Talk:Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel

This article is originally based on a deleted section from the Bedouin main article, written by someone else. I thought it was worthy of keeping on wiki, and since there is a need for an article on this topic, I copy-pasted most of it here. It does however need some diversification of sources. Please feel free to add - there is considerable support on the internet for the included info.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bustan

I have just noticed that the Bustan links are broken as the website has recently changed. please do not delete the citations - I will try to get them updated. Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag cleanup

WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, despite the above quote (which is certainly true

in most cases), removing tags is also highly discouraged. For unclear tags like POV, it's good form to contact the tagging editor and ask him why he thought the article lacked NPOV. A second option is to leave a talk message (as you have), and wait for replies for a reasonable time period (personally, I'd wait 1-2 weeks) and only remove the tag if there's no objection after that time.

As for the actual POV tag, it's easily justified and seems pretty clear-cut to me. You don't even need to go into the article - just the lead sections supplies a series of dubious unverified POV claims (although for the record, I'm not necessarily disputing them, just saying that they are unverified and don't comply with NPOV, therefore disputed by default):

1. About 80,000 Bedouins live in unrecognized villages, i.e. well over half of the Negev Bedouins (although the article claims half, which is also a fairly extraordinary claim)
2. Residents lack access to all services (education, health, transportation, trash, electricity and water)
3. Not marked on any commercial maps (this isn't even a clear claim - I have a commercial map where they are marked by tribe, but not precisely or by name)

Furthermore, even after these claims are sourced, the lead section still does not comply with NPOV because it presents a highly one-sided picture. Where's the Israeli government's take on this? In addition, the whole paragraph is written in an accusative tone, implying that Israel is doing something wrong by not recognizing illegally built villages the residents of which break the law by default. If I may add a personal opinion, it seems like a strange way to present things, because usually criminals are presented in a bad light.

Until the above issues are fixed, we can move on to the rest of the article, and when everything reads in a neutral manner, I'll gladly remove the tag myself.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

After briefly skimming the aritcle, I cannot find minor POV issues, but two major ones: firstly, the government's side is not presented at all, and secondly, the whole 'related issues' section is one huge POV push - if you want to mention the Ramat Hovav and other issues, use the see also section.

On a side note, please consolidate the refs!

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to bring in the government perspective. I cannot really do so (don't think I would do a good job), though I am familiar with it. I will look over your other concerns later, but my quick response is that the stats on Bedouin population are well-sourced, and as far as being marked on maps, as you said, fixed Bedouin village locations are unmarked by their village names and are instead marked with tribe-names (which suggest that they might move, which as you know, they no longer do). Does it say that they receive no education or health services? It should read that they have limited access to health and education services. I'll take a look at that. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have knowledge of all the Bedouin issues, some from personal experience, I am by no means an expert and would especially find it hard to find related sources. If I were an expert, there would be no POV problem because as someone who likes to improve articles, I'd jump at the chance to improve this one :) So far, I have collected some media sources for some of the Bedouin-related articles you have written, but don't have much time to write about it because it's not a major addition and hence not high on my priority list (plus, you'll notice that my editing dropped significantly this month, real-life issues...). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope what's keeping you away from wikipedia is good real life stuff, not the reverse! If you don't have time to write things up, why don't you just copy-paste some of the quotes you'd like to see represented, with links, in Hebrew, english, whatever - I'll see what I can do. (post them in the below section when you get a chance) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Government perspective/relations with unrecogn villages

I agree that we need more info about relations with the government. For instance:

• It would be a good to get a chart together listing the number of schools, clinics, etc., in the villages
• Info about the Bedouin administration is needed, (which is a very problematic administration but should be mentioned)
• The Regional Council of Unrecognized villages deserves some description
• The Israel Land Authority and Green Patrol need a paragraph or two.
• It would be good to upload a map or two - i.e. an official map, and one drawn up by the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages.

LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above, I believe that it's very important to list the most frequent arguments for and against unrecognized villages (with sources of course). Also it's important to include examples of famous mass demolition operations or whatever. I vaguely recall such an operation where an MK (Mohammed Barakeh) personally blocked the police forces seeking to demolish an illegal village. This will help the reader understand the real issue surrounding unrecognized villages, and while balance of views does not equal NPOV, it certainly helps a lot. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for people to bring in the much-talked about government view, and here is what I have come up with, from two YNet articles yesterday, one from the government perspective on the Goldberg Commission and one on the Bedouin response, and from the ILA brochure: LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

YNET on the Goldberg findings:

• "There is widespread taking over of state lands," says Minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee Yaakov Edri. "This phenomenon is spreading, and our problem becomes graver. I am concerned that when there is no law and order, we lose entire areas of land in Israel. We have neglected the topic of the Bedouins for many years. On the one hand we did not take care of them appropriately and on the other, the state did not use its authority in all the necessary ways. The Minister for Development of the Galilee and Negev warns that if the state does not find fast and fair solutions for the Bedouins, which will include and upgrade in infrastructure, the education system and living conditions, Israel will lose the loyalty of the Bedouins. According to Edri, "If we continue to not provide them with solutions, this will eventually boomerang against the state, including in security issues. They will not be loyal to Israel for much longer. Therefore, I suggest a package that includes both a carrot and a stick and I hope the Commission will offer them fair compensation, both financial and alternative lands."
• "The Knesset must legislate a compensation/eviction law for the Bedouins in the South, similar to the compensation/eviction law for settlers from Gush Katif," Minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee, Yaakov Edri told Ynet.
• Relying on recommendations from the Goldberg Commission, headed by Judge Eliezer Goldberg (currently drawing up policy concerning the settlement of Bedouins in the Negev) Edri told Ynet "a precise timetable must be determined for evacuating the lands held by Bedouins. Afterwards, if they don't leave voluntarily, Edri suggested establishing a special unit of the police and military, the task of which will be to forcibly evict the Bedouins. Edri notes that "'we must prepare the enforcement officials, the police and army for implementation of the law, as we did with Gush Katif. One who does not agree to evacuate for compensation – we will treat him as we did with the settlers. Edri added that after the law passes, the state will be obligated to demolish within a short time period all new illegal building in the Negev. The taking over of state lands by the Bedouins is a phenomenon occurring for years. Past attempts to find practical solutions did not work, and various plans and reports on this matter are gathering dust. At the end of 2007 the government decided to establish the Goldberg Commission."
• Bedouin response: "We are not settlers and you will not evict us – not for money and not by force". This is how representatives of the Bedouin residents of the Negev reacted to the suggestion by the Minister for Development of the Galilee and Negev: compensation/eviction for Bedouins who squatted on state lands, and evacuation by force for those who insist on remaining on the lands. Chairperson of the (Regional) Council of Unrecognised Villages in the Negev, Hussein Al Rafiya, said to Ynet in response to the proposal: "Instead of trying to evict us, Minister Edri should accept the fact that these are existing settlements and residents living on their lands."
• ""These have been our lands, from prior to the establishment of the state, and I don't know why he offered this proposal, before we've even received the recommendations of the Goldberg Committee," said Al Rafiya.
• The Chairperson of Balad, Member of Knesset Jamal Zahalka, added that "one cannot grasp the stick on both ends, to both declare there is a democratic regime in Israel and to evict people from lands belonging to them for generations. I suggest to you, Minister Edri, just before you legislate the compensation/eviction law – legislate a law

declaring apartheid in Israel. What he is doing is chutzpah – Edri and his kind are dreaming of completing the work begun in 1948, to continue evicting people from their lands on which they lived a long time before Edri and those like him arrived here."

