Jump to content

Talk:Mixed cities

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The mixed city of Nof HaGalil
The mixed city of Nof HaGalil
  • ... that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing? Source: Hawari, 2019, p.177: This rejection of the "mixed city" notion by Johnny and others reflects the spatial reality on ground and the political and social marginalisation faced by the Palestinian community everywhere inside Israel… The narrative of continuous historical coexistence and a mixed present-day reality in Haifa serves to support Israel's self-image as a pluralist and democratic society. In addition to giving the settler-colonial reality legitimacy, the existence of mixed urban spaces leads many to assume that under the current structures of power, a shared life is possible. The reality, however, is a space in which both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews live mostly separately and with vastly different experiences.
    Tzfadia 2011, p. 160: "Israeli mixed cities, particularly after 1948, cannot be perceived as multi-cultural cities, a point poignantly reflected in the absence of this term in the indexes of the reviewed books. Although localities were divided between the culturally distinctive Jews and Arabs, the cities still did not bear the potential to become multicultural. This absence of a multi-cultural vision in Israeli mixed cities impinges on the concept of "right to the city." For example, Yacobi maintains that the Arab community in Lod does not enjoy freedom in the city--it lacks the legitimacy to maintain individual and collective identities and lifestyles, to take part in decision-making, and not to be excluded. Thus, Holston's (1999) project to oppose and undermine dominant narratives of the state within the urban framework and to create alternative local narratives that do not necessarily reflect the rationale of the nation, has failed in mixed cities in Israel."
    Yacobi 2009, p. 1: "However, a critical examination forces us to question the term "mixed city," which might originally suggests the integration of society, while instead the reality is controversial. As in other cases of ethnonationalism, a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary. Rather than occurring naturally, it has resulted from a historical process during which the Israeli territory, including cities that were previously Palestinian, has been Judaized. This book attempts to discursivelv undermine the term "mixed city," which raises images of mutual membership while ignoring questions of power, control and resistance."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The use of the title Mixed cities without any form of disambiguation is supported by peer-reviewed scholarly research in the Journal of Urban History: Karlinsky, Nahum (2021-08-09). "Revisiting Israel's Mixed Cities Trope". Journal of Urban History. 47 (5). SAGE Publications: 1103–1129. doi:10.1177/00961442211029835. ISSN 0096-1442. A search for the phrase mixed cities in English, conducted on Google on June 14, 2020, unequivocally showed the significantly frequent usage of the term in its exceptional Israeli interpretation even if English is used. Of the first forty results, twenty-eight (70%) were about Jewish Arab cities in Israel. Most of these entries referred to quotidian matters and much less so to scholarly studies. Six (15%) denoted articles about the "Most Diverse Cities in America" and in the world. Four (10%) dealt with the notion of mixed use in city planning and various functions; one (2.5%) addressed Apartheid South Africa's so-called "grey" inner cities areas. The last reference (2.5%) was to an article in the British newspaper The Guardian, written by the influential urban scholar Saskia Sassen, in which she enthusiastically characterized the "mixed city" as a social, ethnic, and cultural barricade to the ills of globalization. A search for the term mixed cities in English as an exact phrase (set within quotation marks) produced similar results: thirty-six entries out of the first forty (90%) concerned Israel's multi-ethnic/multi-national urban space.10 These entries comprised many daily reports along with some references to scholarly studies, underlying the fact that this concept is widely used not only in research literature but mainly in discussing daily life in Israel. Similar searches in leading journals of Urban Studies and in Google Scholar produced comparable results to the searches cited above. Thus, a search on Google Scholar on February 17, 2021, for the term mixed cities, found that fifteen of the first twenty results (75%) were about scholarly publications that discussed Jewish Arab urban space in Israel or in British Palestine. An exact search, set in quotation marks, produced even more significant results, as eighteen of the first twenty entries (90%) led to scholarly publications on Palestine/Israel's Arab Jewish urban spaces. Moreover, the above-mentioned searches unequivocally show that an overwhelming majority of scholars who employed the terms mixed cities or mixed towns in their studies of the Arab Jewish urban scene in Israel went through some of Israel's formal and informal socialization systems. These include mainstream Israeli Jewish scholars as well as Arab scholars who were educated in Israel and critical Israeli Jewish scholars. Since most research on this urban space is conducted by these scholars, the unique employment of this term inadvertently creates an exceptional interpretative framework. As mentioned above, as a graduate of that hegemonic discursive regime myself, I have also used that term in a previous publication. Hence, the current critical look is also a self-critical examination of the power of hegemonic discourse on one's own identity construction and scholarly work.
As to the origin of the term, Karlinsky writes: "scholars concluded that the term was coined by the British authorities during the time Britain controlled Palestine as a League of Nations’ Mandatory Power (1918-1948)." He goes on to argue the British borrowed it from Zionist discourse (which was written in many languages including English).
