am sure will other editors, material directly challenging the factual accuracy of Bard's statement. RolandR (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm interested in resolving this based on reliable sources. best i'm aware, his assertion regarding israeli law is accurate - and i'd appreciate you providing sources to the matter where you believe they are contested - otherwise i believe "explains" is the proper terminology.

p.s. i don't believe your suggestion is much different than using "writes".

p.p.s. i don't intend on being quietly reverted (repeatedly) by you as we discuss the proper solution to our dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But you expect me to accept being repeatedly reverted by you -- four times so far; be careful! RolandR (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

it's very simple. i suggested a compromize and you flat out rejected it. [1]

now i'd be interested in you holding up to that rejection -- bringing fourth a reliable source to support your theory that his statement is false/contested.

if you are unable to provide such a source then the factual version is not a POV one and your edit summary that you "do not accept [my] POV version"[2] is not only uncivil and battle groundish, but it's also false.

succinctly, please find a source to support your POV pushing edit warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that a subjective wording like "He explains" is unacceptable in any encyclopedia. As the assertion in question is clearly controversial, I would prefer: "He asserts". This is obviously the most neutral wording. The current version: "According to Bard" may be acceptable as a compromise. But it is certainly regrettable that much time and energy is wasted in Wikipedia in unnecessary arguments like this. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your opinon and suggestion. i'm still waiting on a reliable reference by RolandR to assert that my perception of his battleground meathods is false.

on a neutral level, i have suggested "he writes" [3] which implies nothing. but considering a demand for more accuracy by roland, i changed my mind to believe that accuracy is needed to avoid future conflicts on this. 'asserts' implies a possibility that he's a lone person with a non-credible opinon. this would be just wrong considering there's no dispute over his accurate text. i've seen no source to counter this legal issue - i wouldn't mind replacing "explains" with something else like 'he annotates', 'points out' (my new favourite), 'accounts' etc. ... unless we have a reliable source to validate roland's claims. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My favorite option is "he writes." It is perfectly correct to say that he wrote that, regardless of the validity of what he wrote (albeit that what he wrote is perfectly valid). I would find no objection to "he asserts." Screen stalker (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Avraham Tal Quotation

This quotation by Avraham Tal seems unnecessary:

The leadership and the liberal Jewish public accept Israeli Arabs as citizens with equal rights, with the exception of certain areas that touch on Israel's essence as a Jewish state (such as the Law of Return and the Law of Citizenship). All would agree that, over the years, the Arab minority has suffered discrimination in certain areas and that this must be remedied. But the leaders of the Arabs in Israel are trying to show that their loyalty is not given to the State of Israel in its present incarnation, but only to a binational Jewish-Arab state on the territory of Israel, or to a Palestinian state on all the territory of the Land of Israel.

I don't think it adds anything to the article, as it is very vague and does not even claim to be up-to-date. What's more it's an opinion piece. Would anyone object to its removal? Screen stalker (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have removed it. If anyone does object, feel free to revert and discuss. Let's try to make some more headway in cutting that section down. It is quite long. Screen stalker (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced information

Jaakobou, twice now you have deleted this information. Your edit summary is nonsensical. The information is phrased in an WP:NPOV fashion and is sourced and attributed to its author. It is not the same information offered by the Mossawa report previous. Please do not delete sourced information, relevant to the topic at hand. Thanks. Tiamut 02:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

there's a limit to how many POV sources we can use before a paragraph becomes a soapbox. to use the term "institutional violence" and portray a one sided narrative on deaths without considering how they occurred (people who tried to kill jews) is POV enough without inserting some extra POV by someone stating a one sided narrative about "only arab rioters died in Israel" which neglects that "only arab rioters killed in Israel".

secondly, you've also reverted the NPOV changes i've made on the pargraph, which shows this is not merely about the "removed sourced material". try to remember this is an encyclopedia and maintain WP:NPOV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very unconvincing argument, particularly since you are deleting one sentence, directly relevant to the sentence that precedes it.

Second, I retained some of your edit (notice I left in the part about "advocacy group for Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel" and "what they describe as". This was a compromise edit. Your POV editorializing that there were violent riots is unnecessary. The shooting and killing of civilians is violent, but we don't write "violently shot dead". Please stop deleting sourced info and making POV descriptions. Thanks. Tiamut 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

please explain to me how the removal of the fact that the arab rioters were shot while rioting violently [4] maintains NPOV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a fact that all of those shot were violently rioting at the time they were killed or anytime before. In fact, more than one of those killed was described as being a bystander, watching events go down between people and police. So you see, your unsourced assertion is not NPOV at all. Tiamut 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

let me get this straight. are you saying they were not shot during the violent riots? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to interject. Tiamut, a bystander is not a protester. So if you're saying a bystander was shot and killed by Israeli police, that is by definition irrelevant to the paragraph that you want to include in the article.