HAARETZ on Edri's comments

• "Housing and Construction Minister Ze'ev Boim yesterday reprimanded the minister for the development of the Negev and the Galilee, Jacob Edery, for calling for a law to displace the Bedouin from their lands and compensate them monetarily. Edery's statement was published on Yedioth Ahronoth's Web site, ynet. In a letter to Edery, a copy of which was sent to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Boim rebuked him for making these statement at a time when the Goldberg Committee is formulating recommendations on the future of Bedouin community life in the Negev. (Mijal Grinberg)

What the ILA calls the government's "generous offer"

I quoted almost the entire article below. Iadmit, I could not help inserting some of my commentary below.

• Best QUOTE: "The ILA works very hard to improve the welfare of the Negev Bedouin and to safeguard the rights of this population. It achieves this by providing them with benefits, protecting them from squatters, and by steadfastly enforcing the law." (i.e. the ILA improves the welfare of Negev Bedouins by providing half of them with services and denying the other half, protecting those Bedouin who lease lands from the State against those who say the land is actually theirs and contest the State's right to collect leasing fees, and enforcing the law via threatening half of the population with demolition and transfer.)
• Terms: The ILA calls Bedouin houses in unrecognized villages as "illegal homes spread over hundreds of thousands of dunams (these scattered Bedouin localities are referred to as the Bedouin “dispersal”). "The Israeli government is offering exceptional benefits to Bedouin wishing to leave the dispersion"p.8
• "In 2004 alone, illegal squatting by Bedouin affected an area of 11,000 dunams – a 50% increase over the land illegally occupied in 2003. In most cases, the squatters used the land by planting crops for animal feed." (would the government rather that Bedouin steal cars, or be self-sufficient and productive through self-subsistence?)
• "Bedouin squatters only harm their Bedouin kinsmen. Most of the land on which there are squatters has already been earmarked for being leased to Bedouin for agricultural purposes. In many cases, squatters have aggressively driven out Bedouin families that had legally leased the land." (it should be noted that this is because those who leased it, leased it from the State, who claims it owns the land, not from the Bedouin 'squatters' who claim they own it)
• Some elements within the Negev Bedouin population seek to establish facts on the ground and steal agricultural land. Despite the fact that Israel leases land to the Bedouin at a symbolic cost, the past few years have witnessed an increase in illegal squatting and land appropriation."
• Starting ?????, and until December 2007, "A Bedouin who withdraws an ownership suit relating to 200 dunams will receive a state grant of approximately NIS 160,000. Bedouin who withdraw their ownership claims for 200 dunams of land (in the area covered by the masterplan for Bedouin villages) will receive a government grant of NIS 1,400,000. In addition to the cash grant, they also receive 40 dunams of agricultural land."p. 10
• The government's approach to investing in the Bedouin: "Israel is currently building 13 new villages or towns for the Negev Bedouin." "The plans for the villages are based on statistical projections for the expansion of the Bedouin population until the year 2030." "In view of the Bedouin’s special needs and the Israeli government’s desire to help the population settle in their tribal groups, the decision was taken not only to enlarge existing towns, but also to build new villages." The government claims "new villages are being planned in full consultation with representatives of the people who will populate them," (but they do not specify who, or how they were selected - or elected - not) "in a variety of formats: urban, suburban, or agricultural, depending on their residents’ needs. For example, some settlements will have special sheep pens constructed just outside the village, to cater for the villagers’ flocks, while other villages will have plots of land for farming adjacent to residential zones."
• "Aside from building new townships for the Bedouin in the Negev, the Israeli government plans to invest more than NIS 1 billion in a multi-phased program to improve the infrastructure of existing Bedouin towns and to develop their public facilities."
• "As part of its plan to expand the existing Bedouin towns in the Negev, the ILA will double the size of the Bedouin town of Rahat. This is the largest construction project — costing an estimated half a billion shekels — undertaken by the Israeli government in recent years" The government claims that it will invest in building 10,000 new housing units there, and will invest in development of public and commercial services, women's employment centers, parks and play areas. The Israeli government claims that "all planning and implementation are in cooperation and coordination with the local Bedouin population."
• The government says it has already invested in Tarabin el-Sana, Abu Krinat "Development work began in this village several months ago and plots of land are now being marketed to the tribe"), Bir Hadaj (where each household will recive 5 dunams), Marit, and Dreijatt (where the government has solarized the village).
• The government explains the lack of service in unrecog villages thus: "These services can only be provided to those living in permanent housing, and the fact that the Bedouin are dispersed over an extensive area prevents the state from offering these public services."
• The government partially faults the Bedouin for hindering the government's provision of services, etc.: “In many cases, Bedouin lawsuits hinder the construction of new neighborhoods, the upgrading of existing village infrastructures, and the advantageous use of the land for the entire Bedouin population"
• The government explains the lack of services in recognized urban townships thus:"The percentage of homeowners in Bedouin towns who pay municipal taxes is problematically low. This makes it difficult for town councils to provide a decent level of services. When a sufficient number of residents pay their municipal taxes, the municipal authorities can substantially improve their services and thus improve living conditions for the Bedouin."
• Regarding Bedouin land claims (the total area of the unrecognized villages): "In recent years, some of the Bedouin residing in the dispersed areas have started claiming ownership of land areas totaling some 600,000 dunams (60,000 hectares or 230 square miles) in the Negev – over 12 times the area of Tel Aviv...By 2006, the ILA’s efforts to reach compromise agreements with Bedouim land claimants had resulted in agreements regarding 150,000 dunams out of the 800,000 dunams under dispute."
• Compensation for tribal lands includes: government services (accorded every other citizen),“Relocation Grants” of NIS 7,500 per family and NIS1,500 for each child (i.e. between approx.2,000$ and 6,000$), and an average of 800 meters of land. "The payments are made irrespective of the families’ financial position and without investigating their entitlement to the land." The government says "The compensation is many times the value of the illegal structures they leave." (but says nothing of the value of the land they reside on, plus the agricultural grounds surrounding, which they require to self-subsist from goats and sheep).
• "Note that the Bedouin population receives special benefits, which are only paid to this sector and are not available to any other sector of the Israeli population. Ordinarily, Israeli citizens receive financial assistance only after the state has determined their need and that they have satisfied specific criteria. In the case of the Bedouin, those who choose to move into permanent homes receive preferential treatment in that these grants are awarded automatically, irrespective of their financial status." (on the other hand, they still receive less funding for education and health, etc. So how these special funds manifest is unclear)
• "To maintain the local character, the Israeli government leases hundreds of thousands of dunams of agricultural land to the Bedouin, at a symbolic cost of up to NIS 2 per dunam." "The Israeli government annually leases about 135,000 dunams (roughly 33,400 acres) of agricultural land to the Negev Bedouin for farming and grazing. Each spring, the state leases an additional 280,000 dunams (about 70,000 acres) of land to the Bedouin. Furthermore, the state permits Bedouin to graze their flocks on 35,000 dunams (about 8,650 acres) formerly used as military firing ranges. In return for this land, the Bedouin pay a symbolic charge of up to NIS2 per dunam per season." (a year before it was a firing range, it was leased for decades prior - see: Amiram Cohen."IDF denies Bedouins access to Negev grazing grounds"; Haaretz Correspondent 02/28/06 20:39)
• "Although Israel owns the lands over which the Bedouins are dispersed, it is prepared to examine all Bedouin ownership claims in court. By law and according to all existing records, the State of Israel is the sole owner of the land on which the dispersed Bedouin live." "The state has filed some 170 counter-claims (regarding more than 110,000 dunams), and in every case where a ruling has been handed down by the court, it has ordered the land to be registered as state owned."
• "Although the Israeli government insists that it owns the lands occupied by the Bedouin dispersion, the state is prepared to grant immediate financial “compensation” and sometimes even alternative land to Bedouin who withdraw their ownership claims."
• "The Israeli government continues its generous policy towards the Bedouin population by meeting their ever-increasing needs in every possible way."
• the government (claims to know what is good for the Bedouin, counter to what they say is good for them), saying: "The Bedouin's claims are detrimental to the entire Bedouin population of the Negev". (perhaps because if thje issue was legally examined, it could be determined that the Bedouin never had their land 'bought' from them, nor was it 'mawat' land, it was simply confiscated in the absence of any due process or legal exchange.)
• "In order to avoid doing anything detrimental to the general Bedouin population, the Israeli government is even willing to waive legal confrontation."
• The ILA makes clear its threat to evict what it calls "callous lawbreaker" and "squatters", citing clause 18B of the Land Law: "Israel’s duty is to protect and defend its citizens. Israel cannot tolerate callous lawbreakers whose behavior is harmful to the law-abiding community. It is the state’s duty to evict squatters and restore the land to the citizens who leased it."
• "The state fights squatters by plowing up the land. The land is plowed once the seeds sown by the illegal farmers have sprouted." plowing as tilling, or as crop destruction. implication: you (who?) reap what you sow.

