Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: Muslims, Christians sub-sections: Please add a little about institutions, history, and towns Verify: Please add reliable sources for all of the information (do not delete info please, look for verification)

Materials

Sources relevant to this article:

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4175679,00.html

Unencyclopedic language

RolandR, look at the edit you are defending. "Wholeheartedly" is not an encyclopedia word. "Many" "most" and "prefered" are all words to be careful with. My edit is using a neutral voice. You are pushing a polemic.

Also, don't accuse me of editing "without any attemppt at explanation." You can plainly see my edit summaries, so don't be baseless. Modinyr (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Modinyr, please read tthe sources cited. They support the wording used. Its not polemic, its quantifying and emphasis that reflects the realities iit describes. The sources are impeccable, and the wording was carefully chosen. I should know because I spent many hours on it. Tiamut^talk 20:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No source can support weasel words. An encyclopedia should avoid words like "usually" "most" and "prefer." I'm not trying to contradict any source, just use a neutral voice. Modinyr (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following you. NPOV is about representing all significant viewpoints as reported byrealiable secondary sources. The sources used are RS and the information is presented in a way that is faithful to the descriptions provided. How is it neutral to subtlety distort the meaning they convey? Tiamut^talk 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of self-identification labels currently in use among Palestinian Israelis. Seven of the most commonly used were included in the 2001 survey. They range from "Israeli" and "Israeli Arab" to "Palestinian.

Forty-five percent said they were Arab, 24% think of themselves as Palestinians.

Israeli Arab" is the second-most popular response in the survey (among Arab citizens of Israel).

These three quotes come from three different sources. There are several used to support various generalizations. They don't all agree. In the beginning of the Terminology section, it says...

the preferred terms are Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel

but a few paragraphs later...

Terms preferred by most Arab citizens to identify themselves include Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Israeli Palestinians, the Palestinians of 1948, Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinian citizens of Israel

Because of this contradiction, I changed "preferred by most" into "used by many." That is more neutral. We can use the source that calls these terms important, but the source doesn't have enough weight to say "these ARE the preferred terms." Maybe you could say "in certain sectors of Palestinian society, the following terms are preferred."

But it is hard to generalize about people with words like "most." An encyclopedia should avoid them. That is why I'm not subtly distorting anything. There are seven or eight different sources. Torstrick uses the word "prefered", but she is contradicted by the survey. She also doesn't quite agree with Amara, who uses the word "widespread" and different labels.

So are you saying quoting one source and ignoring others is more neutral? Modinyr (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Someone deleted information that explained who prefers what. I've restored the information. If you would like to review the section sentence by sentence, I would be happy to. But please stop making changes that alter the quoted and paraphrased content to read differently than what is actually written. Tiamut^talk 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at this edit. He removed the word "convicted." The source said, "releasing 20 female Palestinian prisoners." He was erasing the word "convicted" so that the wiki would be an exact quote of the article.

Is an exact quote always a true quote? The source said elsewhere that the prisoners released were all convicts of crimes. They weren't political prisoners or prisoners of war. Gilad Shalit is a prisoner of war. Since Sean made the article say "Gilad was exchanged for Palestinian prisoners" that makes it seem like this soldier was released for Palestinian soldiers. This is a way to "subtlety distort the meaning they convey."

So, when you use a source, you need to take it into context and use it to serve the article, not have the article serve a point of view. That is why exact quotes can take things out of context.

I was right to return the word "convicted," so the reader would know more about the context. Plus the fact that they were convicted is supported by the source. The sources we use to verify what Arab citizens of Israel like to be called shouldn't be used by an editor who wants to tell readers what they want the top term to be. Why can't we just list popular self-designations without picking which of our many sources gets to crown a winner? Modinyr (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that you try to follow a distinction invented by Israel. As you know, Israel does not recognise that any Palestinian prisoner is a POW, so the fact that Israel "convicted" them is not by itself a genuine distinction between them and Shalit. Zero^talk 02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Modinyr, I strongly advise you to think very carefully before you write anything on any talk page from now on. I removed the word convicted because it's not in the Bloomberg source cited. There is no information in the source about the conviction status of the 20 women referred to. They may have been convicted, awaiting trail, imprisoned without trial, who knows. The source cited does not say elsewhere that the prisoners released were all convicts of crimes as you claim. The source doesn't even contain the word "crime" and the only conviction status information in the source cited relates to Armaan and Barghouti. So, the word was removed. You were wrong. Perhaps there is information about the conviction status in a source that isn't cited as I said in my edit summary. I wouldn't know. What I can say with confidence is that if you continue with this level of nonsense I will be pressing for a topic ban. Read sources properly or stop talking. Anymore "This is a way to subtlety distort the meaning they convey" out of you it's back to AE. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Subtly distort the meaning they convey" is a quote from Tiamut. But I say an exact quote, taken out of context, can be a distortion.