Myself, I am interested in finding out how many Arabs have been killed in protests by Israeli police, at what time and under what circumstances. If this was thirty years ago, for example, the argument is moot, even if all else fits what you are saying. Also, if police killed three protesters over the past x-many years then we can hardly draw a conclusion from that. If dozens of protesters have been killed over the past few years, that will merit an examination of inclusion. Otherwise, this is seriously POV. Screen stalker (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Citations

The article's citation of sources is fairly weak. The following problems are prevalent:

• The same sources repeat unnecessarily (when they could be referenced by name multiple times). I believe I caught most of not all of the instances of this, but I could be wrong.
• Many URLs are linked without an actual citation, but just a link symbol. I would rather move away from this because the reader has to open the link to see what the source is.
• Some of the links may be dead (so far I have found one).
• Some of the sources are of questionable accuracy. For example, as much as I respect the Jewish Virtual Library, we really should go back to the sources that they cite (if possible). If this is not possible, then I guess it will be alright to quote sources, provided that they have at least reasonable credibility (such as the Jewish Virtual Library). I would rather avoid this, however.
• There are some unsourced statements in this article.

Please help me fix incorrenct or inconsistent citations and make this article more streamlined, including, if necessary, by using the {{Fact}} tag. Citations such as this are part of the reason why high school students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia in their papers... Screen stalker (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Spatial distribution

Under the section "Spatial distribution," there appears the following clause: "although over the same period Israeli state agencies have established over 600 settlements for Jews." When I removed this clause on December 12, Tiamut and RolandR argued for its inclusion on the basis that it provides context for the construction of Arab settlements. Yet Tiamut yesterday removed a crucial portion of the context of this construction: that Israeli Jews are 30 times more numerous than Israeli Bedouins, and non-nomadic.

I would prefer that the clause in question be altogether removed, because it does not deal with the Arab citizens of Israel, and because it is in violation of WP:SYN. However, if one argues for its inclusion based on the context it provides, one cannot selectively eliminate the context of why Israel built fewer settlements for Bedouins than for Jews. I will therefore reinstate the caveat emptor which must be included with the number of settlements. I expect that we will have fairly colorful discussion here… Screen stalker (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all off topic. <<-armon->> (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Screenstalker. I removed your addition because it's a misrepresentation of the comparison. In other words, it's not just communities for Bedouins that are under discussion. No new Arab towns, besides the seven Bedouin relocation townships, were constructued for Arabs since 1948. So when you claim (without sources) that Jews are 30 times more numerous than Bedouins and that's why 600 new settlements were built for them, you are distorting the terms of the debate. Arabs number over 1.2 million in Israel. Jews are therefore only four to five times more numerous, not 30 times. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Tiamut 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank Armon for removing the whole sentence. It was all off topic. It may seem odd that I say this, but I would prefer a neutral off-topic statement than a one-sided off-topic statement (which is why I said initially that I would rather altogether remove it).

As for your argument regarding the proportion of Jews to Arabs, the goal in providing the numbers wasn't to say "Israel was right" or "Israel was wrong." It was to provide a context for the order of magnitude on which such construction takes place. Of course, this is somewhat moot, since the text is no longer in the article. Screen stalker (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Examples of Integration" Section

This section seems superfluous to me. Its content is too anecdotal to be of much value, and it doesn't speak to any overarching trends. In an article that is almost twice as long as Wikipedia articles should be, this would be a good section to cut out altogether.

Thoughts? Screen stalker (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's only been two days, but I really feel this is a no-objection issue, so I will proceed with deletion. If there are objections, feel free to revert. Screen stalker (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, you removal of such a large chunk has not been identified as vandalism? Why should this be? Chesdovi (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be identified as vandalism? Screen stalker (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping RolandR would enlighten us why this may be, or not, as it is in this case. Chesdovi (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it wasn't vandalism. RolandR (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups infobox

Israeli Arabs
العرب

Falafel in Nazareth, 2007
Total population
1,413,500 (2006)
Regions with significant populations
Israel
Languages
Hebrew, Arabic
Religion
Islam, Christianity, Druzism and Judaism

Chesdovi has so far three times replaced the ethnic groups infobox on this page with his preferred version, without even attempting to discuss this on the talkpage. This issue has previously been discussed here, and it was agreed to retain the Arabs infobox. As noted then, "There is no ethnicity called "Arab citizens of Israel" and we would be making one up (WP:OR) if we drafted one". Despite this, Chesdovi has introduced his own, under the certainly contentious heading "Israeli Arabs" -- though he has not altered the Arabic text, presumably not knowing enough Arabic to do so. He has also introduced Hebrew as the primary language, and replaced a historic picture of an Arab family with an entirely inappropriate photo of a felafel shop in Nazareth.