References

Proposed deletion? On what grounds.

As an Israeli, and the person who restored this article (it was originally written by someone else and inserted into the Bedouin page) I do not feel that this article has anti-Israeli POV. It states the facts about the "unrecognized villages", a commonly-used term used by reporters, governments and human rights NGOs (I will return to add links evidencing this if necessary). I cannot relate to the idea of deleting an article because of perceived POV issues - my understanding is that the appropriate facts should be added to counterbalance perceived POV concerns. I can only understand proposed deletion if the presented information is not factual. However, although the info in this article may seem to unduly implicate the Israeli government for civil rights violations, all the information is backed up. Furthermore, it is a fact that Bedouin civil rights are being violated. If this is considered anti-Israeli POV, then so is any historical and contemporary information that points to Israeli violations of civil rights or human rights. I have already invited YHockney, and anyone else who feels the article is imbalanced, to add relevant background to balance it as they see fit. The fact that no one has done so does not lessen the importance of having an entry on the "unrecognized villages", a term which refers to the status of over 80,000 citizens of Israel.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that, as the talk page indicates, above, efforts are being made to balance the article (however, the changes will not be immediate as some people have jobs!!!) Thus, as there are obvious intentions by the main editor of this article thusfar (me) to work on this article, very recently expressed, the timing of this notice is quite off.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important article. Bad faith efforts to delete it are in my opinion simply a continuation of the meat-space efforts to "delete" the unrecognized villages and their inhabitants from existence. I will add this to my list of articles to help improve. Two excellent sources I do not see cited on the unrecognized villages are Susan Nathan's book "The Other Side of Israel" and Jonathan Cook's "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State." --Tirpse77 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the second source, but have heard only bad things about the first, specifically that it takes a very anti-Israeli perspective. Even the title says it all. I do not object to claims from partisan sources (within reason) being put into articles, but if the source isn't acceptable to both sides (again, as long as both sides provide valid arguments for acceptance/rejection, per WP:RS), the style of writing should be 'according to [the source], [info]'.

In any case, as I said before, the article really isn't missing the anti-government perspective, and I doubt we need more sources for that. What is needed for this article to comply with NPOV is balance - the anti-government view should be balanced with the government's view on unrecognized villages. I think the Israeli media can help in this regard. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence of either a) extremist/hate-speech language or b) evidence of gross historical fabrication from either of these two authors, then all honest editors will be delighted to exclude them. And more - we'll be delighted to exclude each and every other author so identified.

In the meantime, I suspect there could be other sources, perhaps even widely used in articles, who are guilty of one (or more usually both) of these practices. I'm delighted to see you take an interest in this quite serious problem, and look forwards to working constructively with you weeding them out. PR^talk 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including "According to the source..." where appropriate. Both of the sources I cited are very solidly researched and the more people are aware of them and read the original, the happier I'll be since they provide excellent information. There are plenty of other sources on the issue of Bedouins. We should be looking for solid, well-researched information, not necessarily a "pro-government/anti-government" balance.--Tirpse77 (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should be looking for solid, well-researched information, but this still does not cancel out the WP:NPOV policy, which requires at least basic POV balance. If the Bedouin position outweighs the government position by an extremely wide margin, then the government's position could be summed up in a few sentences without violating WP:NPOV (per WP:UNDUE), but this is not the case here. The main problem as I see it is that the government will never write anything directly anti-Bedouin because of racism lawsuits or whatever, so as it stands now, the police is the only body (AFAIK) who makes claims against Bedouin crime, unrecognized villages, etc. (other than the media). I have a few media sources on the matter, but they relate to Bedouin crime (e.g. car theft), not unrecognized villages, so they cannot be used in this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is achieved via willingness of editors to see all perspectives represented in conjunction with contributions of editors from varying backgrounds, using varying sources from a range of political perspectives. We should not be debating over specific sources that are n ot in the article at this point, YHockey, you should be adding in the info you seek. I know you say you are no expert, but I trust that you can present here some of the facts you think are missing, based on Israeli media sources. It turns out I will not have the time to do so for several weeks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issues section

I already brought up this problem on this talk page in the past, but got no reply (guess it was lost in the mass of other issues), so I'm proposing this again: let's delete the 'related issues' section. It is not directly relevant to unrecognized villages and talks about specific cases, which are already documented in other articles. This is what see also sections are for. As I see it, currently this section serves no purpose except further pushing the anti-government and anti-Jewish POV, as well as making a point. If no objections are raised, I will remove this section ASAP. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted, but perhaps reduced and incorporated elsewhere. I see your point. I have been distracted at other articles and hopefully can get back to working on this article soon, adding in the issues discussed above. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is possible to incorporate some of the information in other sections, but don't see how it could be kept to more than 1-2 sentences. For example, for the Ramat Hovav issue, anything more than something like:

Bedouin leaders also complain that the government turns a blind eye on man-made environmental hazards near the unrecognized villages, such as the Ramat Hovav industrial zone

Would definitely be undue weight and not relevant to this article. Do you have any specific suggestions?

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I should note that I am not going to have time to work on this for the next week. I don't agree that talking about Ramat Hovav is undue weight, at all, since as mentioned above:

• 1. Ramat Hovav was built on the grounds/at the very edge of, the unrecognized village of Wadi el-Na'am. RH impacts all Bedouin and Jewish residents of the siyag immeasurably, but because of their extreme proximity, it impacts Bedouin in the area most of all.
• 2. Wadi na'am is the largest unrecognized village, with over 5,000 residents
• 3. BGU scientists have found extremely high rates of cancer among Bedouin in the area

