Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 6

Verify tag
"Arabs of Israel", "Arab Israelis", "Israeli Arabs", "Minorities", "Arab population of Israel", "Arab inhabitants", or the "Arab sector" are terms used by the Israeli government, Israeli Jews, by the Hebrew-speaking media in Israel as well as worldwide media organizations, and others to refer to Arabs that are citizens and/or residents of the State of Israel.

I've added a verify tag to this statement. The four sources cited do not seem to support this conclusion, and at last some are being used as primary sources to draw OR conclusions. Can someone please provide sources for this statement here and explain how they do support it?  T i a m u t talk 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be changed to what I suggested here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you suggested suffers from the same problem. I'm thinking the section needs reworking and that that paragraph should be removed altogether until it is reformulated to reflect what reliable secondary sources have to say.


 * Consider, for example,


 * "The category "Israel Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities [...] In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector", or icertain circles, the more cryptic appellation of "our cousins". The use of these labels denies the existence of any type of political or national identification, and the use of "minority" even denies them a distinct cultural identity. With the emergence of a more critical discourse [...] the categorization expands to include Israeli Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, and so on." (Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages By Muhammad Amara)
 * "Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays, the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948." Chapter 4 National Identity in Israel in The logic of democratic exclusion T i a m u t talk 20:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted here, many Israeli Arabs identify as such and the term is commonly used in the western media. I don't think it is appropriate to remove any reference to it from the section titled "terminology". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing removing it forever. I'm saying the text we have is poorly sourcd and poorly formulated. To begin fixing it, I'd like to remove what I see as a hugely problematic paragraph (along with the uncited paragraphat the end of the section). Then, I'd like to add what reliable secondary sources, such as the two I've qoted above, have to say about "Israeli Arabs" and all the other labels used to speak of Arab citizens of Israel. I want this section to reflect the best scholarship on this subject and not what you or I think it should say based on our impressions of primary source material.  T i a m u t talk 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anyone likely to challenge the statement that "Arabs of Israel", "Arab Israelis", "Israeli Arabs", are terms used to refer to Arabs that are citizens and/or residents of the State of Israel. or that "Minorities", "Arab population of Israel", "Arab inhabitants", or the "Arab sector" are also used by the Israeli government.? I think the sources already in the article support these two statements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its uninformative, simplistic, and sourced to primary sources. The sources I provided above indicate the situation is rather more complex. Are you against introducing high quality secondary sources that indicate what terminology is used, by whom, and why?  T i a m u t talk 07:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm against removing it completely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it is improperly sourced. Could you find reliable secondary sources that say what the text says? Using a source that simply uses the term to derive a conclusion that it is used is OR. If it is properly sourced, I have no objection to its inclusion.  T i a m u t talk 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternate terms to include bolded in lead?
Given the disagreement regarding which alternate terms should be included bolded in the lead, let's discuss the issue further. Here are the terms to consider for inclusion, as outlined in the terminology section. The first four are the preference of the Israeli establishment, the second four of the preference of Arab citizens, and for the remainder, it is not clear who prefers them; Please state which, if any, of the above terms should be bolded in the lead and why. My personal opinion is that we either include none of them, or include one that represents an Israeli establishment POV and one that represents how Arab citizens self-identify.  T i a m u t talk 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Israeli Arabs
 * Arabs in Israel
 * the minorities
 * the Arab sector
 * Palestinians in Israel
 * the Palestinians of 1948
 * Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel
 * Palestinian citizens of Israel
 * Arab Israelis
 * Israeli Palestinians
 * Palestinian Arabs in Israel
 * Palestinian Arabs
 * Israeli Palestinian Arabs
 * the Arabs inside the Green Line (or the Arabs within)
 * I disagree with the way you framed the question. Many Israeli Arabs identify as such so it's not exclusively "an Israeli establishment POV". Also, since "Israeli Arab" seems to be the most common term used in English, it should be in the lead no matter who's POV you think it is. In fact, it should be the title of this article per wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stricken the part that offends you. So of the 14 terms above, your suggestion is to include only "Israeli Arabs" in bold in the lead because it is the most common term used in English?  T i a m u t talk 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Can you provide a reliable secondary source that says that some Arab citizens identify as "Israeli Arabs" so that we can include that perspective in the article? And can you leave the issue of the article name to the RfC above or a formal move request which should be filed if your intention is to pursue a page move? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 09:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think "Israeli Arabs" must be in the lead because it's the most common term. There should be other terms as well. I think "Arab citizens of Israel" should be there as well, and if we can find out what the most common one used by the group is, then that too should be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Though your rationale is different and the deatils still have to be worked out, our positions are not so far apart after all. I agree "Arab citizens of Israel" should be bolded in the lead (because it is title of this article and is purely descriptive term that assigns neither an Israeli or Palestinian identity) and I can concede that "Israeli Arabs" be included (instead of "Arabs in Israel) as an expression of the Israeli establishment POV, if "Palestinians in Israel" is included as an expression of the Arab citizenry POV. That way both Palestinian and Israeli identity options are represented in the lead, along with a neutral descriptive term.
 * Again though, could you please provide a reliable secondary source that says Arab citizens identify as "Israeli Arabs" (and not, as you have previously, an article quoting one Arab saying he identifies that so as to draw an OR conclusion)? My acceptance of these changes to the lead is not contingent upon this but I would like to add this information to the article, if it is indeed a significant minority viewpoint.  T i a m u t talk 10:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll find a source for Arab citizens identifying as "Israeli Arabs", but are you seriously challenging that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually yes. I don't deny that there are individuals who identify that way, but I don't think its a significant minority viewpoint as I have not seen it mentioned in the literature I have reviewed. And if its a fringe position, I'm not sure its worthy of inclusion, unless it is covered in reliable sources as such. So please do provide a source so that we can include the information in its correct context.  T i a m u t talk 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one (not exactly from the Israeli establishment). By the way, you haven't been around for a while so you may have not noticed this article is under a 1RR restriction (see template at the top of the page). You should consider self-reverting your last edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The text you cite specifically relates to Israeli authorities trying to take away Palestinian identity. "They were successful with some people. Some say 'I am a Palestinian in Israel'. Some say 'I am an Arab Israeli living in Israel'. And some say 'I am not a Palestinian. I am an Arab Israeli'. Some of them work and support the Shin Bet activities". This quote does not support your argument; it reinforces Tiamut's claim that this represents a fring minority, rather than a significant population. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It supports the argument that some identify as Israeli Arabs, from a source that obviously doesn't like it. Nothing in it supports the claim that it represents a fringe minority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It supports the argument that some identify as Arab Israelis. That is actually different from identifying as an Israeli Arab (which is also different from identifying as a hyphenated Israeli-Arab. These subtle distinctions in the terminology are rather important.
 * As to your request that I undo my last revert, I will politely decline. I've been thoroughly engaged in talk, made changes to respond to the issues you have raised on the talk page, and I am willing to accept any changes that are based in what the sources have to say. But I will not reintroduce the OR and unsourced fabrications that peppered the version that existed prior to my edits. If there are other specific issues you'd like to raise (sentences you want removed until those specific issues can be worked out), please do. I'm all ears.  T i a m u t talk 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While you have been engaged in discussion, there is a 1RR restriction on this article. Not to mention BRD. I'm pointing this out to you as a courtesy. I suggest you reconsider. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not violated the 1RR restriction. Thanks though for your concern. Could we get back to discussing the article content itself? I believe I've addressed all the concerns you raised. The only sticking point is perhaps my addition of alternate bolded names, which I removed after your objections. True, I did not restore those included previously, but it seemed a fair compromise to include no alt terms until we can reach consensus on what to do. Would you prefer that I restore what was bolded in the lead prior to my edits? I'm willing to do that until a new consensus can be reached on that point. Are there any other issues directly related to article content that you have raised that I have overlooked, or ones you would like to raise? As I said, I'm all ears.  T i a m u t talk 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a question which I hope someone could answer clearly. Since the article's definition of the title is those "legal citizens of Israel who are not Jewish and whose cultural and linguistic heritage or ethnic identity is Arab," then what do we call legal citizens of Israel who are both Jewish and Arab? As we all know, there are those who are Arab Jews or Jewish Arabs, even if the term is somewhat controversial nowadays. If follows from that that "Arab" is too much of an umbrella concept to be used in this case. In fact, the only identifier that would make sense is that of "Palestinian Citizens of Israel," or better, the most common one used by the Palestinians and the Arab world is that of "Pre-1948 Palestinians." Just a suggestions. Biraqleet (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the term Israeli Arabs should be bolded in the lede since it is the most common term used in the international media. This isn't so much an issue of balancing POVs as of making sure there's no confusion for casual readers, especially if they are coming to this article via a redirect from Israeli Arabs. The formulation should be something like "Arab citizens of Israel, often referred to as Israeli Arabs are..." GabrielF (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just found a new source that I plan to use to alter the terminology section slightly and its information has a bearing on this discussion as well. As I said earlier, I would be willing to consider including "Israeli Arab", if it is placed bolded alongside the term preferred by Arab citizens (i.e. "Palestinians in Israel", as per sources cited in terminology section and pages 9 and 10 here). I think its cleaner to have no alternate terms at all, given how many there are. But if we are going to include alternate terms, I would accept the following: Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinians in Israel or Israeli Arabs are terms used, among others, to refer to ...."  T i a m u t talk 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your formulation is fine. WP:LEDE suggests that one or two alternate terms can be used in the lead sentence. One alternate term should be "Israeli Arabs" since this is the term that's most commonly used in the media. GabrielF (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we wait for more feedback? Or go ahead and make the proposed edit?  T i a m u t talk 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to intro
Some changes have been made to the intro here. I have a problem with these as they depict Druze as non-Arabs, citing one source that I cannot read. Most sources I have seen dispute that. Druze tend to identify as Arabs, though less so as Palestinians than other religious sub-groups. Could we restore the old formulation until further sources can be perused?  T i a m u t talk 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to offer a sample source: "... Druze Arabs do not exceed 10 percent of the Arab population of Israel. In addition, the decision to administratively integrate the Druze schools was a political move to separate them from the rest of the Arab society of Israel. (They are the only Arab group which serves in the Israeli army)."  T i a m u t talk 07:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that Druze are not Arabs is not supported by the sources, including the one given for this change (Tiamut: check your email). Actually it calls them Arabs from the first page to the last. It also reports that a majority of them consider their Arab identity important, though it is a smaller majority than of Muslims or Christians.  Zerotalk 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for 2008 survey and charts on self-identification?
Can anyone provide the full citation for or an online version of the 2008 resilience survey discussed in the self-identification sub-section which the charts included in that section draw their data from? Information that detailed should have a citation to support it, no?  T i a m u t talk 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I googled this (not enough, I know):