This substitution is a non-consensual, highly POV series of changes. It certainly should not be made without any discussion on this page. RolandR (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I didn't realise what I thought was a constructive change, would cause such a backlash, (I guess I should have known when delving into such important and pertinent subjects!), let's discuss it:

1. "There is no ethnicity called "Arab citizens of Israel". I do not mind if the ARAB box is placed elsewhere in the article, this page is after all about Arabs. However, as the topic is about Arabs in Israel, the top box should reflect this, as it does in Arab Brazilian, Arab American, Arabic-speaking Christians. To do otherwise is in my mind quite misleading. At first glance I thought there were 300 million Arabs in Israel! As the page itself is not about Arabs per-se, surely the title of the box accordingly. The image currently one from 1905 pre-dates the modern State of Israel which was re-established in 1948. One which reflects Arabs in Israel should be added instead.
2. If this box is specifically for ethnicity (and cannot be used for other info), it should not be used on this page which doesn't discuss this matter. Again, this is about Arabs in Israel. (Btw, on all the other Arab pages I have seen, this doesn't appear, save the Arabs page. What was the person who added it to this page thinking??!!!)
3. "Israeli Arabs" - Contentious? I thought it was a given that Arabs in Israel are refered to as Israeli Arabs. Am I wrong?
4. The Arabs of Israel actually speak Hebrew, albeit with an Arabic dialect - do they not?
5. I searched commons for a good photo and only this one seems to convey Arabs in Israel.
6. I do not see what is so “highly” POV about this. Methinks someone is making a mountain out of a molehill.
7. RolandR contends that when this was discussed previously "it was agreed to retain the Arabs infobox". As far as I can see it remained unresolved. There was no definite conclusion to the matter. Rather it was left with a question: “So would you prefer the ethnicity template Palestinians because that's the only other choice that is applicable here.” Yet that Palestinians template currently appears on the page!!? Best, Chesdovi (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly good point and not vandalism. Zeq (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: as this article is about Arab citizens of Israel, what is the relevance of a picture showing an "Arab family from Ramallah"? Ramallah is obviously not Israel, but the West Bank. We are not going to suggest that Israel should annex the West Bank, are we? And what sense does it make that it is stated here: "Total population approx. 300 to 340 million"? Surprising. Some explanation would be welcome. On the surface, it would seem to me that a picture from Nazaret is indeed more relevant to this subject. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally there was an {{arab ethnicity}} which was deleted for some reason. It had a different photo from 1910. The photo kept on being changed due to various criticisms – none of the changes, by the way, RolandR, being considered vandalism. A new ethnicity navbox was subsequently created and the current photo of Ramallah was added. 5 days later this new navbox with the Ramallah photo was added by User:Tiamut. It is supposed to illustrate Arabs and has nothing to do with Arabs citizens of Israel per-se. Your observation has just compounded the confusion. Now User:Tiamut who once stated about inclusion of the photo: “The picture is beautiful and exhibits Arab culture. Palestinians in Israel are ethnically Palestinian and Arab. It is rather amazing to me that people feel the need to protest the inclusion of pictures that show Arab culture is a positive light”, now agrees that the “current setup is confusing and needs to be changed”. How strange! Chesdovi (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arab infobox at this page used to look more like the infox at the Persian people page. It listed Israel as one country with an Arab population and the infobox is styled as an ethnicity infobox, therefore providing information on the ethnic group as a whole. I agree that the current setup is confusing and needs to be changed. I do not however think that a picture from a falafel shop in Nazareth is a good substitute for the picture currently in place (a compromise picture). And I do think it is important to mention that these people are related to other people around in them in the region who also identify as Arab. This is as key to their self-identification (and for many more so) than their identity as Israelis and that should be clear to the reader. Perhaps we can hash out ideas here on how to meet each other halfway? Tiamut 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

Regions with significant populations
Israel
Languages
Arabic
Religion
Predominantly Muslim. There are also some adherents of Christianity
Related ethnic groups
Mizrachi Jews Sephardi Jews, Canaanites,Palestinian refugee other Semitic groups

In fact the first time this type of box was put in the article by User:7day, it was similar to my version. In May 07 User:Tiamut [5] removed it: “removing dubious ethnicity template - will replace with either "Arab" or "Palestinian" per discussion in talk”. In fact when User:Tiamut went ahead and removed it, s/he failed to respond Al Ameer son query: “but it is the "Arab" template really necessary?” Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 3#Arab citizens of Israel are an ethnic group?!?. I can understand User:Tiamut position, but at the end of the day, the box at the top of this page should reflect what the article is about, not the ethnicity of the people who are the point of discussion. Chesdovi (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I sense that you find wrong in my having opened a discussion after making a bold edit, though I cannot understand why. The infobox you posted on the right has a number of problems. First off, this is an ethnic group infobox and there is no reliable scholarly source that says that "Arab citizens of Israel" are an ethnic group. Their ethnicity has been identified by numerous scholars as "Arab" (which is why I made the initial changes that I did). Second of all, the "related populations" listed quite surpisingly, fail to mention Arab altogether and instead list (rather strangely and arbitrarily) "Mizrachi Jews Sephardi Jews, Canaanites,Palestinian refugee other Semitic groups". Under "religion", there is no mention of Druze. In short, this was an inaccurate, hodgepodge of WP:OR information that does not represent reality or any scholarly consensus.