How is it undue weight to mention Ramat Hovav here?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is undue weight because its effects on unrecognized villages in general is negligible. For example, I can't see how Ramat Hovav affects unrecognized villages in the area of Kseife. The fact that it affects Wadi an-Na'am has nothing to do with this article, because it's not an article on Wadi an-Na'am. This is even further reinforced by the fact that Wadi an-Na'am already has its own article, as does Ramat Hovav. Therefore, relating Ramat Hovav to unrecognized villages in general not only violated WP:UNDUE, but also WP:SYNTH, unless sources are provided which explicitly make this connection. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I think such an article should include a list of all the villages, anyway, and various villages of 'importance' should be highlighted. Second, I can provide such sources. The vast majority of articles on the unrecognized villages by human rights orgs such as Physicians for Human Rights, and many news articles, centrally deal with Wadi Na'am as a case study of the near-worst-case conditions under which unrecognized villages live. The fact that so many groups and journalists hone in on this village is an indication of its centrality to the discussion of the villages. However, I think we should deal with this discussion later, when any one of use actually starts making edits. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of the discussion is to make edits. As I said before, I don't have much to add to the article because of a lack of time to do serious research (and this indeed requires serious offline research). However, clear-cut edits like the one I requested can be made simply because of Wikipedia policies. And to clarify about the sources: a source which talks about Wadi an-Na'am and how it's exposed to Ramat Hovav's pollution would not make it relevant to this article and would still be WP:SYNTH. You need to provide a source which states that Ramat Hovav's pollution has a profound effect on all, or the vast majority of unrecognized villages. Otherwise it will only be relevant to the articles on the particular villages, or the regional council (depending on what the source says). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd like to comment on your apparent will to first make edits, then discuss them. I believe that this is a common misconception about the dispute resolution process, and editing in general. To clarify: talking about edits first and then making them is the ideal way of editing, not the other way around. WP:BOLD does not exist to oppose this way of editing, but to encourage new editors to make edits which they think are helpful. When you're not a new editor and already know in advance that your edits could/will be disputed, WP:BOLD turns into vandalism, WP:POINT, and other violations of policy. I don't think it should be very hard to reach a consensus anyway, because it seems that we are both willing to compromise, so in that sense it's not nearly as bad as most I-P conflict articles, where most editors are decidedly not willing to make and compromises. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to reduce this entry and incorporate some of the language and ideas from here, into the Negev Bedouins article. I personally would like to do this bit by bit, and pare down this entry in the future to an attempt to log demolitions and discuss the relations with the government, as well as the specific efforts of unrecognized villages to retain an indigensou way of life.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins

Please note- I transferred much of the article to the main artcile Negev Bedouins. I will edit the main gist down to a few paragraphs later (if not today, tomorrow afternoon). Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC) This article should relate specific details of the unrecognized villages.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been swamped elsewhere. But I cut out some of the repetition today. Now we really need to expand the article with a full discussion of 'land rights, claims, disputes". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Property disputes

See this article about land disputes: "Of some 65,000 Bedouin residents of that period, only 11,000 remained.Those left in the Negev were then forcibly removed from their lands and concentrated in distant, unfertile areas, to make sure they would pose no obstacle to rapid Jewish settlement of the recognize the validity of Bedouin claims. "Of 3,000 Bedouin property claims submitted in the last twenty years, not a single Bedouin has won his case." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal construction and housing demolitions: "The government's Markovitch Report of 1986 cited 5,994 illegal Bedouin dwellings in the Negev desert, all subject to demolition. By 1992, the Ministry of Interior cited the existence of 12,489 illegal structures, including over 10,000 homes and nearly 2,400 livestock sheds." Today I think the stat is closer to 40,000 buildingds with demolition orders. I will get the citation....

Proportion of Negev occupied by unrecognized villages. in 2004, "of the nearly 13 million dunams of the Negev, the combined Bedouin population holds only 240,000 dunams, of which 180,000 dunams are held by the residents of the unrecognized villages. In other words, the residents of the villages sit on 1.3% of the land in the Negev, even though they constitute 14.2% of the Negev citizens. Further, this 1.3% is zoned for exclusive Jewish use, for industrial areas, settlements or other purposes."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Proposed Deletion

As this article has been proded for deletion, I would like to point out that in its current state it will indeed not survive an AFD based on a few points.

1, The title "Unrecognised Villages" is very generic and isn't cited as the term given for the subject matter of the article in the media or populace. I would propose something like "Homesteading in Israel", "Adverse possession in Israel", yu get the point.

2, That Bedouin have extremely limited access to education which they dont want, utilities and welfare benefits as stated in the lead paragraph is misleading. Most Bedouin communities that I know are constantly on the move. Those Bedouin communities that that have settled down and hired or were offered the services of a lawyer to take care of legalities with their local municipality, enjoy education when parents appreciate it, water and electricity installations and full welfare benefits.

3 Furthermore, in regards to the subject matter of this article, it should be widened to include the general phenomenon of homesteading in Israel and the Government reaction. Though most would-be are indeed Bedouin, there are currently over 30 Jewish so called "Unrecognised villages" who have been served eviction papers in a recent epic covered in the Israeli media, see also here.

ephix (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1.As I mentioned above, actually it is used by the media, in hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles, is the common term used by NGOs, and within popular usage - well the villages are unrecognized, so there is often some confusion about what to call them, but the residents of the villages themselves use the term. As I said, I can find many citations to support this, when I get a chance. Some of them are already cited in the article.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• 2.The Bedouin don't want education? You have been quite misinformed, my friend. The Bedouin know that their way of life is essentiall;y over, and that the only way they can feed their families is to advance through the education system, like everyone else. Bedouin are constantly on the move? Have you been to the Negev Desert? The Negev Bedouin have been sedentarized for decades, some of them for almost a hundred years. There is no debate about this - this is established. The only Bedouin that still move somewhat, who are semi-sedentarized, are the Bedouin of the Jericho region and on the way to Jericho.
• 3.I wouldn't call them 30 unrecognized villages. They are more like 30 individual family farms that established themselves without bothering to get a permit, in order to stake land in the Negev to combat Bedouion expansion. I have ample evidence to back this up. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-known subject of great concern to many people in the world (including many Israelis). The latest Amnesty report was 5 days ago: "... the authorities have similarly often denied building permits to Israeli Arabs and demolished their homes, especially in “unrecognized” villages in the Negev (southern Israel) and in the Galilee (northern Israel). Some 100,000 Israeli Arabs live without basic services and are at risk of expulsion from scores of villages which the authorities refuse to recognize – even though many predate the establishment of the state of Israel. At the same time, in both areas the authorities have devoted significant resources to establish new Jewish villages."

The proposed deletion of this article, along with that on the Negev Bedouins, looks very much like tendentious behavior aimed at damaging the project and wasting the time of good-faith editors. PR^talk 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation tags

The intro has been tagged with a bunch of tags. The support for these statements is in the body of the article. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some citations, to be added later:

• Very few health care facilities are available in the unrecognised Bedouin villages in the Negev, mostly basic mobile clinics or caravans,(114) and according to the Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) the number of doctors is a third of the norm.(115) Thirty-eight villages have no medical services,(116) and ambulances do not serve the unrecognized villages, denying residents ready access to emergency health care.
• The State has provided no water infrastructure for the unrecognized villages. In some villages residents have managed by buying containers of water, and, more recently, pipes have been installed to bring water into some villages. Due to the high desert temperatures, fungi, bacteria and rust develop very quickly in the plastic containers or metal tanks, leading to numerous infections and skin diseases (e.g. scabies). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Goldberg Commission