 * "Last year... Dr. Yussuf Hassan of the Tel Aviv University presented the results of a survey conducted with 764 interviewees, showing that 94% of the Druze consider "Israeliness" to be a central component of their identity."
 * style="direction:rtl"|בשנה שעברה במסגרת ישיבת מנכ"לים שהתקיימה בכפר הדרוזי ג'וליס, בנוכחות ראש הממשלה דאז אהוד אולמרט, הציג הד"ר יוסוף חסן מאוניברסיטת תל אביב תוצאות סקר שנערך בקרב 764 נשאלים, ממנו עולה כי 94% מהדרוזים רואים בישראליות מרכיב מרכזי בזהותם.
 * }
 * Dan ☺ 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship offer to Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Is there some policy based reason that people keep removing this properly sourced information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knightmare72589, 26 June 2011
Adding more polls to the poll section of the Arab-Israeli article because it seems a little one sided in favor of the Arabs.

A poll directed by Haifa University professor Sami Smooha on behalf of Haifa University's Jewish-Arab Center, part of an annual project by the Center to determine relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel found that: over 62% [of Arab citizens of Israel] said that Israelis “are foreigners who do not fit in in this region, and they will eventually leave the country.” Another 71% said that “the Jews are primarily responsible for the 'nakba,' the term applied to the fleeing of the newly declared state of Israel by tens of thousands of Arabs in 1948.