Anyway, the article clearly calls Shalit a "captive soldier" in the same paragraph that says he'll be swapped for "prisoners."

Armaan and Barghouti are both "among the prisoners." They were convicted of violent crime. There is no exact quote that says "these 20 chicks were all criminals" but the article does make clear that information about Shalit was exchanged for 20 prisoners. In the Bloomberg article, prisoner means convict. It is used only in one context, a prisoner of a (criminal) prison. Shalit is called someone "seized," a "captive," a "soldier," but not a prisoner.

So that is why I added the word "convict," to help the reader understand. The article, in context, said that Shalit was exchanged for 20 Palestinian women from Israeli jails.

Zero, I believe that Palestinian's belonging to resistance movements (like those described in the Third Geneva Convention) that are fighting the IDF (not civilians) are treated as POWs, as have Arabs who surrendered during an Arab-Israeli war. Modinyr (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Convict" is not synonymous with "prisoner", and no amount of special pleading can change this. A convict is someone who has been convicted, not simply someone who is held prisoner. Adding the word "convict" does not help the reader understand, it helps them misunderstand. In any case, this is irrelevant here, since Shalit and the prisoner swap are not the subject of, nor even mentioned in, this article. And please note that your belittling sexist reference to the female prisoners is unwelcome, and I suggest that you amend it. RolandR (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pappe's new book reviewed in Electronic Intifada

Hi,

A user removed the text cited below from the article, saying the Electronic Intifada would be an unreliable source. I opened this thread to discuss, whether the EI is a reliable source for this material. Since I added this originally, obviously my view is that there is no problem. The EI has been discussed a few times on WP:RSN, for example here where a user demonstrated that they're frequently cited by mainstream sources and even praised by the Financial Times. But coming to the actual point, is there some specific reasons to suspect the EI would be unreliable about the contents of this book?

In 1948-57 the presence of Arab Israelis in the country was seen by the Israeli leadership as "unfinished business", and some politicians and security service chiefs still contemplated plans to remove them from the country, or entice them to convert to Judaism. In 1958 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion accepted the fact that transferring Arab citizens from Israel was no longer possible. --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem but I think with a little digging you can find a source accetable to everyone. I'll try to take a look when I tie up some loose ends. Tiamut^talk 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for 2008 survey

I asked about this in May 2011. The following paragrap has no source cited: According to a 2008 national resilience survey conducted by Dr. Yussuf Hassan of the Tel Aviv University, 43% of Israel's Muslims defined themselves as "Palestinian-Arabs", 15% as "Arab-Israelis" and four percent as "Muslim-Israelis". In the Christian Arab community, 24% defined themselves as "Arab-Palestinians", 24% as "Arab-Israelis", and 24% as "Christian-Israelis". Over 94% of Druze youngsters saw themselves as "Druze-Israelis." No one has been able to provide a source and the info has not been verified. We have three charts in our article based on this info even though its not wp:v. I am going to remove the information. If. spurce is found we can discuss how to include it as there are other surveys to include here as well. Tiamut^talk 16:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hassan doesn't appear on the University's site.[1] Some kind of hoax, I guess. Anyway I found an up-to-date survey and added that. Kauffner (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Arab citizens of Israel → Israeli Arabs

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to new title Mike Cline (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Arab citizens of Israel → Israeli Arabs – The proposed title is a compact common name whereas the current title is unnecessarily descriptive. It is also far more common on Google Books than all the other possible titles put together, according to this ngram. As far as the POV issue goes, this survey suggests the people the term refers to prefer to be identified as "Arab" (as opposed to being identified as either "Palestinian" or by religion.) So using "Arab" as the noun corresponds with their own primary identification. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage examples