The findings from the Goldberg Commission, which is hardly seen as Bedouin-friendly, should be coming out soon. It should be noted that the fact that a body has one or two Bedouin associated with it does not mean that it is a body that represents Bedouin interests (often, it is true, Bedouin who get involved in this way do so because it works in their own interests); The Goldberg committee, which seeks above all to deal with the problem of the unrecognized villages, does not include a single representative from an unrecognized village.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever flaws the Goldberg Commission has/had, it's still an important government-appointed commission which is probably the most comprehensive government-sponsored study in recent times, and its recommendations are highly important to this article. On a side note, I'm not sure why you're suprised about not having any members of unrecognized villages on the commission's staff. Opinions may differ about this, but actually having people from unrecognized villages in the commission's body would be a severe conflict of interests. It would be like including Olmert and Peretz in the Winograd Commission. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course of course the committee's findings need to be here - that's why I created a heading on the topic. As far as the lack of representatives from the urnecognized villages on a committee designed to address the fate of the unrecognized villages - I see a comparison with the Native Americans as more apt - deciding on the fate of indigenous people without consulting indigenous people themselves cannot be justified. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the government was striving for an unbiased opinion as much as possible, because the commission is just a series of recommendations, it does not actually decide the fate of the Bedouins. And judging by previous cases of similar commissions on many topics in Israel, the government will ignore most of its recommendations anyway in light of political considerations, for good or for bad. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Winograd comparison you've made is pretty dubious - a better example might be "Would a Commission on settlements include representatives of settlers"? If one of the proposed solutions to the settlements was to bulldoze them all (the way that Minister of the Interior, Roni Bar-On, said of the unrecognized villages in 2006, according to an Israeli source) then I think Israelis would demand that the settlers be allowed some input. PR^talk 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a commission of inquiry with a decision maker. A commission is supposed to be neutral, and it provides recommendations for decision makers. Bar-On is a decision maker, so obviously if he proposes to bulldoze the unrecognized villages, it should be discussed with the heads of the Bedouin community. Same with Sharon's decision to bulldoze two dozen Jewish settlements, if we go by your example (although Sharon didn't really consult anyone). However, commissions of inquiry are not supposed to have input from bodies with a possible conflict of interest, including the decision makers and the subjects of the inquiry, which if you notice, are not part of any government-appointed commissions of inquiry. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I mistranslated the title - the Goldberg Committee is more accurate. You are right that a commission, as an investigating body, should not invite those it investigates to take part in the review process. But this is actually a committee - i.e. it seeks not to investigate wrongdoing and cast a judgment, but rather to review a problem and suggest solutions. One cannot review "the Bedouin problem" or "the problem of the Bedouin unrecognized villages" without consulting those who suffer this "problem" most acutely. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation committees are clearly different than commissions of inquiry, as you said. Even so, the general idea still stands. For example, as far as I know, the committee for examining the financial viability of the high-speed Tel Aviv-Jerusalem railway does not include representatives from Israel Railways or the Ministry of Finance. I could be wrong though, and would be glad to be corrected in such a case. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing?

Seen in Haaretz today: "... legal procedures ... were disregarded in this case ... allocated without proper bids being solicited. ... neither of these facts prevented ... connecting the farms to the electricity and water grids, and dedicating hundreds of thousands of shekels to their development ... A year ago, the attorney general served the farms with evacuation orders ... the farmers argued that the state was discriminating against them. They claimed that Arab-Bedouin residents of the Negev consistently build illegally, but are never served evacuation orders. The facts on the ground reveal quite a different picture. For six decades now, the state has refused to recognize the existence of 46 Bedouin villages in the Negev, some of them more than 400 years old; in other cases, their populations were transferred during the 1950s, mainly to the east of Be'er Sheva, under orders from military governors. Even a new master plan for the Be'er Sheva region, which was supposed to offer a solution for the unrecognized villages, ignores their existence, proposing instead that the Bedouin move to one of the seven permanent Bedouin townships established by the authorities in the 1970s and '80s. These townships are regularly ranked among Israel's poorest municipalities. From the Bedouin point of view, relocating to the townships means abandonment of their traditional way of life, of agriculture and of a demand - which the state rejects outright - for recognition of their ownership of the land." PR^talk 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you always have to put an 'ethnic cleansing' spin on things? The above is well-known and already covered in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in the news that settlers claimed to being discriminated against, in favour of natives, and were to be forced from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity. I cherry-picked the report in the Israeli newspaper somewhat because I wanted it to refer to this article and unrecognised villages in the news today.

Anyway, I suspect that references to "ethnic cleansing" is almost the prime thing that brings people to this article. PR^talk 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

About settlers: not sure what you're talking about.

About what brings people to this article: I suspect that you're entirely incorrect, but even if you weren't, that has absolutely no bearing on how the article should be presented on Wikipedia. To remind you, articles must comply with both WP:V and WP:NPOV, regardless of the target audience. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article

The name of this article is too nonspecific. Surely in the world there are unrecognised villages other than in Israel. Is there any objection if I change the name to "Unrecognized villages in Israel"? Zero^talk 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be specific enough either, as "outposts" in the West Bank, and some other illegal construction in Israel, are also technically "unrecognized villages". Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel would do the trick, although I'm wondering if it should be that long. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What about "unrecognized bedouin villages"? Zero^talk 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could work. If there is no further input from other editors, I support this title. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously imagine that there are no "unrecognized bedouin villages" outside of Israel? Zero's original proposal "Unrecognized villages in Israel" seems both appropriate and not over-long. Any objections? --Yumegusa (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And to address YNH's concern, "outposts" in the West Bank are not in Israel. --Yumegusa (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Zero's final proposed title, "Unrecognized Bedouin villages". I am not aware of there being such an issue anywhere outside Israel, even if technically villages exist elsewhere in the world which are both Bedouin and unrecognized. In fact, the unrecognized villages in "Israel proper" are not all Bedouin, like Dreijat which was recently recognized, but again, this is a minor and unimportant technicality because the issue is specifically with Bedouin villages.

Moreover, you have far from addressed the outposts issue. The topic of unrecognized villages centers around construction rights vis-a-vis the Israeli government, which de-facto administers large parts of the West Bank (Area C where, in fact, all the outposts are), therefore using the title of "Unrecognized villages in Israel" would be misleading if it dealt only with the villages in "Israel proper". There's also an active dispute now on East Jerusalem localities that's similar in nature to the one of unrecognized villages, and East Jerusalem is controversially annexed to Israel, making the issue even more complicated and the title "Unrecognized villages in Israel" even more misleading. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the title of the article, rather than its substance, is what we're debating, the question of whether there is "such an issue anywhere outside Israel" (your words, my italics) is irrelevant; the question is rather whether there are "Unrecognized Bedouin villages" (proposed title) beyond those which the article is substantially about. What actually is the article about? "Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel" is the clear and concise answer, and therefore the name the article should be moved to. It was you coined it, and while it a little bit long, omitting 'in Israel', 'Bedouin', or anything else effectively dilutes the full article-title match. Whatever gain is represented by having a short title (either "Unrecognized villages in Israel" or "Unrecognized Bedouin villages") is more than offset by the lack of title concision. The current title "Unrecognized villages" is so far off the mark that its chances of being looked up by someone interested in the actual subject of the article are about nil. "Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel" - what say ye? --Yumegusa (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can accept either "Unrecognized Bedouin villages" or "Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel". Zero^talk 03:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the full discussion. --Yumegusa (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Since the NPOV tag has now been present for more than two years, I'm asking for justification for its continued presence. Without a good case based on the present state of the article, the tag should be removed. Zero^talk 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Fully agree. --candyworm (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment—while I don't think that my own failure to improve the article and LamaLoLeshLa's disappearance should create problems for the article like an ugly POV tag, it should still be noted that no major changes have been made from July 2008 and the major issues have not been addressed. I don't really mind which way the tag issue goes, but call on any interested parties to NPOV the article, especially by removing poorly-sourced dubious claims and including all points of view. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. Those interested in improving the article are free to do so. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article suffers from heavy bias, and in fact it is unreliable, as most of its source are not fully reliable. You can see it clearly by the terminology they use, which implies political bias. Reliable sources about this issue are not few, even though many of them are not available in English - that's the trick about writing articles about Israel - most sources are in Middle Eastern languages, and you cannot ignore them, and prefer less-reliable sources, just because it is easier to read in English. More than that, This issue was investigated by an official Israeli committee, the Goldberg Committee, which suggested to recognize most of these villages [1] [2]. While the current Israeli government is not too keen on implementing the report, it is very detailed and includes reference to various sources and testimonies. Has anyone even bothered to look at it? This report (in English) [3] suggests that there are moves toward implementation of the report, and in any event, the situation is much more complex than described in this Wikipedia article. For example, there are conflicting ownership claims on behalf of the Bedouin citizens themselves, which makes solution harder. There is also no source that claims that the Bedouin claims for lands are "hard coded" or ever recognized by any authority in history. Here is a quote from the New York Times about Al-Araqib: “In pure legal terms, the state has a point,” said Professor Yiftachel, an advocate for Bedouin rights. “But it is a very technical point, brushing aside tradition and the legal occupation of the land until the 1950s.” [4] In short - this article needs a serious rewriting, preferably by someone who can read some Hebrew and/or Arabic and is not prejudiced. 109.66.123.252 (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Unrecognized villages map english-1-.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unrecognized villages map english-1-.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A list of these villages?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Is there a list of these villages somewhere? I'd like to make a template for them. I found some maps in the external links section, but the names were too small for me to read.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC) You are right. So far I found a map of them, but I am not sure whether we can use it. http://www.jmcc.org/Documentsandmaps.aspx?id=812 I am not sure also if these communities have names. They are most probably called after the tribe names.Romayan (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages official website

This: http://www.rcuv.net/ is not the right people anymore. It seems to be parked, or maybe it's just a really idiotic blog. I can't find anything with google that looks like an official website. What to do is not clear. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They removed their site and put up a blog (I referred to it in the article). Not a good source, but it's clearly them.Romayan (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Some plagiarism from a possibly unreliable source?