Over half [of Israeli Jews], however, said they would have no problem with their boss being Arab, and nearly 60% agreed that the establishment of the State of Israel was a major “tragedy” for Arabs. ( |accessdate=26%20June%202011 Majority of Israeli Arabs Oppose Existence of Jewish State)

Results of the latest Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians believe Israel will cease to exist.

A whopping 91 percent said their national historic homeland stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. (|accessdate=26%20June%202011 Poll: Arabs View All Israel as Palestine)

Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both pages you cite give 404 "page not found" errors. In any case, Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source for Smooha's findings, or indeed for almost anything in this article. Please find a working link to a reliable source if you want to make any changes to the article. RolandR (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are his 2 links working 1st one and 2nd one Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well then here are 2 others.


 * A 2010 Arab Jewish Relations Survey, compiled by Prof. Sami Smoocha in collaboration with the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa shows that 71% Arab citizens of Israel said they blamed Jews for the hardships suffered by Palestinians during and after the “Nakba” in 1948. 37.8% denied the Holocaust. The percentage supporting the use of violence to advance Arab causes climbed from 6% in 1995 to 11.5% in 2010. 66.4 percent say they reject Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state, while 29.5 percent opposed its existence under any terms. 62.5 percent saw the Jews as "foreign settlers who do not fit into the region and will eventually leave, when the land will return to the Palestinians."
 * Poll shows hardening of Jewish-Arab attitudes
 * '62.5% of Israeli Arabs see Jews as foreign imprint' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am closing the edit request as moot, the user is now auto-confirmed. Monty  845  00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone can find the report of the 2010 Arab Jewish Relations Survey. I can only find mention of an unpublished document. It would be good to be able to use its actual wording, rather than relying on sources like JP which add their own spin. Zerotalk 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

the preferred terms are Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel

but a few paragraphs later...

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

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

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

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


 * There is no contradiction. Someone deleted information that explained who prefers what. I've restored the information. If you would like to review the section sentence by sentence, I would be happy to. But please stop making changes that alter the quoted and paraphrased content to read differently than what is actually written.  T i a m u t talk 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Zero, I believe that Palestinian's belonging to resistance movements (like those described in the Third Geneva Convention) that are fighting the IDF (not civilians) are treated as POWs, as have Arabs who surrendered during an Arab-Israeli war. Modinyr (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Convict" is not synonymous with "prisoner", and no amount of special pleading can change this. A convict is someone who has been convicted, not simply someone who is held prisoner. Adding the word "convict" does not help the reader understand, it helps them misunderstand. In any case, this is irrelevant here, since Shalit and the prisoner swap are not the subject of, nor even mentioned in, this article. And please note that your belittling sexist reference to the female prisoners is unwelcome, and I suggest that you amend it. RolandR (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pappe's new book reviewed in Electronic Intifada
Hi,

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

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


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

Source for 2008 survey
I asked about this in May 2011. The following paragrap has no source cited: According to a 2008 national resilience survey conducted by Dr. Yussuf Hassan of the Tel Aviv University, 43% of Israel's Muslims defined themselves as "Palestinian-Arabs", 15% as "Arab-Israelis" and four percent as "Muslim-Israelis". In the Christian Arab community, 24% defined themselves as "Arab-Palestinians", 24% as "Arab-Israelis", and 24% as "Christian-Israelis". Over 94% of Druze youngsters saw themselves as "Druze-Israelis." No one has been able to provide a source and the info has not been verified. We have three charts in our article based on this info even though its not wp:v. I am going to remove the information. If. spurce is found we can discuss how to include it as there are other surveys to include here as well.  T i a m u t talk 16:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hassan doesn't appear on the University's site. Some kind of hoax, I guess. Anyway I found an up-to-date survey and added that. Kauffner (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Arab citizens of Israel → Israeli Arabs