The proposed form is the usage of the international media, the Arab media, and the Israeli media:

• "Q&A: Israeli Arabs," BBC, July 23, 2009, article title.
• "The men had traveled to Israel for a week in August at the invitation of the Haifa University Center for Arab-Jewish Studies to get acquainted with the conditions of Israeli Arabs." Associated Press, Oct. 19, 1999.
• "The Israeli Arabs", Al-Ahram Weekly On-line. 14 - 20 December 2000. This is the title of an article in the English-language version of Egypt's top newspaper.
• "We have only about 150,000 Israelis who come and visit us a year and most of these are Israeli Arabs." Jordan Times, 11 Oct 2009. This is a quote by the king of Jordan.
• "Some 140 Israeli Arabs have been trained as hi-tech engineers and are working at Galil Software," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 18, 2011.
• "Israeli Arabs next to Israeli Jews holding national flags, Jerusalem, May 15, 2010", Haaretz. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - the community defines themselves in this way. "Arab citizens of Israel" is a factually accurate description and seeing as the group's leadership has a problem self-identifying as Israeli, I see no reason to impose that identity upon it. --GHcool (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How did you arrive at this conclusion? The Arab media in Israel appears to be Arabic only.[2] We have to call them something. "Israeli Arab" and "Arabs in Israel" are the only terms in common usage. The Egyptian and Jordanian papers don't seem to have a problem with "Israeli Arab". Kauffner (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - it gives me great pleasure to say that I agree with the excessively sensible GHcool. Also see MOS:IDENTITY, particularly the part where it says When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".) The terms Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Arabs is the one favored by the Israeli establishment, and reliable sources explicitly note that the Arabs themselves take issue with those terms, for a variety of reasons. This would force on people an identity that many of them reject. Additionally, there are several terms that are used by reliable sources, among them Israel's Arab citizens, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Palestinians. See also the books Israel's Palestinians and The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel. Finally, the comment in the nomination about As far as the POV issue goes, this survey suggests the people the term refers to prefer to be identified as "Arab" (as opposed to being identified as either "Palestinian" or by religion.) that is not exactly accurate, and in any case irrelevant. The title of the article does not call them Palestinians, so comparing the results of a question about which identity is most important is irrelevant. But if we were to actually look at the results of that poll, we see that more Arab citizens in Israel identify as Palestinian first before Israeli than the other way around. If anything, that supports adding Palestinian to the title, though I am not proposing that. nableezy - 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there are many times in wikipedia when someone or something itself doesn't like to be called 'x' - but because of external reliable sources and 'accepted' usage, we use it anyway. for example, from the obviously 'other side of things': israel doesn't refer to gilo or har homa a settlement, but that seems to an accepted name among 'others'. and so it goes in wikiworld. and so it is appropriate to use 'israeli arabs' - a term not made up, not perjorative, but simply descriptive. Soosim (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral phrase. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I appreciate the analytics and sources provided with the proposal since it cemented my personal opinion on it. I considered whether those sources were good enough and I believe they are. As a side note, I would not have an opinion on it at all if I hadn't just asked a friend a few nights ago since I was curious to see if she considered herself Middle Eastern, Arab, or Palestinian. She looked at me like I was a dummy and said she was an "Israeli Arab".Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources above provide examples of usage; i.e. they are primary sources. The reliable secondary sources used in the Arab citizens of Israel#Terminology section contradict the conclusions you and Kauffner have made based on a few primary sources and your anecdote about your friend. Tiamut^talk 08:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE doesn't say anything primary or secondary sources, so there is no basis for a Jayjg runaround here. Instead, the guideline recommends, "a search of Google Books and News Archive". I get 7,020 post-2000 Google News for "Israeli Arabs", 870 for "Arab citizens of Israel." Kauffner (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