I was looking to fill in citations for this paragraph here:

In 1979 Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon declared a 1,500 square kilometer area in the Negev a protected nature reserve, rendering a major portion of the Negev almost entirely out of bounds for Bedouin herders.[citation needed] In conjunction, he established the Green Patrol, which has been called an 'environmental paramilitary unit',[28] with the mission of fighting Bedouin 'infiltration' into national Israeli land by preventing Bedouin from grazing their animals, seen as creating 'facts on the ground.'[citation needed] During Sharon's tenure as Minister of Agriculture (1977–1981), the Green Patrol removed 900 Bedouin encampments and cut goat herds by more than 1/3.[citation needed] Today the black goat is nearly extinct, and Bedouin in Israel do not have enough access to black goat hair to weave tents.[18]

When I came across this article here: "COMMENT: For reasons of state - Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur". Daily Times (Islamabad, Pakistan). April 15, 2012. Retrieved August 25, 2012.

As you can see, the sentence In 1979, Ariel Sharon declared a 1,500 square kilometre area in the Negev a protected nature reserve, rendering its major portion almost entirely out of bounds for Bedouin herders. appears verbatim in both, and this part from the Daily Times article closely mirrors part of the paragraph from the WP article, although that's cited to a different source: Between 1977 and 1981, Bedouin encampments and goatherds reduced by more than one third. Consequently, the black goat is nearly extinct and the Bedouin do not have enough goat hair to weave their traditional tents.

I haven't yet figured out if the Daily Times is cribbing from here or vice versa, but I thought I'd put it up here for comments and suggestions on what to do. If the WP article is cribbing from the DT article, then we should consider whether an opinion piece from the DT is a reliable source or not, because it would allow us to remove some of those citation needed templates after rewriting. I'm leaning towards it not in fact being reliable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a controversial and poorly sourced passage (it comes from a biased source as you justly mentioned), I removed it. We need a good source for it.Romayan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Very poor article

Due to the efforts of several editors, the article is now little more than a dump of the Israeli position. It is full of statements presented as facts that are actually highly disputed. Examples abound throughout the article. Example: "The unrecognized villages were built without official permission (this is why they are not recognized by the state) and thus remain ineligible for municipal services, such as connection to the electrical grid" (anyone aware of the history of settlement in the West Bank, where even tiny Jewish outposts are connected to the electricity grid within days, knows that this is extremely deceptive). Another: "situated in inappropriate places, such as military fire zones, natural reserves, landfills, etc.[17] making it literally impossible to recognize some of them" (everyone knows that the declaration of an area as a nature reserve or military zone is a device frequently applied after the settlement is in place, and settlement in places like landfills usually follows expulsion from somewhere else). Zero^talk 05:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it is really hard to not describe some of this article as a racist diatribe. Zero^talk 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

is one evil justifying the other one? is the preferred treatment of the West Bank settlement, justify similar ( and illegal) treatment of those Bedouin villages?

Actually there are no illegal Jewish villages in Israel (within the green line) since the police won't allow it. However, the police is afraid of the Arabs and especially of the Bedouin, and does not enforce the law there. Ykantor (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is the police afraid of the Arabs ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the policemen are limited by instructions and can do little. But if they abuse their office they can pay a heavy price. There were several cases. So they prefer not to show any initiative. Romayan (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the policemen are not that young, and they don't want to be involved in clashes. There are some special units, who consist of youngsters, and they (sometime quite brutally) deal with special events e.g. Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Moreover, the local commander strive to keep quite. Once there emerge a trouble, some Knesset members (Jews and Arabs) start asking for an inquiry committee, and since he is not perfect, he is eventually reprimanded, which is not good to his career. The Jews ( and to some extent the Arabs in the cities) are disciplined, and does not tend to violently resist the policemen. But the Arabs in the villages and especially the Bedouin are living in a nearly absence of an orderly regime. The tax official are avoiding the Arab villages too, so most of the business there pay very little tax. The same happens in prison where the Palestinians can study in the university, they prepare food for themselves ( much better food then the wardens) and they have some autonomy. Ykantor (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• It can be seen by your contribs page that you tend to support one of the sides. This is the reason why you wrote this passage Zero. You may agree or disagree with it, but it's a hard fact that there is a high number of unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev, this number is too big, and they were constructed without any official "ok". This is the reason why many of them do not have all the supplies.

As for the Jewish outposts, their story is different. They are situated on a territory with a different legal status. If you want to compare, compare with Jewish illegal construction and you will see that there is hardly any. And it is not supported by the state just like the Bedouin illegal construction. If you move away from larger settlements and check out villages like Abu Alkian, you will see that they did not exist ten years ago. They are all brand new. It has nothing to do about ideology or "racism" as you put it. Dura lex, sed lex. Law is one and for all. People should respect the law, and the law will respect them. Romayan (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The section about high population growth reads like it is about rats. Zero^talk 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was asked to comment here by the user Romayan, presumably because I was previously involved in the discussion and had positive interactions with the user. I will therefore state only a partial opinion on the issue at hand, unless an elaboration on my comments is requested.

To Zero: It seems to be that the original series of articles about Negev Bedouins were written by someone who had a very clear bias in favor of the Bedouin land claims and against the state. I therefore don't see the problem that someone with a different opinion balances the article. It is clear that most of what you take issue with is the language, style, flow, wording and balance, and not with actual facts which are well-sourced. You are also a very good writer, which is exactly why I'm sure that you will be able to address the issues you raised yourself. I believe that the sources that LamaLoLeshLa and Romayan bring balance one another fairly well and it's less a matter of facts and more a matter of how we present them.

Both of you are clearly good faith editors so there shouldn't be a problem improving the article even if you fundamentally disagree on most points.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ynhockey for the fair assessment. I am trying to make this article balanced. There are new editors in it and I will try to balance them in order to make the article more objective and well-sourced. Zero, I disagree with you when you say that the high population growth part looks as if we are talking about rats, but I will surely double check it. If you have any other notions, name them, and I will see and check what can be done about it to make it more trustworthy and balanced. Romayan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will thoroughly process the whole article and at the end of my work I will remove the NPOV section. Zero, you are welcome to add any well-sourced info that you think is suitable there. Romayan (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not remove the tag until there is a consensus to remove it. Meanwhile I have lots of material but very little time for editing. Some quick comments:

The population growth information, properly balanced, belongs in an article on the bedouin, but in this article its purpose is offensive. I wouldn't put up with the fertility of any other national minority of any country being portrayed as a threat to the state and I don't see why I should put up with this example. Incidentally, the general opinion among demographers is that polygyny decreases overall fertility because women in polygynous marriages have fewer children each on average than women in monogamous marriages. Also this section ignores the massive decrease in fertility amongst the bedouin in the past decade.