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

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

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

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


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

Survey

 * Oppose - the community defines themselves in this way. "Arab citizens of Israel" is a factually accurate description and seeing as the group's leadership has a problem self-identifying as Israeli, I see no reason to impose that identity upon it.  --GHcool (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at this conclusion? The Arab media in Israel appears to be Arabic only. We have to call them something. "Israeli Arab" and "Arabs in Israel" are the only terms in common usage. The Egyptian and Jordanian papers don't seem to have a problem with "Israeli Arab". Kauffner (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it gives me great pleasure to say that I agree with the excessively sensible GHcool. Also see MOS:IDENTITY, particularly the part where it says When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".) The terms Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Arabs is the one favored by the Israeli establishment, and reliable sources explicitly note that the Arabs themselves take issue with those terms, for a variety of reasons. This would force on people an identity that many of them reject. Additionally, there are several terms that are used by reliable sources, among them Israel's Arab citizens, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Palestinians. See also the books Israel's Palestinians and The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel. Finally, the comment in the nomination about As far as the POV issue goes, this survey suggests the people the term refers to prefer to be identified as "Arab" (as opposed to being identified as either "Palestinian" or by religion.) that is not exactly accurate, and in any case irrelevant. The title of the article does not call them Palestinians, so comparing the results of a question about which identity is most important is irrelevant. But if we were to actually look at the results of that poll, we see that more Arab citizens in Israel identify as Palestinian first before Israeli than the other way around. If anything, that supports adding Palestinian to the title, though I am not proposing that.  nableezy  - 15:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - there are many times in wikipedia when someone or something itself doesn't like to be called 'x' - but because of external reliable sources and 'accepted' usage, we use it anyway. for example, from the obviously 'other side of things': israel doesn't refer to gilo or har homa a settlement, but that seems to an accepted name among 'others'. and so it goes in wikiworld. and so it is appropriate to use 'israeli arabs' - a term not made up, not perjorative, but simply descriptive.  Soosim (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral phrase. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I appreciate the analytics and sources provided with the proposal since it cemented my personal opinion on it. I considered whether those sources were good enough and I believe they are. As a side note, I would not have an opinion on it at all if I hadn't just asked a friend a few nights ago since I was curious to see if she considered herself Middle Eastern, Arab, or Palestinian. She looked at me like I was a dummy and said she was an "Israeli Arab".Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources above provide examples of usage; i.e. they are primary sources. The reliable secondary sources used in the Arab citizens of Israel section contradict the conclusions you and Kauffner have made based on a few primary sources and your anecdote about your friend.  T i a m u t talk 08:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLE doesn't say anything primary or secondary sources, so there is no basis for a Jayjg runaround here. Instead, the guideline recommends, "a search of Google Books and News Archive". I get 7,020 post-2000 Google News for "Israeli Arabs", 870 for "Arab citizens of Israel." Kauffner (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TITLE has no specific instruction on how to deal with naming groups of people. WP:NCP, the people naming guidline also had no specific instructions for groups, until about a month ago, when someone added a line on how we should follow the most common name in English. This directive however, conflicts with the advice in MOS:IDENTITY, which defers to how groups name themselves. This is much more logical because identity is self-defined; groups are considered groups based on their self-identifying as a group. It makes no sense to recognize they are a group and then refuse to respect what they call themselves, or to call them by names they reject or dont't use. I've raised this issue at the talk page for the people naming convention. I invite all interested parties to continue the meta-discussion there.  T i a m u t talk 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:IDENTITY says, "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself." That's quite different than what you are claiming. I am struck by the phrase, "refuse to respect what they call themselves." They call themselves by various names. "Arab citizens of Israel" does not appear to be a standard phrase, much less the dominant usage of any group. Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the sources you brought? Your BBC article says: The majority of Israeli Arabs identify closely with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and often describe themselves as "Palestinian citizens of Israel" and "1948 Palestinians". What they dont call themselves is Israeli.  nableezy  - 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that quote I think it is striking that the BBC article chooses to use the term "Israeli Arabs" in its title and throughout its text. I would imagine that the reason is that the BBC feels that the term "Israeli Arabs" is more familiar to its readers and therefore more useful as a title.GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is striking that they choose to disregard the feelings of the people that they were covering. Luckily this isn't the BBC and we aren't obligated to disregard the self-identification of the people we are discussing. We have redirects for a reason, and both Israeli Arabs and Arab Israelis redirect to this article.  nableezy  - 05:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that as someone who is not an idiot I know that this conversation will be filled with filibustering and what can only be considered violations of interaction bans. I won't breach it myself but you guys can keep it up.06:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The key part there Kauffner is "When there is no dispute" and I do not see how you can think that is the case here. Many Arab citizens prefer to be called Palestinian as opposed to Israeli, even amongst more tolerated groups like Christian Arabs. A dispute clearly exists and under the circumstances it is therefore better to refer to them in a neutral and descriptive manner.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I urge everyone to read the sources cited in the terminology and self-identification sections of this article. They indicate that 'Israeli Arab' is a term rejected by most of the population under discussion. They also indicate that it is a partisan term preferred by supporters of Israel and the Israeli establishment. Arab citizens of Israel is specific and widely used. Its fine, though it should be prefaced with 'Palestinian', many pro-Israeli partisans likely won't allow that, so it will have to do for now.  T i a m u t talk 08:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mild Support The following comment is copied from this discussion from April: Wikipedia has a long-standing preference for preferring the terms that are more commonly used in the media, even if there are questions about the neutrality of those terms. See for example, WP:POVTITLE. "Israeli Arabs" is a much more widely-used term than "Arab citizens of Israel". Searching Google News gives 52 references for "Israeli Arabs" vs 13 for "Arab citizens of Israel". Google Books is about 33,800 for "Israeli Arabs" vs about 3,500 for "Arab citizens of Israel". Stylistically, "Arab citizens of Israel" is also clunkier. (update for December) I think Tiamut makes a valuable point about self-identification, but I'm not convinced that a majority of Israeli Arabs prefer the term. An article on language in The Forward states: "“Israeli Arabs.” The term preferred by Ms. Rosenfeld, this is also the term generally used by the media, the Israeli establishment and most Israeli Jews. ... “Arabs in Israel,” “Palestinians in Israel,” “Arab citizens of Israel,” etc. These are still more extreme formulations favored by the most radical, anti-Israel elements in Israeli Arab society. All imply that Israel’s Arab population does not identify with Israel in any way and that it has no other connection to Israel other than living in it. ... none of these terms, as far as I can make out, is used entirely consistently even by those espousing the nuance expressed by it: I have come across “Israeli Arabs” in extreme anti-Israel statements, and I have heard “Arabs in Israel” in perfectly moderate contexts" My gut feeling is that Tiamut is overstating his case - some members of the group have a strong preference for "Arab citizens of Israel" or a similar term, but it isn't a universal sentiment. I would prefer that we use the term that our English-language readers are most likely to encounter in the media. GabrielF (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi GabreilF. I think the literature shows a preference for identity labels that include"Palestinian", and which reject "Israeli". The current article title, which doesn't include "Palestinian", already reflects an Israeli POV, because its a term used by the Israeli establishment, as noted by the sources in the article. However, it also partially reflects the community in question's POV because it avoids use of the term "Israeli", which is only used by at most, a third of the population' as the sources in the article state. I don't see why we should change the title of this article to be more reflective of an Israeli POV, by using term most Arab citizens now reject. In fact, before this move request was opened, I was considering making my own request to "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" to be more fully reflective of both POVS (i.e. by marrying one Israeli establisment term "Arab citizens of Israel" with "Palestinian", which is also incidentally one of the terms used by some members of the community itself, though I believe the preferred terms are simply Palestinian or Arab without referencing Israel at all). Anyway, there is no consensus one way or another right now, and perhaps it is best to leave the title as is until clearer naming guidelines emerge.  T i a m u t talk 19:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can see and empathize with the unease that this has engendered among quite a few editors. It must look and sound odd to citizens of Israel, and people with a deep attachment to that country generally, that what sounds to them like a perfectly natural classification by a legitimate modern nation of one of its peoples is contested. It does indeed look fairly neutral. But there is a long and complex tussle over the word 'Palestinian' over their identity. It is, as sources I have quoted elsewhere say, strongly avoided in Israeli usage. Its use as a self-identifier, according to several studies mentioned in the latest book by Peleg and Waxman, is growing apace within Israeli Arab communities, and has always been preferred in any case by Arabs over 'Israeli'. Statistically Palestinian Arabs of Israel, notwithstanding the frequent difficulties of their lives, would by a majority not exchange their nationality for any other available in that area. Statistically, however, their sense of affiliation, apart from the Druze, has attenuated significantly over the last decade. I'm not convinced that Palestinian identity is as unified as some of the opposers suggest. It seems far more nuanced and complex, but then so is Israeli or even Jewish identity (and I think complexity of identity is a positive). I was raised from childhood to accept what MOS:IDENTITY asserts. You call people what they are comfortable with, not what you, as the majority, think fit. Sorry for the windbaggery. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Nab, Malik and GH. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