Now, I've offered to work towards building a new infobox that addresses the concerns raised here and those of my own as well. Are you interested in doing that? Thanks. Tiamut

I don't want to sound pedantic, but why is your "bold edit" not considered vandalism by User:RolandR while mine seemingly is? Does User:RolandR owe me an apology? (User:RolandR are you reading this? You seem to have gone quiet) Chesdovi (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tiamut, if, as you say, Israeli Arabs are indeed an ethnic group, what do you mean by this. They may be an ethnic group within Israeli society, but are they not in fact ethnic Palestinians? Please clarify as I am a bit confused. Chesdovi (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (I am reading this in tandem with the old discussion:)

Arab citizens of Israel are an ethnic group?!?
What's up with the ethnicity template? What reliable source states that "Arab citizens of Israel" form an ethnic group? As far as I know, the ethnicity of all Arab citizens is "Arab" and/or "Palestinian" Can someone please explain how this addition is not WP:OR? Tiamut 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there.It seems stupid.Arabs are a single ethnic group,and the ones in Jordan are part of the same group as the ones in Isreal. Simply being part of a different state does not make you a ethnic group.Delete the ethicity template? Raspberrysnapple 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raspberrysnapple. Arabs are a single ethnic group with sub-groups, but those sub-groups are not based on citizenship, but rather on self-identification. There is however, no "Arab citizens of Israel" ethnic sub-group. There is a Palestinian sub-group, Lebanese sub-group, etc. In terms of ethnicity, Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians and/or as Arabs. In other words, Arab citizens of Israel are largely part of the Palestinian sub-group, which is part of the larger Arab grouping. So if there is going to be an ethnicity template, it should be the Palestinian and/or Arab template. Tiamut 08:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut and Raspberrysnapple, I agree with both of you. We should remove the Arab ethnic group template completely. However the Palestinians template should be replaced by the template for the Arab citizens of Israel. Al Ameer son

Hey Al Ameer. I don't think you understood the discussion. We were talking about an ethnicity template for Arab citizens of Israel which has already been removed (citizenship does not require a separate ethnicity template and so this was replaced with the Arab ethnicity template). IMO, the Palestinians template should not be removed from this page. More than half of the Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians. And the Arab ethnic group template should also not removed since Arab citizens of Israel are ethnically Arab and most also, Palestinian. Tiamut 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, i feel stupid now. However I see now that we should keep both the Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel templates but it is the "Arab" template really necessary? - Al Ameer son

Chesdovi, it's normal to be confused as this is a confusing issue, given the different interpretations that exist fo the word ethnicity, nation, people, etc. Ethnicity in particular is difficult concept, since to some it is associated with race, whereas to others it is largely cultural. In all cases, it requries self-identification with the ethnic group in question by the people concerned. Arab citizens of Israel rarely (if ever) identify as "Israeli Arabs". Generally-speaking, their ethnic affiliation is Arab and for many but not all, their national affiliation is Palestinian. Their relationship to Israel is one largely based on citizenship, and tends to lack a sense of national or ethnic affiliation with "Israeli-ness". Does that help clarify the discussion above? Does it help illuminate how we might determine a way forward on this issue? Tiamut 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! So much discussion. I don't really think I want to read it all (although I read most of it). I don't see why anyone would object to placing an "Arabs of Israel" tag in this article. Personally, I don't see the point of having the "Arabs" tag anywhere in the article, but I am not particularly objected to it.

As for the picture, I believe the other editors who discussed this pointed out (correctly) that the people shown in the 1908 picture were not Arab citizens of Israel, because Israel did not exist at the time, and even if it did, Ramallah is not a part of Israel.

Seeing as how we have four editors in favor of removing the "Arabs" tag and adding the more specific Arabs of Israel tag, and two opposed, one could hardly call it vandalism to instate the new tag. I think the case could be made, however, that removing it would be vandalism.

The issue of greater contention is whether or not the "Arabs" tag belongs in the article at all (somewhere further down). My vote on that is no. Screen stalker (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In my modest view, in an article about "Arab citizens of Israel", a picture from Ramallah is completely out of place. What is wrong with the Nazareth picture? Paul kuiper NL (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR that such important changes should not be pushed through without achieving consensus through discussion, particularly from long-time editors to this page who have partaken in these discussions many times before.