This is also underpinned by the fact that in 20 years of Wikipedia each of the terms "Mixed cities", "Mixed city", "Mixed towns" or "Mixed town" have remained unused and never even been a redirect.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I just said that Google wasn't a reliable source for this. Finding a printed work using an unreliable methodology doesn't validate the same unreliable methodology. It just means you found a shoddy source and still need to fix the namespace. Even within Google, the 2nd highest scoring 'mixed city' is Kirkuk, which (last time I checked) still wasn't within Israel even under the widest territorial claims. See also here for the JUH’s general provincialism and shoddiness, not that it matters given the obviousness of the problem. As far as needing to see broader use of the term, cf various standard phrasings like "mixed cities of the" ~ (ranks just below "mixed cities of Haifa...") and the results range from the ancient Near East to imperial Germany. More generally, "mixed cities of" pulls up modern Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, Central Europe, London & Westminster, modern Israel but *not* talking about the formal designation you mean, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, North Africa, modern Israel, ancient Israel, ancient Israel, modern Israel, central Iraq, modern Israel, North Africa, early modern Israel (not the formal designation you mean), British India, modern Israel, the towns of the European Diaspora of Jews, modern Israel, the Ancient Middle East, &c. You're batting about 30-40%, which is a lot but doesn't make this the PRIMARYTOPIC for the lower-case words. Alternatively, if you truly hate dabbing, just capitalize it as a formal class designation instead of a general use of "mixed" + "city", which isn't Israeli focused in the English language.
As far as their previously having been left unused, sure. It's a general term that Wikipedia would leave to Wiktionary to take care of. Even Wiktionary probably considers it mostly SOP. That doesn't make the Israeli sense the PRIMARYTOPIC by default.
It's great that you're helping discuss this topic. Fix the mistaken pluralization, dab the title as a specific use of a general term, and move on. — LlywelynII 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be aggressive. You are criticizing the methodology used by a peer-reviewed journal article. If you wish, you can share your opinion on this with the editor of the Journal of Urban History (contact details here). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proving further proof that you're mistaken isn't aggression. You took the time to find a (single) source buttressing your point; I respected your work and interest enough to provide a more thorough rebuttal and to remind you that (like I already discussed) the methodology your source used isn't trustworthy, regardless of having been allowed to be published. — LlywelynII 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aggressive areas of your response were: (1) emphasizing "just"; (2) calling a peer-reviewed article "shoddy"; and (3) implying that your side of this debate is "right". I respect your argument and hope you respect mine. I suggest we cordially agree to disagree and open an WP:RM discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't aggressive. It's accurate and important to point out that your "rebuttal" had already been addressed. The journal has problems (sourced) but isn't shoddy. The methodology used by the article you quoted is shoddy, again for the reasons already addressed before you posted it. I didn't use the word 'right', but that part of your comment seems nonsensical. If people didn't believe they were correct they wouldn't need to disagree with one another, with all the attendant unpleasantness when the other person takes it personally, as you currently are.
I can't respect yours at the moment because you're just appealing to authority. Normally that's fine (WP:RS and all that) but here you can specifically see their reasoning for their point and it's slapdash vanilla Google results which, as already discussed, is problematic. If you had some actual rebuttal to the points I'm making besides "where's your peer review huh?" that would be more helpful. It's very clear that the peer review involved was about the article's actual research and not nit-picking about their term or the mistaken argument they made about it. On the other hand, since it means your current article violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SINGULAR, it does mean we need to hold up the nomination over this until it gets fixed. You're welcome to do a WP:RM and/or WP:RFC to pull in more voices though. 30-40% certainly is debatable (not entirely wrong like you seem to think I'm saying) but it does seem unhelpful to tie such a basic term to just 8 or so towns in Israel.
As far as research that helps buttress your case a little, "mixed cities like..." does pull in more Israeli results: modern Israel x2, "Boston and San Francisco", prepartition Israel, modern Israel x2, Kurdistan, "Yonkers, New York, or Hayward, California", "Jakarta or Medan", modern Israel, Kurdistan, modern Israel, Kurdistan x2, modern Israel x4, Kurdistan... At least there, you're over 50% on something besides trusting Google's vanilla algorithm. It still seems too mixed to me to hold up the lower-case form of the words, but maybe other editors would think it rises to PRIMARYTOPIC. In any case, you still need to fix the singular issue regardless. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an eye-opener. Put "the term mixed cities" (using the quotation marks) into google or google books. I believe 100% of the results relate to Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an eye opener. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The entire problem is that "mixed city" is used as a generic descriptor rather than a term. Yes, as a specific term to a specific class of cities, the Israeli use would be the primary topic. The problem is all the generic use. That's why I was suggesting Mixed City might be more appropriate, although of course you can't force the capitalization onto scholarship or the Israeli government if they don't already use it. — LlywelynII 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII, thanks for your last two posts. To address this first, I see this as a common situation across our project. See for example: cold ironing, stomach division, dog watch or free company. Each of these articles have uncapitalized names which are frequently used generically, but the articles are focused on a specific technical use of the terminology. None of those articles have disambiguating brackets because the first sentence of each article makes it abundantly clear what the article is about. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those is that there aren't common uses of other senses of those words. I guess "cold ironing" could be using an unheated iron or "dog watch" could be a canine timepiece, but I can't imagine many people would ever actually use either. With "mixed cities" you're looking at somewhere between 30-70% of people using it in printed works to talk about other topics. Anyway, I've raised my point and made my case. I'll shut up already before I scare off your genuine reviewers and they can weigh in on which of us they agree with. Thanks for coming back around to seeing that it's nothing personal at all, just a difference of opinion about the primarytopic here. (Plus, use the singular form as the article title but I'll let other people nag you about that xD.) — LlywelynII 22:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is long enough and new enough.