please reply as soon possible.


 * What is the mistake that you are sure of ? Please explicitly state what the mistake is.
 * Salim Tuama is an Arab and he is an Israeli. He is an Arab citizen of Israel, no ? So, can you explain why you think his image should be removed from this article
 * What is "the tariff" you refer to ?
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you please reply as soon possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.155.181 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are editing this page using the ip 79.179.155.181. Have you also been editing using the ips 79.183.171.70, 79.181.150.79, 79.181.161.119 and 79.181.167.83? RolandR (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I still don't quite understand what you see as the problem in Salim Tuama's case. This article is about Arab citizens of Israel. I understand that Arabs who live in Israel identify themselves in a variety of ways, but this article covers all citizens of the State of Israel who are also Arabs no matter how they identify themselves. It's not just about people who self identify as Palestinian by nationality but Israeli by citizenship. Actually, I don't know how Salim Tuama self-identifies. I've only seen journalists describe his identity, so if you have a source where he talks about his identity it would be a useful addition to his article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

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

Please help please reply as soon as possible Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.155.181 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the date and time of the edits you are talking about from this list ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * You need consensus to add that term and a few editors for is not consensus. As I said in the repvious discussion about this, There are many alternate terms for this group of people. While Israeli Arabs may be a common exonym, it is not thr mot common endonym and it is rejected outright by a significant percentage of this population. Why should we highlight one alternate term. Where in. the MoS does it say when we have several terms, we should pick one and runwith it? Where inNPOV does it say we should highlight only one POV in the lead? i don't see a compelling reason inline with our policies and guidelines for what you are proposing.  T i a m u t talk 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What source says that anyone "rejects" this term? "A significant percentage of this population"?? This is certainly a grandiose way of referring to yourself. Kauffner (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiamut has disregarded what consensus means. Multiple editors > a few. Multiple conversations pointing to this being a term being acceptable for use (not as the primary title). What is your problem with it Tiamut? All I can tell from the talk page discussions is that you do not want it to be the primary title. What is your beef with it being an alternate title? No games or filibustering is needed. Lets punctuate the already existing consensus with an agreement. Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an OWN and IDONTLIKEIT problem. We have what seems to be the most commonly used term in English. According to wikipedia policy this should be the title of the article. That, apparently, is not going to happen. But that one editor can keep it from even being mention in the lead is just preposterous.
 * Is there anyone here other than Tiamut that objects to "Arab Israeli" being mentioned in the lead as an alternative name? If yes please explain. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object to including the term "Arab Israelis" (or "Israeli Arabs") in the introduction. I have objected every time this issue is raised, and have not changed my opinion. "Arab citizens of Israel" is a factual and politically neutral term (which is the reason that it is used as the title for this article), and is the only term necessary in the intro. The article begins with a discussion of terminology, which is the place where these terms should be noted. RolandR (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you gentlemen. I do appreciate being told by three white guys how I have no business editing an article about a group of people that I happen to be a part of. I have rarely used my personal background as an argument for naming in these discussions. Instead, I have painstakingly assembled the best scholarship on the issue and presented it in the terminology section, which as everyone who has read it can see indicates that what I am saying about the usage of this term and others used refer to this group is accurate. Also, anyone reviewing the edit history of the article can see that I am not the only to object to the addition of Israeli Arabs in the lead. I understand that it is easier to try to discredit my position by making it out to be a function of my personal preferences, but would appreciate it if you could instead acknowledge what reliable secondary sources have to say about this topic and what our guidelines say about what to do when there are mutliple other common names. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 17:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, the answer is, no you don't have an WP:RS to support the claim that any significant group in the real world rejects the term "Israeli Arabs." Even the sources that were used to support the current title also use this term. You are just one editor. You do not represent the Palestinian people. My condolences for the fact that you feel so victimized and put upon. I already have a Muslim who vandalizes my home page for me, thank you. Kauffner (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I referred you to the sources in the article. Read footnotes 5, 12 and 13. The information you seek is there. I don't need to rewrite it here. My personal preference is irrelevant and I am not using myself as an anecdotal example. You are. I'm sorry a "Muslim" is vandalizing your home page but that has nothing to do with me or this discussion.  T i a m u t talk 07:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * i happen to like "israeli arabs" and israeli arabs. Soosim (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice. But ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. If your affection for this group of people is genuine, what they like to call themselves, as described in the sources cited in the article, might be of interest to you.  And "Israeli Arabs" it ain't.  T i a m u t talk 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have we met? Otherwise I'm not really sure why and how you're making assumptions about my color, which you obviously know nothing about. Not that it's really relevant. Nor is it relevant that you are a part of that group, as if you'd accept that kind of argument if the situation were reversed.
 * We have shown repeatedly that "Israeli Arabs" is a commonly used term in English, and the only reason you have for not including it is that you don't like it. Wikipedia does indeed have guidelines for what to do when there are multiple names, particularly in English. For example, Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The guidline for the MoS does not say you shouldinclude all alt terms in the lead. If there are many, as there are in this case, its best to leave them to the terminology section as recommended in the Separate section usage subsection..  T i a m u t talk 07:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links?
Do we want to have one? Which links to include? The ones below were there until a couple of minutes ago. I deleted them after seeing a request to clean up the section at WPISRAEL. I'm posting the here for discussion. I don't think any of them belong in such a section. Some might be useful to the article's devlopment though and others may feel differently. Thoughts?