TITLE has no specific instruction on how to deal with naming groups of people. WP:NCP, the people naming guidline also had no specific instructions for groups, until about a month ago, when someone added a line on how we should follow the most common name in English. This directive however, conflicts with the advice in MOS:IDENTITY, which defers to how groups name themselves. This is much more logical because identity is self-defined; groups are considered groups based on their self-identifying as a group. It makes no sense to recognize they are a group and then refuse to respect what they call themselves, or to call them by names they reject or dont't use. I've raised this issue at the talk page for the people naming convention. I invite all interested parties to continue the meta-discussion there. Tiamut^talk 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says, "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself." That's quite different than what you are claiming. I am struck by the phrase, "refuse to respect what they call themselves." They call themselves by various names. "Arab citizens of Israel" does not appear to be a standard phrase, much less the dominant usage of any group. Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the sources you brought? Your BBC article says: The majority of Israeli Arabs identify closely with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and often describe themselves as "Palestinian citizens of Israel" and "1948 Palestinians". What they dont call themselves is Israeli. nableezy - 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that quote I think it is striking that the BBC article chooses to use the term "Israeli Arabs" in its title and throughout its text. I would imagine that the reason is that the BBC feels that the term "Israeli Arabs" is more familiar to its readers and therefore more useful as a title.GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is striking that they choose to disregard the feelings of the people that they were covering. Luckily this isn't the BBC and we aren't obligated to disregard the self-identification of the people we are discussing. We have redirects for a reason, and both Israeli Arabs and Arab Israelis redirect to this article. nableezy - 05:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that as someone who is not an idiot I know that this conversation will be filled with filibustering and what can only be considered violations of interaction bans. I won't breach it myself but you guys can keep it up.06:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The key part there Kauffner is "When there is no dispute" and I do not see how you can think that is the case here. Many Arab citizens prefer to be called Palestinian as opposed to Israeli, even amongst more tolerated groups like Christian Arabs. A dispute clearly exists and under the circumstances it is therefore better to refer to them in a neutral and descriptive manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I urge everyone to read the sources cited in the terminology and self-identification sections of this article. They indicate that 'Israeli Arab' is a term rejected by most of the population under discussion. They also indicate that it is a partisan term preferred by supporters of Israel and the Israeli establishment. Arab citizens of Israel is specific and widely used. Its fine, though it should be prefaced with 'Palestinian', many pro-Israeli partisans likely won't allow that, so it will have to do for now. Tiamut^talk 08:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Mild Support The following comment is copied from this discussion from April: Wikipedia has a long-standing preference for preferring the terms that are more commonly used in the media, even if there are questions about the neutrality of those terms. See for example, WP:POVTITLE. "Israeli Arabs" is a much more widely-used term than "Arab citizens of Israel". Searching Google News gives 52 references for "Israeli Arabs"[3] vs 13 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[4]. Google Books is about 33,800 for "Israeli Arabs"[5] vs about 3,500 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[6]. Stylistically, "Arab citizens of Israel" is also clunkier. (update for December) I think Tiamut makes a valuable point about self-identification, but I'm not convinced that a majority of Israeli Arabs prefer the term. An article on language in The Forward states: "“Israeli Arabs.” The term preferred by Ms. Rosenfeld, this is also the term generally used by the media, the Israeli establishment and most Israeli Jews. ... “Arabs in Israel,” “Palestinians in Israel,” “Arab citizens of Israel,” etc. These are still more extreme formulations favored by the most radical, anti-Israel elements in Israeli Arab society. All imply that Israel’s Arab population does not identify with Israel in any way and that it has no other connection to Israel other than living in it. ... none of these terms, as far as I can make out, is used entirely consistently even by those espousing the nuance expressed by it: I have come across “Israeli Arabs” in extreme anti-Israel statements, and I have heard “Arabs in Israel” in perfectly moderate contexts" My gut feeling is that Tiamut is overstating his case - some members of the group have a strong preference for "Arab citizens of Israel" or a similar term, but it isn't a universal sentiment. I would prefer that we use the term that our English-language readers are most likely to encounter in the media. GabrielF (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi GabreilF. I think the literature shows a preference for identity labels that include"Palestinian", and which reject "Israeli". The current article title, which doesn't include "Palestinian", already reflects an Israeli POV, because its a term used by the Israeli establishment, as noted by the sources in the article. However, it also partially reflects the community in question's POV because it avoids use of the term "Israeli", which is only used by at most, a third of the population' as the sources in the article state. I don't see why we should change the title of this article to be more reflective of an Israeli POV, by using term most Arab citizens now reject. In fact, before this move request was opened, I was considering making my own request to "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" to be more fully reflective of both POVS (i.e. by marrying one Israeli establisment term "Arab citizens of Israel" with "Palestinian", which is also incidentally one of the terms used by some members of the community itself, though I believe the preferred terms are simply Palestinian or Arab without referencing Israel at all). Anyway, there is no consensus one way or another right now, and perhaps it is best to leave the title as is until clearer naming guidelines emerge. Tiamut^talk 19:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can see and empathize with the unease that this has engendered among quite a few editors. It must look and sound odd to citizens of Israel, and people with a deep attachment to that country generally, that what sounds to them like a perfectly natural classification by a legitimate modern nation of one of its peoples is contested. It does indeed look fairly neutral. But there is a long and complex tussle over the word 'Palestinian' over their identity. It is, as sources I have quoted elsewhere say, strongly avoided in Israeli usage. Its use as a self-identifier, according to several studies mentioned in the latest book by Peleg and Waxman, is growing apace within Israeli Arab communities, and has always been preferred in any case by Arabs over 'Israeli'. Statistically Palestinian Arabs of Israel, notwithstanding the frequent difficulties of their lives, would by a majority not exchange their nationality for any other available in that area. Statistically, however, their sense of affiliation, apart from the Druze, has attenuated significantly over the last decade. I'm not convinced that Palestinian identity is as unified as some of the opposers suggest. It seems far more nuanced and complex, but then so is Israeli or even Jewish identity (and I think complexity of identity is a positive). I was raised from childhood to accept what MOS:IDENTITY asserts. You call people what they are comfortable with, not what you, as the majority, think fit. Sorry for the windbaggery. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Nab, Malik and GH. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