  • The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph The eighth city is Jerusalem ... is not recognized as such under international law needs a citation to a WP:RS.
  • a clear spatial and mental division exists between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and hence the occurrence of "mixed" spaces is both exceptional and involuntary is a direct quote, so it needs to be quoted and referenced. Other than that, I'm not seeing any copyvio/paraphrasing problems.
  • This isn't a DKY issue per-se, but replace several uses of "c." with {{Circa}}.
  • I'm not totally following the history here, but the article was tagged with {{NPOV}} in Special:Diff/1091862473 which was removed by RMCD bot in Special:Diff/1091864638. I suspect the bot mis-parsed things because of an unclosed <noinclude> tag. @Tombah: is this still an issue, or has the NPOV been resolved to your satisfaction?
  • No WP:BLP or other policy issues except as noted above.
  • QPQ has been satisfied.
  • The hook is OK, but a pithier verion might be:
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoySmith: many thanks for your review. I have added the source for the Jerusalem sentence. The "clear spatial and mental division" sentence is in quotation marks in a footnote sourced to Yacobi 2009. I have replaced the occurances of c. with {{Circa}}. The three questions raised by Tombah were addressed by (1) the RM discussion, and (2+3) their and others' edits to the article which have remained in place, together with the talk page discussion. I like your ALT1 a lot - much more "hooky". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: can you confirm (or not) that the issues you raised when you added the NPOV tag have been resolved to your satisfaction? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoySmith:, I think not. Leaving aside the terminology, which still prefers in many case one term over the other, more accepted one, this article is still missing other views on the subject. I am still not sure this article adds something to Wikipedia that cannot be expanded in the respective city articles or the article about demography in Israel. Generally, I am not entirely convinced the Israeli case of mixed cities justifies its own article at all. Tombah (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the previous comment, I've restored the {{NPOV}} and marking this as requiring additional work. If the issues raised by Tombah can't be resolved, then this submission will need to be declined, but I'll leave the final decision on that up to the DYK regulars. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this and so chose to avoid complicating the discussion. But now I am left with no other choice. The history is as follows:
Note: the Khirbet el Ormeh article has nothing to do with the article we are discussing here
Apart from the obvious “tit for tat” behavior, Tombah’s comments at this article are unsupported by sources, and have been opposed by other editors, both in the RM discussion and in the specific comment thread Tombah created. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, this has to be resolved. DYK can't accept an article with a NPOV template on it. As far as I can tell (see upthread for details), the original template was removed by a bot which misfunctioned due to incorrect markup causing the page to be mis-parsed. That's not a valid resolution to the dispute. I can't take sides in a content dispute. It's something the editors of this article need to resolve among themselves, and a DYK nomination is not the right place to be doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, correct. There is no ongoing content dispute, irrespective of whether one editor with provably questionable motives wants to repeat their points. The editor's points failed to gain consensus, after being discussed by other uninvolved editors. The dispute has thus already been resolved, per wp:consensus – we must not expect unanimity. To be clear, the editor made three points:[1]
(1) the scope of the article. Per this RM discussion, three editors (including me) disagree with the editor's concern. Above, the editor did not repeat the point, presumably for this reason.
(2) terminology for Palestinians in Israel / Israeli Arabs. The editor made a number of edits to this effect,[2] removing the word Palestinian in multiple places. I don't agree but left the changes, in order to minimize the dispute. A third editor stated we should just follow the sources, which is what the article does.[3] Above, the editor says "Leaving aside the terminology", which I assume to be a silent acknowledgement of this.
(3) other opinions; this is the point the editor repeats above. The problem is the editor has not provided any new sources, so this is impossible to resolve. A third editor made a suggestion to address the concern, which I have implemented.[4]
New point above: the editor's final two points in the comment above suggest proposed article deletion. That is obviously nonsense, given the huge scholarly coverage of this topic. But the editor is welcome to open an AfD
There is no consensus for that NPOV template, which is why it has stayed out of the article until you re-added it. The editor has had three weeks to gain consensus for his concerns, and has found multiple editors opposing all his points. WP:consensus tells us we can move on.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there are consensus for removal? --Shrike (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, there is no basis for it. Produce sourcing to back up personal opinions or leave things be. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of the mixed cities