 T i a m u t talk 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Israeli Arab Students Network
 * Separate But Not Equal: Israeli Arab Schools
 * From Arab to Palestinian Israeli: One Family's Changing Identity
 * The Israel Project: A Voice and a Home: Arab Rights in Israel
 * local Arab municipalities and towns in Israel, The Arab Center for Alternative Planning
 * Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
 * Arab Association for Human Rights, HRA
 * The Association of Forty, The Association for the Recognition of the Arab Unrecognized Villages in Israel
 * Baladna, Association for Arab Youth in Israel, reports on civic service, etc.
 * The Galilee Society, The Arab National Society for Health Research and Services
 * Israeli Arabs (Israel Country Study, US Dept. of the Army)
 * Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies: "Injustice and Folly – On the Proposals to Cede Arab Localities from Israel to Palestine"
 * Interagency Task Force on Israeli Arab issues forum based in North America
 * Haaretz: "The undocumented / Fifth in a series – Bedouin trackers: Israeli enough for the IDF, but not for an ID card"
 * Haaretz: "Israeli Arab couple petitions High Court after residency denied"
 * "Israeli Learns Some Are More Israeli Than Others" – Kaadan case; Serge Schmemann, New York Times, 1 March 1998
 * Ka'adan case
 * Haaretz: "The demographics point to a binational state" Article suggests "swapping heavily populated areas" as a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict
 * Haaretz: "What are Israeli Arabs? Are they Jewish? Their lives are much better in Israel than they could be in Jordan" Arab citizens of Israel in the eyes of Arabs in Saudi Arabia and Jordan
 * Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies Involvement of Arabs in Israel in terrorism
 * I‘ LAM – Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel
 * Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The Arabs in Israel: A Surging New Identity"
 * Jewish Virtual Library, on Arab Israelis
 * Middle-East-Info.org Arabs and Muslims in Israel
 * Mossawa, The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel
 * Stanford University: Adi Greif on Druze and Jews
 * The trap of self-delusion: Ben Dror Yemini examines The claims of Israeli Arabs of discrimination and argues that the main problem is the oppression of women
 * Kaya- – Feminist Organization Kayan was founded in 1998 by Arab feminist women with the goal of advancing the status of Arab women in Israel and protecting their rights.

Introduction
As this has popped onto my radar again, perhaps we can sort out the problem with the introduction, i.e. the omission of the most common name for the people in question. Two editors in favour of omitting this point to archive 6 as being the source of a consensus not to use the phrase Israeli Arab in the introduction. Reading the section in question, the final suggestion (with no objections) was actually to include it, alongside one other alternative, but this was never actually implemented.

Since then, multiple editors including myself have tried to add that phrase to the introduction, but it has been repeatedly reverted, citing archive 6 as evidence of consensus not to use the phrase. The discussion above has another three editors supporting the change (Kauffner, No More Mr Nice Guy and Soosim).

There are two clear issues here. Firstly, archive six is not evidence of a consensus not to use the phrase (the outcome was actually the opposite), and editors should stop reverting using that as a reason. Secondly there was seemingly agreement to include the phrase in question in that archive, and thirdly the number of editors who are in favour of the change is far higher than the two editors reverting.

Given all these three points, why is it still missing? Number  5  7  20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the last discussion on the issue at Arab citizens of Israel ended with the pro argument being that the MoS supports the inclusion of alternate terms, but it turned out that when there are more than three terms, and there is a section discussing terminology, its recommended to leave out the alternates. They are best covered in the dedicated section. As you know, the terms are contentious and deciding which two to highlight over the others is a rather arbitrary process. Its also unnecessary given the reader can discover all the relevant facts about the terms in context in the section devoted to their discussion.  T i a m u t talk 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I read was "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Here we have a significant alternative. I would also point out that there is no arbitrariness in deciding to use the phrase "Israeli Arabs" - it's the most common term. The later section of the MOS about what to do when there are multiple names is couched in the language of possibility ("can" and "recommended").
 * As pointed out, there is a clear consensus that this phrase should actually be included (and you did agree to this) and I think this should be enough to overcome any recommendation. Will you stop reverting? Number   5  7  20:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From the guideline: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."
 * Furthermore, consensus is not determined by numbers alone. We have policies and guidelines that should inform consensus. While Israeli Arab is a common term, its a controversial one, rejected by most of the people its purports to reference, and is one of many alt names for this group (there are more than a dozen listed in the terminology section). I think the current arrangement reflects best practice here at Wikipedia. The previous "consensus" to add Israeli Arab alongside a term preferred by Arab citizens was a compromise agreement made between me and another editor that didn't bear fruit (No terms were agreed upon and no other editorscameforward to support the proposal). I have since changed my position in light of the MoS guideline which I had not seen before. I ask that before you add the name again, you open another RfC. I cannot commit to not reverting whst as I see as an inappropriate edit in light of what sources and our policies and guidelines have to say.  T i a m u t talk 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is always determined by numbers - that's why it's called consensus and the current arrangement is obviously unsatisfactory to a clear majority of editors, otherwise the phrase wouldn't be added again and again and again. I will open a RFC in the near future. Number   5  7  21:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. According to the official policy document, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote.... Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." RolandR (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confusing consensus with the concept of !vote counting. When a discussion is closed in favour of the result of a minority, it is not a consensus, but rather a policy-based decision. Number   5  7  21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in Druze Section
'''During the British Mandate for Palestine, the Druze did not embrace the rising Arab nationalism of the time or participate in violent confrontations. In 1948, many Druze volunteered for the Israeli army and no Druze villages were destroyed or permanently abandoned.'''[30] Since the establishment of the state, the Druze have demonstrated solidarity with Israel and distanced themselves from Arab and Islamic radicalism.[59] It is in keeping with Druze religious theology to serve the country in which they live. The Druze are conscripted into the Israel Defense Forces.[60]