I think the discussion at this point would benefit from some sourcing. Can someone provide a source that says that Arab citizens of Israel constitute an ethnic group, as distinct from Palestinians and/or Arabs? If there is no such source, we should not attempt to use an ethnic group template as the infobox for this page under the heading "Arab citizens of Israel" or "Israeli Arabs".

Regarding the picture, I strongly object to the picture of Arabs in a falafel shop in Nazareth. No other ethnicity template has such a random picture. The picture of the family from Ramallah that was chosen was picked on the basis that it was an expression of Arab and Palestinian culture, a culture in which the Arabs in Israel partake. I do agree that a more suitable picture can be found (only because this particular one specifies a family from Ramallah, which may be confusing to those who do not understand that Ramallah Arabs are related to ones in places like Nazareth). I don't think the falafel picture is it. I will try to find a historic picture that exhibits Arab culture but is from the Galilee or Little Triangle region. I encourage others to work on finding other options as well. Tiamut 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be the Arab ethnicity infobox, the photo doesn’t need to be changed. It should be used on every Arab-linked page. What I think you will agree to, is an infobox which contains all the info I added as long as it isn’t called an ethnic box! Let’s create a new box for heavens sake if this will please you. No one even knows its an ethnic box unless they edit the page! I really don’t see what the fuss is about?! The top box should show info about Arab citizens of Israel, that is what the page is about. This seems to be the standard practice in all other similar pages. What is the problem here? Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the complexity of the identity of Arab citizens in Israel, and their historical experience and connection to other Palestinians and Arabs, consider this passage by Ismael Abu-Saad in Indigenous Education and Empowerment:International Perspectives (2005):

As for other indigenous peoples in settler states, the identity of the indigenous Palestinian Arab minority in Israel is complex. This minority is part of the indigenous Palestinian population that remained in its homeland after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, and they currently constitute 19 percent of Israel's population. Modern geopolitical boundaries and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict separate them from most of the rest of the Palestinian people. Although the indigenous Palestinian community in Israel is culturally Arab, it is largely disconnected from other Arab countries, with minimal acceptance, communication and freedom of movement. As citizens of Israel, the indigenous Palestinian people in Israel are not integrated into Israeli society and are discriminated against socially, educationally, economically and politically.

The picture in the infobox can predate Israel's establishment since we are not talking about a population that came into existence when Israel did. This population's existence in the land on which Israel was established predates the country's establishment, and they form a part of the broader national and ethnic groups of Palestinian and Arab. My search for sources thus far has found nothing that indicates that there is an ethnic group known as "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab citizens of Israel". An ethnic template thus titled would be pure original research.Tiamut 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of historical pictures of Palestinians in areas that became part of the Israeli state. The problem would be establishing copyright. Onr suitable picture could be the one used on the Hebrew Wikipedia article; the memorial at Arraba to the Palestinian citizens of Israel killed by the Israeli army on Land Day in 1976. RolandR (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How morbid, chances are the sculpturer was an Israeli. Is this really a good choice? It seems to me you have shown your true colours; all this is about is your personal vendetta against the zionists - and you accuse others of pushing their own POV! Go away and stop wasting everybody’s time. We don’t need or want your unhelpful edits. Chesdovi (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your incivility is uncalled for and unwelcome. Discuss the issues, don't make personal attacks on other editors.

Your remark above that the sculptor was probably an Israeli suggests that you equate "Israeli" with "Israeli Jew", and have forgotten that an Arab sculptor could also be "an Israeli" -- a revealing slip in the context of a content dispute on "Arab citizens of Israel". And, if you don't understand the significance and centrality of the events of Land Day 1976 for this article, you really should ask yourself whether you should be editing it at all. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who equates "Israeli" with "Israeli Jew" as you can’t stomach the notion that there is such thing as an Israeli Arab! Highly contentious! Land day is certainly significant to this article. The term appears a grand total of once in it. I am happy the page is protected to stop you further reverting and counter reverting, not assuming good faith on my bold edits and having the audacity to call my edits vandalism. Unfortunately the infobox which User:Tiamut originally vandalised still appears. As you started all this, where is your input? I have discussed enough. It seems you just want to cause trouble. Chesdovi (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I can't quite understand the hostile tone you've adopted here, nor your characterization of my edits to the infobox as "vandalism". You yourself are aware that I engaged in discussion over those changes (indeed, you are the one who posted one of those discussions here above). Please tone down your rhetoric. It is unhelpful in achieving consensus for how tomove forward. Tiamut 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I only refer to your edit as “vandalism” when responding to RolandR, the one who seems to think that my good-faith change to the info-box constituted vandalism. When I re-added my changes, I thought my edit summary would settle the matter. He has yet to explain to me why my edit was considered by him as vandalism. As a result I have now been put on Arbcom. I do not however consider your edit, like mine, vandalism. Relax. I am angry with RolandR. Chesdovi (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tiamut, is all you are saying about Arabs in Israel true for groupings of Arabs in other non-Arab countries, such as America? If yes, is the navbox on the Arab American page also inappropriate? What about the example in Palestinian American, Syrian American, etc? If there is no such thing as an Israeli-Arab ethnicity, why have the ethnicity box on the page at all, as it gives the impression that there is such thing. All I think is necessary is a infobox detailing Arabs in Israel, as the other similar pages have. Chesdovi (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the answer to your question, having not researched terms like "Arab American", "Palestinian American" and the like.