[edit]

@BasilLeaf and Bolter21: I believe you created this file together, which when zoomed in shows quite well the subdivisions of the eight mixed cities, where we can see the respective concentrations of the two groups in different parts of each city.

A study of this (and how and why these concentrations grew in the specific parts of each city) is at this widely cited 1996 article: Falah, Ghazi (1996). "Living Together Apart: Residential Segregation in Mixed Arab-Jewish Cities in Israel". Urban Studies. 33 (6). SAGE Publications: 823–857. doi:10.1080/00420989650011627. ISSN 0042-0980.

Could you let me know where you got the visual data from to show the modern population geography of these cities for your map? If we can show this modern population geography in close up form for the eight cities it would be a great addition to this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the base map. The subdivisions within the cities were created by BasilLeaf.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BasilLeaf: please could you let me know where you found the data for the visual representation of the respective demographic concentrations of the two groups in different parts of each city? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed cities → Mixed city – It has been suggested by another editor that this title should be singular, per WP:ARTSINGLE. That policy says articles about "classes of objects" can be plural. So is this about a class of objects? I am not sure. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps considering some of the concerns that have been raised about the term "Mixed city" being hogged by this particular Israel-Palestinian definition that perhaps a move to Mixed City (Israel) might be most appropriate, as this would free up Mixed City for use by the perhaps more primary topic of mixed cities as a broader geographical descriptor for certain urban formations. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably edited WP:PLURAL more than any other editor still around, and I have to say that either title is okay. But the better title is the current one, since this article is about the eight finite cities. After reading the article, it seems more analogous to Rivers of Lake County, California than to capital city. We're discussing the set of eight cities as a whole, not what makes any individual city a mixed one. Gentle oppose. Red Slash 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too, per Red Slash, and the fact that Israel's "mixed cities" does appear to be a very valid subject in its own right and a viable primary topic for "mixed cities" in English, and this is specific to the plural form. For instance, mixed cities + Israel has 2,110 specific scholarly hits versus just 745 hits for mixed cities minus Israel, whereas for "mixed city" singular, mixed city + Israel yields just 1,450 hits to mixed city minus Israel's 2,030 hits. More generally, you have to scroll through quite a volume of search results on most platforms to reach references to "mixed cities" unrelated to Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality tag

[edit]

I believe this article suffers from several neutrality issues:

1. The scope of this article is too narrow. Even the article on "mixed cities" in the Hebrew Wikipedia looks at this phenomena on a global-scale, while this article ignores similar cases in other places in the world, and focuses only on the case of Israel.
2. It adopts a one-sided terminology in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The use of the term "Palestinians in Israel" is used here to refer to all Arabs in Israel (Nazareth is described, for example, as a Palestinian Israeli city). This usage is quite fringe; a large part of the Arab citizens of Israel do not consider themselves Palestinians.
3. It does not take into account other opinions, nor provides any criticism on the detailed arguments. The cities involved are seen by many as an example of coexistence between the Arab sector and the Jewish sector. This article places an exclusive emphasis on sources that describe an experience of segregation, but there are those who will contradict these claims.

I have just added a unneutral tag to this article. Please do not remove it until all the issues above are solved. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While article length on scope on other language Wikis can be instructive or indicative of trends, that is about it. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
On the linguistics of using Palestinian or Arab phraseology, both have their problems (calling people Arab like its an ethnicity just because they speak Arabic is just as opprobrious); the article should just follow the sourcing.
On the last point, perhaps more could indeed be made of the way in which mixed cities have been used as a concept in service to certain perspectives. For instance, in a quote already embedded in the article, but not reflected in its text, Yara Hawari notes: "The narrative of continuous historical coexistence and a mixed present-day reality in Haifa serves to support Israel's self-image as a pluralist and democratic society. In addition to giving the settler-colonial reality legitimacy, the existence of mixed urban spaces leads many to assume that under the current structures of power, a shared life is possible. The reality, however, is a space in which both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews live mostly separately and with vastly different experiences." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with tombah. Those issues need to be solved sources may use POV terminology but we shouldn't also such sources are clearly have bias and there is question if they WP:DUE at all. Shrike (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah and Shrike: your comments cannot be assessed or implemented because you have not brought any sources. The article as it stands reflects the sources in the article. If you have other sources, please add them in or raise them here. Per WP:TALK: "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.". Onceinawhile (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, if there are really problems with this article based in actual sourcing rather than personal opinion, then let's hear it. Otherwise the tag has no basis. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah and Shrike: please confirm whether you have found any sources which could support your proposed amendments to the article? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Here are two sources showing the term is used for similar phenomena outside Israel as well: Possibilities of building a mixed city – evidence from Swedish cities (Sweden), Governance in Ethnically Mixed Cities (Iraq, Italy, France, Kyrgyzstan and others). And this source describes three different levels of integration in Israeli mixed cities, which to complete the picture, we may want to present as well. I can provide more if needed. Tombah (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the preceding move discussion for elaboration on why "mixed cities" (WP:PLURAL) is a phraseology strongly tied to Israel and distinct from the more generic discussion about the term "mixed city". While sources tying Israel's mixed cities to mixed city concepts elsewhere are valid, I don't see the link to neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: this article is about Jewish-Arab cities in Israel. If you would like to create or build out a specific article about the wider concept of multiculturalism or social integration, you are welcome to do so. If you think that the title of this article is wrong (perhaps you think that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Mixed cities" is global multicultural cities rather than Jewish-Arab cities in Israel?), you are welcome to open a new WP:RM - the topic has already been discussed once in the completed RM above.
As to the source you provided on the topic of this article, thank you. I have added it in. Two of Shdema's later articles are already cited here. I will add a few sentences to reflect the findings of his 2013 work.
Please provide ALL the sources you have to reflect the POV you wish to include in the article. It should reflect all different POVs. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this article is more balanced, I am still not convinced that this subject merits a separate article. 'Mixed cities' refer to a wide variety of phenomena worldwide that share similar characteristics. It doesn't seem necessary to create another article for this; we should use the same article for all uses. I'm still looking forward to hear Shrike's opinion though. Tombah (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: such a concern is dealt with by opening an AfD. The relevant policy for your concern is WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please could you decide whether you wish to proceed with this today, as it has now been a month since you first raised this. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Izzy_Borden#Mixed_Cities, regarding the latest re-addition / upcoming removal of the tag. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article has neutrality problems. It brings up removal of Arabs from Israel and does not speak to removal of Jews from communities on the west bank after 1948. The article ignores long term Jewish communities in the region. The article largely ignores Arab Israeli Citizens, many who live and work in Israel. This article seems to be an example of "how to lie with statistics" in that it presents statistics and then uses those statistics to support a claim that is not supported by the statistics. Saltysailor (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removal of Jews from the West Bank – these communities were not "mixed cities" (see here for a full list)
  • Long term Jewish communities – the first sentence in the main body says: "In the early 19th century, only Jerusalem, Safed and Tiberias had small yet significant minority Jewish populations living alongside the majority Arabs."
  • Arab Israelis – the whole article is about that topic
This article follows the sources. If there are any other sources you would like to add, please do so.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Hawari