This passage conveys some significant biases through its questionable insinuations (i.e. Arabs were driven from villages because they didn't volunteer for the Israeli army and because, the Druze aside, they were a rebellious annoyance). The citation provided to substantiate the emboldened sentences consists of a dead link, too. I would neutralise it somewhat but the article is locked. --80.5.196.47 (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the dead link. All the source says is "No Druze are represented among the internal refugee. Since no Druze village was destroyed as a result of the 1948 war and no Druze left their settlements permanently" so some rewording or new sources are required.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

sola2012
Hi

first we do not have to say they are an arabs or jews or whatever

the most important thing is they are an israeli people and not Palestinians people because they hold an israeli identity not palestine citizenship. and it dosent make sense that one person of thim hold the both ID so they are an israeli not Palestinians.

please fix the mistakes. thanks--sola$$$$ (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether it makes sense. Some Israeli citizens refer to themselves as Palestinians. It's a simple indisputable fact.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

you right but in case you notice when Some Israeli citizens refer to themselves as

Palestinians its something relate to them, their personal lives but we can add it in his artical but we cant talk behalf of all arabs in israel so the best

thing to do now is fix the whole artical and make 2 artical about Some Israeli citizens refer to themselves as Palestinians and only arab israeli, i know it's sort of hard process, but we can do it togther , but remember that we can't say that all arab israeli are

refer to themselves as Palestinians, this things a feelings but w'd better to add it in his artical specificly in his persnal life or maybe in the political views, but the most matter thing that we have to fix the artical fot the best.

and to prove that not all israeli arab citizens refer to themselves as Palestinians "

muslims Self-identification 30 % Self-identification = israeli not palestinians christians Self-identification 24 % Self-identification = israeli not palestinians druze Self-identification 97 % Self-identification = israeli not palestinians

and also ..... In a 2004 survey by Sammy Smooha of the University of Haifa Jewish-Arab Center, 84.9% of Israeli Arabs stated that Israel has a right to exist as an independent state.

thanks--sola$$$$ (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (moved here from my talk page)
 * The current scope of the article is "non-Jewish Israeli citizens whose cultural and linguistic heritage or ethnic identity is Arab". I think the current scope is okay. It's similar to the way these kind of identity issues are handled for other nations e.g. Vietnamese American, British Indian, Malaysian Chinese etc etc. I don't see the advantage of partitioning information based on whether people describe themselves as Palestinian or not. People can be many things at the same time. Haneen Zoabi for example said "I am Palestinian—or Arab—and I am an Israeli citizen". The article already covers some of the issues related to self-identification and attitudes towards Israel (see Arab_citizens_of_Israel and Arab_citizens_of_Israel) and I don't think there is anything in the article that suggests that all Israeli arab citizens refer to themselves as Palestinians. That would simply be inaccurate as you say. The article doesn't try or need to prove anything. It just needs to describe how things really are according to reliable sources. It's true that when it comes to identity issues things can get complicated but I think the article is doing okay. If you think it can be improved and you can bring some new sources of information I think your contributions would be very much appreciated.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To aid correct reading of the scope, I suggest reversing the order of the first sentence: This article is about those with Israeli citizenship who are Palestinians and Arabs.     ←   ZScarpia  09:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alex Safian Phd (Physics)
No evidence has been presented that Alex Safian is a significant opinion on this topic that has been published in RS. Until such time that it is provided his opinion should be removed from the article per WP:UNDUE.