As far as I can determine, there is no source that claims that "Arab citizens of Israel" are an ethnic group, but there are many reliable sources that attest to "Arab" being an ethnicity, or "Palestinian" being an ethno-national group (of which Arabs in Israel form a part - See this for example.

I don't think an infobox like the one you composed is particularly useful, since it offers very little in the way of information on who the Arabs in Israel are. All it does is repeat the article title is less POV fashion, give you the number of Arabs in Israel (one of two figures, which as the article discusses depends on whether you include East Jerusalem or not - you chose to include East Jerusalem, another POV edit), and the languages they speak (you put Hebrew first, even though there are some Arabs in Israel who still do not speak it at all; most speak Arabic as their mother tongue and in everyday life - and so another POV edit), and the religious groups represented among them.

I'm not for an infobox just for the sake of having one. It should be informative and NPOV. while I would like to retain the ethnicity template, we need to determine using reliable sources, how it should be titled and how to lessen confusion on the part of the reader, while still faithfully representing the facts. So let's work on doing that, okay? Tiamut 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think an infobox like the one I composed is particularly useful, what is particularly useful about the one you conjured up? Not citing any sources either, it says Arabs number approx. 300 to 340 million and has a mysterious footnote section. I don’t accept your answer that you have “not researched terms like "Arab American", "Palestinian American”. This is just a way of getting out explaining why is it acceptable to have a doctored Arab ethnicity-box on any other Arab connected page, but not on Arabs in Israel. After a web search, I have also found some sources which indeed refer to the Arabs in Israel as an ethnic group. It is also worth bearing in mind that although you express the view that the Arabs of Israel identify with Palestinian nationalism, (that template is already in the page), the vast majority wish to remain under Israel’s discriminatory rule.

• A Model for Multiple Mutations in a Monogenic Disease within a Distinct Ethnic Group: “The patients comprise a distinct ethnic group (Israeli Arabs) residing in a confined geographic area.”
• Epidemiology of transitional cell carcinoma among Israeli Arabs: “The focus of this study was on the characteristics of TCCB among Israeli Arabs who form a particular ethnic group in the Israeli population…”
• Boston University: NEW GENE UNCOVERED FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE: “Findings Replicated in 4 Different Ethnic Groups: Europeans, African-Americans, Caribbean-Hispanics & Israeli-Arabs”
• Reflections on the Role And Status of the Israeli Arabs: “What has surfaced is the reality that Arab Israelis, Israel's ethnic minority, have long been living as second-class citizens and tolerating conditions that resemble an apartheid rule.”
• Arab Political Mobilization And Israeli Responses: ”Furthermore, this paper also assesses the political influence of the Israeli Arabs in the Jewish state from an ethnic minority perspective.”
• Ethnic democracy in Israel which refers to Israeli Arabs when discussing the operation of democracy in a country involving a “minority ethnic group” Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good show, Chesdovi. Tiamut, the source you quote which implies that Palestinians were the indigenous population of Mandatory Palestine shows a slight POV. It is true, there were many Arabs living in the area for generations. There were also many Jews who could say the same. And, of course, let's not forget the countless many non-indigenous Arabs who moved into Mandatory Palestine a few years before 1948 (primarily from North Africa), because they wanted to partake in the prosperity that the Yishuv brought. They are included in every survey and statistic as "indigenous Palestinian people," yet the UN only requires them to have lived in Palestine for two years to be counted as "indigenous." Two years? Give me a break!

As for this whole discussion about whether or not Israeli Arabs make up their own ethnicity, you forget that the idea of a Palestinian ethnic group is a concept that only recently evolved (and for purely political reasons). In fact, King Hussein desperately tried to erase any mention of the word in Jordanian documents. The ethnicity of Palestinians is Arab, and they belong to the Palestinian people only because of the way the borders in Israel were drawn, not because of some greater geo-political truth that separates them from any other Arab group in the region (save the Egyptian Arabs and the Bedouins). So I cannot understand why you would support a Palestinian ethnic box if you cannot tolerate the idea of an Arab-Israeli ethnic box. Screen stalker (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Chesdovi. Let's look at them more closely now, shall we?