[edit]

Though Yara Hawari manuscript printed in academic press and has a PHD the problem she is not an active academic but works for advocacy organization. In my opinion her words are clearly WP:UNDUE and thus should be removed Shrike (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to Hawari's credentials, her work was published in the Routledge Handbook on Middle East Cities, which Routledge describe as "an essential resource for students and academics interested in Geography, Regional and Urban Studies of the Middle East." Others have praised the Routledge book as offering "valuable critical perspectives on the complexities of cities in the Middle East and North Africa" and "a productive lens to understand the urban reality of the Middle East while engaging with the field of urban studies in general". If you disagree you can raise it at WP:RSN.
Although the standard you are proposing is not part of our policies, if it was we would then also have to remove Michael Oren from Wikipedia, particularly from the Six-Day War article where his works make up about a third of the article's sourcing.
Finally, WP:UNDUE is a question of relative weight in reliable sources. In order for your opinion to be assessed, you would need to bring some reliable sources to make your case - so far you have brought none.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock can we also throw out everything from ADL because its an activist org? The way to deal with bias is to bring alternate sourcing with a different POV. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi al-Joz / other examples

[edit]

@Tombah, Shrike, and Izzy Borden: the statement Israel has increased its investments in integrating Arabs into Israeli society in recent years. In 2020, the Jerusalem Municipality announced a master plan to develop East Jerusalem's Wadi al-Joz area, including plans for the development of Silicon Wadi. According to the municipality, the project aims to create 10,000 quality employment places in East Jerusalem. was added in good faith to ensure balance here. But I am not sure it is an appropriate example. Reading the JPost citation, and other articles on this topic, there is a strong view in the media that the intention of this investment is to drive Palestinians out of the area, not to encourage integration.

Any objections to replacing this with a less controversial example? Surely there are some examples somewhere of Israeli government expenditure to encourage true integration? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this one not an appropriate example? This is an official Israeli policy aimed at integrating Palestinians into Israeli society in mixed cities. Yes, some have criticized this project, but I expect most projects targeting integration to have their supporters and opponents. Tombah (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombah: where did you read that its aim is integration? I looked for such a statement but couldn't find it. Either way, the problem is that if we keep it we would need to explain the "other perspective" (even JPost does) and it would get messy. I think you just want a clean example of a straightforward integration project - surely there are some which haven't attracted this type of criticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politics and Money Block East Jerusalem High-tech Quarter
Local Planning Committee Advances Controversial "Silicon Wadi" Plan
Hi-tech expert, Arees Bishara: the Silicon Valley project in Jerusalem is aimed at weakening the economic, social and political status of Jerusalemites
The minimum descriptor for this plan would be "controversial" (even leaving aside the fact of occupation) and the likelihood of it ever happening "low", Israeli authorities say many things but when it actually happens few of those things occur unless it happens to be beneficial to the Israeli project, any benefit to the Palestinians that live in the area is likely to be de minimis or accidental. It is of note that at this point all that is happening involves the usual demolition, stop work and eviction procedures of Palestinians, that should tell you where this is going. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In occupied East Jerusalem, that Israel has unilaterally annexed, the Israeli state is now constructing a ‘Silicon Valley of East Jerusalem’: 200,000 square metres of high-tech facilities in the middle of the Palestinian neighbourhood of Wadi al-Joz. Situated next to the Old City, Wadi-al Joz has for long been the object of illegal Israeli settlement activities and expulsions of Palestinian families. If constructed, the ‘Silicon Valley of East Jerusalem’’ will tighten the grip of the Israeli state over the city and – according to the media reports – expel an estimated 200 Palestinian small-sized businesses from the area (Joffre, 2020)." The modern/colonial hell of innovation economy: future as a return to colonial mythologies, March 2022 https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2048460 Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find something positive to write, so we can ensure both sides are fairly represented. So I looked up this "Takadum" plan announced last year. Even the right-wing JPost has a depressing tone on the whole thing:
  • "...the situation is worst in mixed Jewish-Arab cities. The poverty rate among Arabs in such cities has sky-rocketed, there is a decrease in male participation in the workforce, and fewer people are getting access to higher education. Almost half of the Arab children in mixed cities live in poverty, a rate an astounding four-and-half times greater than for Jewish kids... Events of May 2021 highlighted just this as Arabs and Jews clashed violently in mixed cities. While it was tensions surrounding Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem that sparked the violence, the frustration that had built up for years helped fuel it."
  • "Relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel have always been tricky. Many Jews view the Arab population as a potential threat to the nation’s security. Arabs, who make up 21% of the 9.5 million-strong population, face widespread discrimination. Throughout the state’s history, they have very gradually integrated into society. But, as a whole, they are less educated and poorer, living in areas with neglected infrastructure and high crime."
They write in a hopeful style about this Takadum. But then in an editorial they say: "The five months allotted to the plan have passed, but it has yet to be brought before the government for approval. Is this because those who were given this task by the relevant ministries failed to meet the schedule? The answer is no. The professional staff of the Economic Development Authority (in the Ministry of Social Equality) and the Prime Minister’s Office carried out a serious work process, made real progress, including by collaborating and supporting the Israel Democracy Institute’s comprehensive research on the situation in mixed cities. Why, then, has the plan not yet been implemented? We can only surmise that the current political instability is derailing this process."
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a better example, and less controversial: The government plan also allocates funding for Arab population in the mixed Arab and Jewish cities where racial riots broke out last May. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done this. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian Arabs" or "Israeli Arabs"?