The sentence "The unrecognized villages were built without official permission (this is why they are not recognized by the state)" makes no sense. It isn't the villages that decide whether they are recognised, it is the state. They aren't recognised because the state declines to recognise them. One can then discuss the state's motivation for its choice, but one cannot simply pretend that the state is a passive participant. Similarly, it isn't the villages that decide whether to be connected to municipal services. It is the state, and the state alone, that makes that decision. This refusal to assign correct agency to the actors is a serious problem throughout the article.

The phrase "Bedouin dispersal" is almost totally absent in English and does not make sense in English. It has to go. The only phrase that meets WP:COMMONNAME is "unrecognized village". Added: Now I see that it is even a mistake. The whole system of unrecognized villages, not individual villages, is sometimes called the "Bedouin dispersal" (though "Bedouin diaspora" would be a more canonical translation). This would be highly misleading in the article, since the Bedouin diaspora more commonly refers to the many Negev bedouin who were exiled in 1948–1950.

Zero^talk 23:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some definitions were harsh and exaggerated, this is why I am still working on this Wiki article, to soften it and to remove the controversial stuff. I am not done with it yet. Whenever I finish I will let you know here. Be sure that it won't be easy for us to find a compromise on this article, but we need to try. My time is also limited, but I can't leave the misleading facts here as they are. F.e. Bedouin families have many children, and their natural growth rate is one of the highest in the world. It's not me, it's demographics experts say so. I provided some links on that one. This indeed is one of the reasons for the land squatting, since in the Arab families it's a matter of pride to have a house of your own if you are a man. This is tradition. Another reason might be family feud. Maybe you we should make a chapter about the reasons of illegal squatting.

Correct me if I am wrong - I haven't seen any studies on the massive decreases in fertility amongst the Bedouin. I know that it is true for most of Israeli Arab population, but the Negev Bedouin. The reason is urbanization. Even the Bedouin in the north of Israel differ in that sense from the Negev Bedouin who continue to live in rural or semi-rural communities. If you feel that something left unnoticed, feel free to add more info supported by links. This is your legitimate right.

I see no problem in the sentence about the unrecognized villages and their status. Most of them were built spontaneously and started to grow until they became villages. They weren't recognized from the very beginning, and now the Bedouin are trying to face the state with the fact that there is a village here. And this is what they are trying to do in the whole Negev and more. A lack of law enforcement brings to the situation like this. And if the state simply recognizes these chaotically built new communities, it will create anarchy, because it will cause a snowball effect. So everything is correct in the sentence. If you have a different point of view, feel free to add it next to this sentence.

"Diaspora" would be correct for the Bedouin living - say - in the US. Here I offered another definition - dispersed communities. This is more correct than calling them unrecognized villages, because village means a large number of constructions, there is a problem of definition, this is why every organization gives a different number of them. Dispersed communities can be starting from 2 to 3 houses and more, and this is what is happening in fact. Not all of the "unrecognized villages" are villages. Romayan (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding fertility, it is hard to find up-to-date statistics. The TFR of Negev bedouin indeed used to be one of the highest ever recorded, but I'm not sure that is true any more. This 2008 article with CBS statistics reports the start of a rapid drop. It even says that the Bedouin showed the greatest drop of all the studied groups. You can also see in that article that the most recent TFR rate available for the Bedouin was almost identical to the Haredi rate. As well as that, their rate of infant mortality is extremely high. I have more articles like that but I can't find the best one at the moment; I'll report it here when I do. Because of what has been reported in recent years, it is not acceptable to quote facts from even longer ago as if they are still true. I also still dispute the relevance of the subject to this article. It is here for a very clear purpose of campaigning against Bedouin settlements. Zero^talk 09:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is another source. The article references this 2007 paper of Bystrov and Soffer (not Sofer) but there is a 2012 edition which should be used instead. It says (p. 36):

"This combination of factors caused the annual natural increase in the south of Israel to reach 5.0-5.5% (a fall in the natural growth rate was observed in 2003-2011 to about 4%). Such a high natural increase means a doubling of the Bedouin population in the south every twelve to fifteen years."

When they added the parenthetical clause, they didn't update the "12 to 15"; the doubling time for a 4% rate is 18 years. (Incidentally the relationship between the TFR and the growth rate is very complicated.) Zero^talk 11:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding villages/settlements/whatever, the problem is one of polemic semantics. Only a limited number of communities seek official recognition as villages, but outfits like Regavim count every tiny cluster of tents in order to pretend that the problem is much larger than it really is. It causes us a problem because we can't refer to every occupied location as a village but on the other hand we can't use words that hide the actual town-like nature of the larger communities. "Dispersed communities" might be ok for some places in the article, though not in contexts that are mostly about the problem of recognition. Zero^talk 10:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recognition, the fact that the government recognized many settlements that were considered "illegal" before (think of many examples in the Galilee) proves that recognition is a fact primarily derived from government policy. Your argument also ignores the history of the post-1948 dispossession of the Bedouin from the lands they originally held and describes them as if they are foreign invaders. The fact is that by the mid-1950s most had been concentrated in a place away from their traditional lands, subject to the most severe form military government that existed in Israel, then when they finally managed to get back to their former lands (or as near as they could) their settlements were described as new. Like the Araqib, who appear on mandate-era maps in exactly the same place they are claiming today. It might be ok for government departments to use such spin, but here we should tell a straight story. Zero^talk 10:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding fertility issue, I agree that so far we don't have enough sources to draw conclusions, but common sense tells me that even if there is a drop in fertility rate among the Negev Bedouin, it is different from that of the Bedouin living in the north of Israel and Israeli Arabs (which indeed show a drop in natural growth rate). And I already named the reason - urbanization. Fertility rate drops drastically when the population moves from rural villages to towns and cities. Out of all groups of Muslims in Israel, Negev Bedouin are the least urbanized group, so their fertility rate is still very high. This is why I tried to be more careful with statistics and fixed it from 5-5.5 per cent to 4-5.5 per cent. We can make it 4 to 5 per cent with the peak of 5.5 per cent in the past, if you like. The infant mortality rate is also not as high as it was several decades before. Israeli medicine is one of the more advanced in the world, especially with regards to saving infants and their mothers. There is a modern Soroka hospital in Be'er Sheva, and another one being built in Idan HaNegev close to Rahat. Romayan (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnon is Sofer, although sometimes his name is spelled with double "f" simply because in Hebrew there are no double consonants. His name is סופר, it means a profession, "scribe for sacred texts". This is why in his Wikipedia article his name is written with one "f". Thank you for the link, I will update it. Romayan (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If "dispersed communities" is ok with you, I will try to use this definition but I will note that there is a difference between dwelling places and agricultural constructions that are many. Romayan (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

When you speak of "post-1948 dispossession of the Bedouin from the lands", we have a problem here. The Bedouin consider that all the territory where they migrated, belonged to them - all the Sinai, the Negev and the Arava. This is their natural areal, true. But the fact of ownership is the main point of dispute here. If we are talking about property, then it is something that is officially registered as you property. But the Bedouin did all they could in order to avoid official registration. Those who had their property registered, have no problem today. Also don't forget that the Bedouin had a chance in the 1950s to come and to prove their ownership over the land. Those who did it, enjoy their property today. Those who didn't do it, start legal wars and try to create facts on the ground. Of course, it depends upon the government policy, but the government cannot accept all the territorial claims, especially those not backed up by any evidence, due to many reasons. Al Araqeeb's story is different. Aerial maps show that there is a cemetery there, but no permanent settlement. Romayan (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also look at the international practice. Urbanization hit hard the nomads everywhere, but there is not a single country who accepted the nomads claims and gave them all the territory they claimed. On the contrary, in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, they have little rights if any. In Sinai they were claimed the ownership of the lands at the shore, but government simply ignored them. And Israel has been trying through decades to find a just solution for the Bedouin. Why this fact is left disregarded? Romayan (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We should use Soffer rather than Sofer since that is how he spells it himself and that is how it appears on his English publications including this one. You can check for yourself. I'm guessing he does it because English speakers would tend to pronounce Sofer like "sofa". I'll read your other comments later. Zero^talk 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am done with the article so far. Any comments? Romayan (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero, if you leave no comments I accept it as your agreement with the modern version of the article. Romayan (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have lots of stuff to add but it will be as much as a few weeks before I get the time for it. Remove the tag for now if you like. Zero^talk 12:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we'll keep updated. Good time of the day Romayan (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Population density"