salim tuma

Hi Hello im talking about salim tuma . First, there is a mistake and I'm sure of that, there is a difference between being an Arab or an Israeli-Palestinian this person was born in Israel, but the tariff is not the case. Many people consider that there is no difference, but this is not true.

Please cooperate in this matter, we want to be a reliable encyclopedia Wikipedia.

please reply as soon possible.

• What is the mistake that you are sure of ? Please explicitly state what the mistake is.
• Salim Tuama is an Arab and he is an Israeli. He is an Arab citizen of Israel, no ? So, can you explain why you think his image should be removed from this article
• What is "the tariff" you refer to ?

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First, there is a difference between being an Arab Israeli about the definition For example, true that the Arab-Israeli Salim Thomas, and you're right, but there are so many Arabs know about themselves as if they were only citizens of the state, not affiliated to them.

Another example of Mira Awad is also mentioned in the article, but if I realized how they identify themselves consider themselves to be from Palestine, and not on Israeli citizenship.

I ask is not to delete their name or their articles as a definition they are Israelis But to ask just delete the image from the article because the self-definition is different from the contents of the article. Because each person will go to this page will see and read the opposite.

Thank you please reply as soon possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.155.181 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are editing this page using the ip 79.179.155.181. Have you also been editing using the ips 79.183.171.70 , 79.181.150.79, 79.181.161.119 and 79.181.167.83? RolandR (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't quite understand what you see as the problem in Salim Tuama's case. This article is about Arab citizens of Israel. I understand that Arabs who live in Israel identify themselves in a variety of ways, but this article covers all citizens of the State of Israel who are also Arabs no matter how they identify themselves. It's not just about people who self identify as Palestinian by nationality but Israeli by citizenship. Actually, I don't know how Salim Tuama self-identifies. I've only seen journalists describe his identity, so if you have a source where he talks about his identity it would be a useful addition to his article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I want to add some information to the article salim tuma, but there is a problem We have completed many of the amendments and additions in various articles, but when I add information and of course also add the source surprised that a manager is deleted for no reason.

Please help please reply as soon as possible Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.155.181 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide the date and time of the edits you are talking about from this list ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs

Adding these few words should not be a flash point. I am not advocating a change to the title with this request. Simply follow MoS and the sources.