The first three are scientific sources. These are not experts in the classification of ethnic groups or on identity issues. I don't consider them reliable sources on this subject. (Sorry)

The next two are interesting, but I don't think they are claiming that "Israeli Arabs" are an ethnic group unrelated to other Palestinians or Arabs. I can't tell if that's true for both of course, since the whole paper for the most reliable source you provided (i.e.Arab Political Mobilization And Israeli Responses: ”Furthermore, this paper also assesses the political influence of the Israeli Arabs in the Jewish state from an ethnic minority perspective.”) isn't available in the link. "Israeli Arabs" may be referred to as an "ethnic minority group" in Israel, but what's their ethnicity? It is "Israeli Arab"? We have sources in the article itself that say that Arabs in Israel reject that descriptive for themselves and view themselves to form part of the Palestinian people or Arab people in general. Are we to ignore those sources in favour of these? How do we move forward here?

I'm not pretending to have all the answers here. Screenstalker's statement about me supporting a Palestinian ethnic box also caught me off guard. I'm discussing the issues and I don't believe I've declared what an acceptable solution would be here. It's a very complex issue.

The reason an "Arab" ethnicity box was picked was that reliable sources indicate that Arabs in Israel are Arab. Some Arabs in Israel (like segments of the Druze) reject the identifier "Palestinian", and many (if not most) reject the identified "Arab-Israeli", but all accept "Arab". (There are sources in the article to this effect, but if you need more, please ask).

I think we need to put aside our presumptions about one another here and about the subject matter and look more closely at a totality of sources to determine how to come to consensus over how to represent this population. Identity issues are very complex and sensitive issues. This one particularly so, given that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is an ethno-national conflict. Defining who does or does not constitute an ethnic group or national group is a part of the conflict itself. So let's keep working towards examining the sources, seek the input of other editors (perhaps some from the Ethnic groups Wikiproject?) and see what we can come to agree upon. Tiamut 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the interesting scientific studies cited by Chesdovi do not assert that "Israeli Arabs" are an ethnicity, but rather a "distinct ethnic group" within Israeli society. In an analogous manner, Ashkenazi Jews form a distinct ethnic group within British society, and are thus, for instance, much more likely to be carriers of Tay-Sachs disease. This has public health implications, but says very little about their ethnicity, except to demonstrate their connection to Ashkenazi Jews elsewhere. Nobody is denying that, within Israel, the Arab minority constitutes a distinct ethnic group. The disagreement is over the actual ethnicity of this group. I can see nothing to question my understanding that they are part of the overall Arab ethnic entity; and the purpose of the infobox is to show this. I don't think that its inclusion bears any hidden political implication. RolandR (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the designation of "distinct ethnic group" is enough in order to use the ethnicity navbox! Are there any rules about using this specific box? I have based the new version on Arab American and American Jews and taken all the info from the article, except the (mostly Sunni bit): Chesdovi (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel
العرب الإسرائيل
ערבים אזרחי ישראל

Boutros Mouallem 51px| Ayoob Kara Boutros Mouallem • Nazareth • Ayoob Kara
Total population
1,144,000 plus 270,000 in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (2006) 19.8% of Israeli population
Regions with significant populations
Israel
Languages
Arabic and Hebrew
Religion
Islam 70%a (mostly Sunni), Christianity 9% and Druzism
a Excluding Bedouins

There are some rules regarding the use of the box, primarily: sources, sources sources! I think it's wrong to use an ethnicity infobox, suggesting that Arab citizens of Israel are an ethnic group divorced from other Palestinians and Arabs when most of the sources indicate that form a part of these peoples. This source for example, describes how an 1984 poll of "Israeli Arabs" revealed that 75% identified as "Palestinian Arab", "Palestinian" or "Arab", while only 24% identified as "Israeli Arab" or "Israeli Palestinian". Per wikipedia naming guidelines, it would be inappropriate to use the phrase "Arab citizens of Israel" or "Israeli Arab" to describe this group of people and intimate that they are a distinct ethnic group when they themselves deny that. For the majority, their ethnicity is either "Palestinian" or "Arab" even if their citizenship status is Israeli.

The question is how do we represent these facts in the infobox? I'm confused myself about it but it's definitely an important issue. Perhaps we can ask for the helpo of the Ethnic groups Wikiproject? I will post a notice there.

By the way, the pictures aren't so great. I'm not familiar with Ayoob Kara or Boutros Moallem and don't see them as very representative, and all the pictures lack in composition. I think we can do better than that. Tiamut 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As neither Israeli or Palestinian appear on List of ethnic groups, we can assume that neither are actually ethnicities. It seems the problem here is the use of a dark/light brown navbox which is supposed to be used exclusively for providing info about ethnic groups. This being the case, a new type of box should be created, (I couldn't find a suitable other one), which would be used to describe different groups within a country. I'm sure this type of box will be welcomed.Chesdovi (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. That's why I left a note at the Ethnic groups WikiProject and the WikiProject Arab World about the issue. I think this is a problem larger than just this article. There doesn't seem to be a strong guideline regarding how to represent Arabs (as an ethnicity, a culture, etc., etc.) nor Palestinians. As both are identifiable ethnic or national groups, that should be resolved. It would also help to shed light on how to deal with this page, and other pages like the ones you brought up such as Palestinian American, etc.