Moved from the article:

According to the Society for the Protection of Nature, construction rates and population density inside Bedouin concentrations are extremely low. As of 2008, average population density in Negev Bedouin dispersals was 280 people per square kilometer, the common density for them was 180 people per square kilometer, and the density in certain concentrations reached even below 100 persons per square kilometer. [1] For comparison, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the average population density in Israel in 2008 was 320.9 persons per square kilometer.[2]
[1] SPNI, Distinguish between open development. SPNI position at the committee meeting proposed policy regulating Bedouin settlement in the Negev, March 13, 2008
[2] Demographic Situation in Israel – 2008, Israel Central Bureau of Statistics

To start with, the combination of information from two sources to draw a conclusion like this is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH and thus strictly against the rules. Second, there are big problems with this. The data in the first section are from a powerpoint slide with only a few words on it. The translation "extremely" is biased, and the emotive word "even" does not appear at all. An additional line "High density - 1000 people per square kilometer" on the slide, that would spoil the point being illicitly made, has gone missing. What it means can't be determined from the source, since unrecognized villages don't usually have recognized boundaries. Regarding the last sentence, how it makes sense to compare the density of a rural Negev community to the whole of Israel is beyond me. Of course one could have selected the more relevant figure from the same source: "74.3 per km² in the Southern District" but then that would have done even more damage to the intended propaganda point (as well as being SYNTH as I mentioned earlier). I don't think anything is salvageable from this disaster of a section. Zero^talk 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we can take it down for now. So far we don't have enough sources, but I don't think that it does not belong here. It's important to know the population density as well as the reasons why the Negev Bedouin continue to hijack the state territories. Probably you haven't been to Negev, so you haven't seen the way it is carried out. Romayan (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been there many times, though I never had anything to do with the Bedouin. How about you; have you read WP:COI? Zero^talk 10:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I've been to Negev as a citizen of Israel and spoke both to the Bedouin and to some government officials does not make any conflict of interest. I will tell you a secret, I am a journalist, so it's my job to collect ALL the facts, put them together and analyze the whole situation. It makes me a person who knows a bit more about this story than an average person, that's it. What is your interest in this, Zero. Here indeed I feel some COI. Romayan (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a senior academic in an irrelevant subject and do this as a hobby. The statement at the top of my home page remains as true as when I wrote it almost 10 years ago. Zero^talk 10:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arutz 7

Zero, you cannot delete a link just because it belongs to Arutz 7. If so, then you should delete all the links to Haaretz also. This is not the way. Arutz 7 is an official news channel, it is 100% legitimate, it's not somebody's blog. If you disagree with its stance, this is one thing. I might disagree with Haaretz but I quote it any way, because it is also an official news outlet. You cannot delete a fact just because your political views are different from those supported by the journalist. We are all humans you know. We can disagree on many things, it's normal. I suggest a compromise, and I believe that it is a right thing to do. If you cast a doubt on Arutz 7 or whatever, just when you mention any fact mentioned by it, give a very brief description where it comes from. When I say Adalah, I say "Bedouin advocacy group" so that it will be clear why they are saying what they are saying. The same about Regavim, I called them a "Jewish Zionist NGO". It is all correct, and the reader can make his/her own conclusions. Romayan (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. Removing it is perfectly in line with the policies of this website. nableezy - 22:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arutz 7 is a settler mouthpiece, as tons of reliable sources attest. (Somewhere else I posted a long list of academic and mainstream opinions; I can find it again if you ask.) If it badged itself as an advocacy group, it might be eligible for attributed opinion (a test of notability would still be required). Since it is in fact an advocacy group badged as a news agency, it is not eligible, especially for things related to the settler project. Fact is, it is thoroughly unreliable. Adalah and Regavim are eligible for a limited amount of their opinion to be quoted with attribution. Neither are eligible for unattributed statements of fact, which includes claims about what third parties said. Zero^talk 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And comparing Arutz 7 to Haaretz is really really silly. Zero^talk 09:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Every news channel belongs to someone. Those who pay the money, order the music. If Arutz 7 belongs to "settlers" it does not mean that it has to be delegitimized. Haaretz is an ultra-liberal project as you put it, so it can be disqualified easily, too. Do you want me to give you numerous examples of articles written by Amira Hass and Gideon Levy that are... let's put it this way far away from the mainstream? This is why they should be estimated the same way. As I previously said, if you don't like what Arutz 7 says, give it an objective attribution. But believe me, Arutz 7 is much more popular in Israel than Haaretz, and it has more readers. So what's the deal? Romayan (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Popularity is irrelevant. I believe I am quite consistent here, and as far as I recall I have not ever cited something from an article of Hass or Levy as a plain fact. I would cite it as the claim or opinion of the author (though I don't recall doing that either). However a news report in Haaretz can be used, while a news report in A7 cannot be used. That's because Haaretz makes an effort (imperfect though it is) to distinguish news reporting from editorial. In A7, everything has to be treated as editorial. They first came to my intention in Wikipedia due to a story about an event they just made up (it never happened), and that story was still there years later (i.e. not just making a grievous error, but failing to correct it). You can use something like JPost if you want a mainstream news source of different political persuasion. Zero^talk 01:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what story you are talking about and I will be happy to receive a link to it in order to learn about it. But our case is different. It is not a piece of editorial, it is an article based on Prof. Sofer's (or Soffer's, whatever) opinion. It goes perfectly in line with what he usually says, what can be double checked. So the use of this specific link is fully justified. As far as I see it's the only time when Arutz 7 in quoted here, no one is taking advantage of the information published by it. Romayan (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Then find a reliable report of Soffer's words. Incidentally, Soffer is a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards but he is also highly controversial and should be balanced by someone who disagrees with him. The fake article I mentioned, which caused an edit war on Wikipedia, is still on the A7 web site here. (To understand how this article fits A7's politics, recall that the soldier concerned was bedouin.) This is far from being the only time Wikipedia was bitten by A7's stunts. Over the years I have seen many. Zero^talk 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. The soldier was charged and jailed for eight years. What is fake about this article? If you mean inaccuracies, they happen at every media outlet, even at the most respectable ones. How many times Haaretz journalists were caught on mere lies and inaccuracies! If you feel that Prof. Soffer's is telling only one side of the story, bring in the other part - a person who can really balance his words, an expert of his level. This is your right to do so, Zero. But you cannot cast a person who is an expert in his field just because you ideologically disagree with him! Romayan (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Check the date. He wasn't convicted until more than a year later. Zero^talk 16:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, you need to stop carrying on about my supposed ideology. It would be all so easy to do the same to you but that is not how we are supposed to behave around here. Zero^talk 16:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what you mean. As a journalist I know that mistakes happen everywhere, sometimes really stupid mistakes. We are all human you know. And it's too early to cast a news outlet just because there was a mistake there, even a critical one. We should see the whole situation, not a single case. As for NPA, I am not here to judge you, I am not a judge, but to find the truth. Let's do it together. Romayan (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.dukium.org/user_uploads/pdfs/%EB%F0%F1%20%E4%F8%F6%EC%E9%E4%20%F1%E5%F4%E9.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)