There is a discussion to change the title of the article. It did not have consensus. "Israeli Arabs" was a choice more than one editor agreed with. Previously, [Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 6 this discussion] touched on it but was overshadowed by the question not being precise enough. It looks like almost everyone (only a couple of editors) responding to Tiamut there were for it. Yes or no, does "Israeli Arabs" belong as a bolded alternate title in the first line of the lead? It appears that several of us think it does or that the article should even be retitled. Since we do not have consensus to change the title, let us enjoy making Wikipedia better and more clear to the reader by using the MoS. Note that it is common enough for a redirect already. You can open up more discussions for other options if you want Tiamut, but there are enough editors in favor of using this particular term... even if they do not stick around long enough to argue about it everytime it comes up. Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You need consensus to add that term and a few editors for is not consensus. As I said in the repvious discussion about this, There are many alternate terms for this group of people. While Israeli Arabs may be a common exonym, it is not thr mot common endonym and it is rejected outright by a significant percentage of this population. Why should we highlight one alternate term. Where in. the MoS does it say when we have several terms, we should pick one and runwith it? Where inNPOV does it say we should highlight only one POV in the lead? i don't see a compelling reason inline with our policies and guidelines for what you are proposing. Tiamut^talk 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What source says that anyone "rejects" this term? "A significant percentage of this population"?? This is certainly a grandiose way of referring to yourself. Kauffner (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiamut has disregarded what consensus means. Multiple editors > a few. Multiple conversations pointing to this being a term being acceptable for use (not as the primary title). What is your problem with it Tiamut? All I can tell from the talk page discussions is that you do not want it to be the primary title. What is your beef with it being an alternate title? No games or filibustering is needed. Lets punctuate the already existing consensus with an agreement. Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an OWN and IDONTLIKEIT problem. We have what seems to be the most commonly used term in English. According to wikipedia policy this should be the title of the article. That, apparently, is not going to happen. But that one editor can keep it from even being mention in the lead is just preposterous.

Is there anyone here other than Tiamut that objects to "Arab Israeli" being mentioned in the lead as an alternative name? If yes please explain. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object to including the term "Arab Israelis" (or "Israeli Arabs") in the introduction. I have objected every time this issue is raised, and have not changed my opinion. "Arab citizens of Israel" is a factual and politically neutral term (which is the reason that it is used as the title for this article), and is the only term necessary in the intro. The article begins with a discussion of terminology, which is the place where these terms should be noted. RolandR (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. I do appreciate being told by three white guys how I have no business editing an article about a group of people that I happen to be a part of. I have rarely used my personal background as an argument for naming in these discussions. Instead, I have painstakingly assembled the best scholarship on the issue and presented it in the terminology section, which as everyone who has read it can see indicates that what I am saying about the usage of this term and others used refer to this group is accurate. Also, anyone reviewing the edit history of the article can see that I am not the only to object to the addition of Israeli Arabs in the lead. I understand that it is easier to try to discredit my position by making it out to be a function of my personal preferences, but would appreciate it if you could instead acknowledge what reliable secondary sources have to say about this topic and what our guidelines say about what to do when there are mutliple other common names. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, the answer is, no you don't have an WP:RS to support the claim that any significant group in the real world rejects the term "Israeli Arabs." Even the sources that were used to support the current title also use this term. You are just one editor. You do not represent the Palestinian people. My condolences for the fact that you feel so victimized and put upon. I already have a Muslim who vandalizes my home page for me, thank you. Kauffner (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I referred you to the sources in the article. Read footnotes 5, 12 and 13. The information you seek is there. I don't need to rewrite it here. My personal preference is irrelevant and I am not using myself as an anecdotal example. You are. I'm sorry a "Muslim" is vandalizing your home page but that has nothing to do with me or this discussion. Tiamut^talk 07:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

i happen to like "israeli arabs" and israeli arabs. Soosim (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. But ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. If your affection for this group of people is genuine, what they like to call themselves, as described in the sources cited in the article, might be of interest to you. And "Israeli Arabs" it ain't. Tiamut^talk 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Have we met? Otherwise I'm not really sure why and how you're making assumptions about my color, which you obviously know nothing about. Not that it's really relevant. Nor is it relevant that you are a part of that group, as if you'd accept that kind of argument if the situation were reversed.

We have shown repeatedly that "Israeli Arabs" is a commonly used term in English, and the only reason you have for not including it is that you don't like it. Wikipedia does indeed have guidelines for what to do when there are multiple names, particularly in English. For example, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidline for the MoS does not say you shouldinclude all alt terms in the lead. If there are many, as there are in this case, its best to leave them to the terminology section as recommended in the Separate section usage subsection.. Tiamut^talk 07:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)