[edit]

The first sentence of the article says "Mixed cities... is an Israeli term for the eight cities in which a significant number of both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs reside." The first sentence of the third paragraph says "The eight mixed cities are the main places in Israel in which Jews and Palestinian Arabs encounter each other..." The article "Arab citizens of Israel" says "In Israel itself, Arab citizens are commonly referred to as Israeli-Arabs or simply as Arabs; international media often uses the term Arab-Israeli to distinguish Arab citizens of Israel from the Palestinian Arabs residing in the Palestinian territories." [emphasis added]

This article treats the two terms as interchangeable, without explanation. If "Palestinian Arabs" are those who reside in Palestinian territories, and "Israeli Arabs" refer to those who live in Israel, then shouldn't this article use the latter? Cigneous (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the sources: the first two sources, which support the first sentence, simply use the term "Arabs". Many of the other sources also seem to use it. Isn't "Arabs" alone sufficient? Cigneous (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cigneous: good question and I agree we should tidy this up. The situation is complicated - the term "Arabs" is seen negatively by a meaningful proportion of the population group, but it is the preferred Israeli government term. See Palestinian citizens of Israel#Terminology. Many sources use alternate descriptors:
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm certainly out of my league in this matter - just stopping by at a random article which appeared on the main page.) The DW article appears to use "Arab" and "Palestinian" interchangeably. However it never uses either ""Palestinian Arabs" nor "Israeli Arabs". Not sure what to make of Karlinsky - does he use "Palestinian Arab" primarily? The Washington Post article uses "Palestinian Israelis". Maybe the best practice is to use whichever term the immediate source is using.
While I'm here, can I raise a "meta" point? The lead says, "Mixed cities ...is an Israeli term for ...". That means this article is about the Israeli term, rather than the eight cities. If that's it, then the article should focus on how the term is used and by whom, in what context. If it's about the demographic phenomenon, then it is a broader topic which would better allow for NPOV. So instead, maybe the lead should be more like "the Mixed Cities are eight cities in Israel... "
It appears that like only a single source for the article has an Arab affiliation [Ghazi Falah?]. It's probably not that bad. Mixed cities & mixed sources? Anyway, not my topic so I'll leave it to you and others. Glad there's an article on this interesting matter. Cigneous (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent Amnesty report has detailed coverage of this, beginning with a definition of “mixed cities” (their quotes) as "Israeli cities with mixed Jewish and Palestinian populations". The Palestinian citizens of Israel are the great majority of the Arab citizens of Israel, also see Talk:Palestinian citizens of Israel#Amnesty. I think we should go with PcoI along with an explanatory footnote, something like that.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mixed_cities&oldid=1204929790"