I'm not sure we should forge ahead an create a new infobox format when there is a working Wikiproject dealing with infoboxes for peoples. I'd like to get some feedback from that group and the Arab world WikiProject before we proceed further. I hope you don't mind waiting for some outside input. Tiamut 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use the current Arab box, but the expanded version with the pop. figs. for all countries, (how it looked before it was reduced, see Basque people). It will then remove the problem of confusing facts, but we will loose the uniqueness of have info about a specific group in a certain country. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That was an option I was considering suggesting. However, what I am genuinely confused about is how to articulate the relationship between this group and Palestinians, as well as Arabs. I'd like to see what others in the Arab world Wikiproject have done for that and what people in the ethnic groups Wikiproject do when there is more than one ethnic and/or national affiliation for a given group. Tiamut 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC deals with "guidelines on how to create and name pages," and even the page itself says that "these are not rules carved in stone." It is therefore not related to the use of infoboxes. Even if it did, it would not be a policy that must be read too literally. In light of this, I have not yet seen a single wikipedia policy that would ban the use of an ethnicity infobox for a group whose identity as an ethnicity is controversial.

I might be more incline to accept Tiamut's and RoladR's arguments if the infobox explicitly called Israeli Arabs an ethnicity. But only people who edit wikipedia even know that it's called an ethnic infobox, as Chesdovi correctly pointed out.

As for the example of the Basque people, allow me to apply it to Arabs as follows: I would favor a breakdown of where Arabs live in the Arab article. I wouldn't favor it in the Arab Brazilian, or Arab American, or British Arab, etc. In fact, all of these articles list Arabs of country X in an ethnic group box. In fact, "Arab American" lists American Jews as a "related ethnic group," which quite explicitly calls American Jews an ethnic group.

I think that it's time that we all recognize that ethnic group infoboxes aren't just used to describe ethnic groups, and there's nothing too terribly awful about that. Screen stalker (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Ethnic groups, sources must be carefully vetted when dealing with ethnic group articles [6]. I don't understand why this case should be any different. From my experience with working on the Arab ethnicity template, it will be difficult to draft a template of the kind you've proposed. It's worth trying anyway. We might also consider drafting a Palestinian people template that lists all the different Palestinian populations, like Palestinian American, Palestinian Chilean, arab citizens of Israel, etc. I'd still like to see feedback from the Arab world and Ethnic groups wikiprojects. Establishing the relationship between Palestinians, Arabs, and Arab citizens of Israel is a challenging, but we are going to have to deal with it eventually. Tiamut 12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that WikiProject policies are binding towards editors (because WikiProjects are projects that one voluntarily joins). Even if it were, I have seen no evidence that an ethnic box template must be used only for ethnic groups. Without such a policy, the debate over whether or not Israeli Arabs are an ethnic group is moot. Screen stalker (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as the person who started Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups, I can say definitively that it was never my intention to create tools that could be used only in dealing with ethnic groups in some narrow sense. The original motivation for the project was twofold:

1. To get away from the tendency in Wikipedia at that time to link to articles about nation states when what was really meant had nothing to do with a state (e.g. Romanians vs. Romania); at the time, there were very few articles in the former class for groups where a "homeland" state exists.
2. To encourage more uniform handling of groups regardless of their status. For example, even now there is a tendency to get very different articles on ethnic or national groups that play a significant role in world politics and scholarship than those who do not. The former have a tendency to turn into heritage/pride articles (or, worse, attack articles). The latter tend to be treated from an anthropological perspective, and often the articles about them do not mention a single individual from the group in question. The WikiProject has not been entirely successful in addressing this, but certainly has improved matters from where they stood several years ago.

Different citable opinions on whether Arab citizens of Israel constitute an ethnic group in their own right might be worht discussing in the article, but we should presumably handle the group in exactly the same manner regardless. For example, our article on Chinese Americans follows the lines of an article on an ethnic group; this is not to suggest that they are radically distinct from Chinese Canadians, only that the intersection of ethnicity and citizenship or residency makes for a distinct enough set of issues to merit a separate article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent protection of this article, I would like to make sure that we have consensus on this issue before I change the infobox to the more specific "Israeli Arabs" infobox. How do we now stand on this? Screen stalker (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, nobody seems to have responded to Tiamut's request besides from Jmabel. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added the infobox. I suppose if there is still controversy, we will see a revert. Screen stalker (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)