An editor has claimed in an edit summary that "Camera media watchdog is mention by other WP:RS", which is true, so there is good evidence that CAMERA is a notable opinion on the topic of Media coverage of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is simply the opinion of the editor to say that because Safian has been discussed in RS as a Media Watchdog, his opinion is notable to be inserted into any and all topics he should decide to post on his website. What we need is an RS which specifically reports Saffian's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article, Arab citizens of Israel. Dlv999 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * they are RS for their own opinon, just like everything else...so, you can say that alex safian writing for camera says 'x'. Soosim (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Like almost every source) he is RS for his own opinion, but you must provide evidence that his viewpoint is a significant one that has been published by RS on this topic. Further his opinion should only be presented in the article in proportion to the prominence his view has been given by RS on this topic. If his view on the topic has not been published by RS, what possible justification can there be for including it in the article? Dlv999 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not his view its a CAMERA backgrounder research as it discuss and point errors in media based on this factual research its relevant to our topic.--Shrike (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is purely your own Synth. If you want to say that Saffian's opinion is relevant to this topic because media coverage of the topic contains errors, you need to find a reliable source that says so. Your own opinion is simply not good enough. Dlv999 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you state that, "you must provide evidence that his viewpoint is a significant one that has been published by RS on this topic", in which instances will "he is RS for his own opinion" apply, since it appears that you are contending that third party sourcing is always required?' Ankh '. Morpork  11:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review Reductio ad absurdum. You seem to be implying that because he is RS for his own opinions, then he has been published by RS, therefore his opinions are notable. The logical consequences of this: most sources are reliable for their own opinion, thus most sources have been published in RS, most sources are notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The conclusion from your implication is that a source only has to be RS for its own opinion to meet notability requirements is absurd, thus the implication must be false. Dlv999 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not implying anything, I asked for clarification of what you had stated and you have launched into a deconstruction based on a personal interpretation of my 'implied' argument! If we're banding around Wiki articles, straw man is a must. Please  address my query. Thank you.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I can assure you it was an honest mistake and not an attempt at strawman. I am saying that because a source can be regarded as an RS for it's own opinion, this is not a justification for saying that it has been published in RS and is therefore notable. The reason I say this is because it would lead to the absurd conclusion that any source that can be considered an RS for its own opinion would therefore be notable because it has been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please address my specific query, in which instances will your acknowledgment that "he is RS for his own opinion" apply, since it appears that you are contending that third party sourcing is always required? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saffian is a reliable source for his own opinion (we can safely assume that what he posts on his website is an accurate reflection of his opinion), but that does not mean that he has been "published in an RS". As I have already pointed out it would be absurd if every source that was only reliable for its own opinion could be said to have been "published by RS". I haven't mentioned third party sources, which I think is a red herring and superfluous to the discussionDlv999 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to what parameters you claim is not WP:RS?--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True to form, your third answer has failed to directly address my query so I shall ask you explicitly: Are you stating that "additional RS which specifically reports X's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article", is always necessary for the inclusion of self-published sources? Please respond with a Yes or No followed by an explanation.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Shrike, according to WP:NOTRELIABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.[5] Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."
 * CAMERA has a known conflict of interest given that it is a self declared and widley reported as a pro-Israel advocacy organisation. Alex Saffian has a phd in Physics and does not appear to have any qualifications or expertise for the vast array of topics that he regularly comments upon. Both its agenda and its accuracy have been criticized by mainstream media and journalists. The central premise of its coverage, that the mainstream media is riddled with bias and inaccuracies is an extreme position in Wikipedia terms, given that we rely on mainstream media reports as RS for unbiased, accurate verification of facts.
 * @Ankh, No, I do not accept the premise of your question, which contradicts wikipedia policy. WP:SOURCE lists self-published sources as "Sources that are usually not reliable". Your question whether "additional RS" are necessary for inclusion of self-published sources incorrectly assumes that the SPS is an RS. In fact according to policy, the presumption is that the SPS is not an RS. To justify inclusion you must provide evidence that either the SPS can be regarded as an RS for the specific topic of the article. Or alternatively you can provide evidence the SPS is a significant opinion that has been published in RS on the specific topic of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall adjust the question to specify that we are dealing with a source that is considered reliable for its own claims. In this instance, are "additional RS which specifically reports X's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article", always necessary for the inclusion of this type of source?<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SPS are considered reliable for their own claims. The point is in most cases their claims are not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If, as in this case, a source is only reliable on the very limited basis that it is reliable for its own opinion, that is not enough to say it has been "published in RS". As I have already pointed out nearly all sources are reliable for their own opinion. What we need is some evidence that either the source can be considered an RS on the topic, or that it is a significant opinion that has been published in RS on the topic. Per WP:UNDUE the material should be removed from the article until such time as this evidence is provided.
 * Think of it this way. Alex Safian is a reliable source on his opinion. So in an article on the opinions of Alex Saffian (or CAMERA) he is a suitable reliable source. This article is not about the opinions of Alex Saffian, he is not a reliable source on this topic. Thus when we consider what opinions have been published in RS on this topic, we do not take into account the opinions of Alex Saffian as he is not an RS on this topic. Thus we must have some evidence that he is a notable opinion that has been published in RS and his own opinion is will not do. Dlv999 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand all too well what you are stating with regard to this topic. I understand the untenable position of all SPS' being considered worthy for inclusion. I understand your views on Alex Saffian (PhD). What I do not understand is the underlying general principle that relates to SPS' that you have been reluctant to address. That is, "are "additional RS which specifically reports X's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article", always necessary for the inclusion of this type of source?" If yes, then I understand your position. If not, when not?<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, "the reliability of a source depends on context." In the context of Saffian's opinions he is reliable. In the context of Arab Citizens of Israel he is not reliable. Your question is based on the false assumption that Saffian is an RS on Arab citizens of Israel. Thus the use of "additional" is erroneous. What we need is an RS on Arab citizens of Israel that reports Saffian as relevant. The general underlying principle is that reliability of sources is based on context. Your contentions are based on false premise that Saffian is reliable on his opinion thus he has been published by RS and his opinion can be inserted into any of the copious topics he has posted comments about on his website. Of course this is false, each topic in the encyclopedia has sources that are considered reliable in the context of that topic. When asses due weight we do not take into account the entirety of reliable sources as a whole, we look at the sources that can be considered reliable for that particular topic. Dlv999 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a "false assumption" is the straw man arguments that you persist in foisting upon me despite me explicitly advising you not to. Please show me where I have: You state Safian's reliability (not notability) for his own views depends on context. Please explain why in certain contexts, he is not considered reliable for his own views.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Falsely assumed that "Safian is an RS on Arab citizens of Israel"
 * 2) Contended that "Safian is reliable on his opinion thus he has been published by RS and his opinion can be inserted into any of the copious topics he has posted comments about..."
 * 3) Expressed any view regarding Safian at all?
 * Why use the phrase "additional RS" if you accept that he is not an RS in the context of this topic (Arab citizens of Israel)? Saffian is always an RS for his opinion. What he is not is an RS for the topic of this article. WP:UNDUE states that articles should cover:

WP:RS states:
 * "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint
 * "The reliability of a source depends on context."
 * Saffian is not an RS in the context of this article, so his opinion is not taken into account in the assessment of due weight. In your last post you asked "Please show me where I have:...Expressed any view regarding Saffian at all?". This is a very good question. Saffian's opinion has been included in the article. No evidence has been presented that he is a significant opinion published in RS on this topic so per WP:UNDUE the material should be removed. I have no interest in any more interminable wiki lawyering. Evidence should be presented or he should be removed from the article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you accept that I have not stated these views, I request that you retract your previous comments. I have been trying to understand the general principle that you wish to apply to this article, namely, that "we need is an RS which specifically reports Saffian's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article", and why this is the sole criterion of 'notability'.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  17:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The general principles are the Wikipedia policies that I have cited. Specifically views should only be expressed in articles to the extent they are reported in Reliable Sources. The reliability of sources is specific to context. Saffian is not a reliable source in the context of the topic of this article. Thus "we need is an RS which specifically reports Saffian's opinion as relevant to the topic of this article". WP:UNDUE clearly states that representation of views in articles should be based on views being published in RS. If you think there are any other policies that can justify inclusion of views in articles you should cite them and explain why they are relevant. I repeat, "No evidence has been presented that he is a significant opinion published in RS on this topic so per WP:UNDUE the material should be removed. I have no interest in any more interminable wiki lawyering. Evidence should be presented or he should be removed from the article." Dlv999 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You write "why use the phrase "additional RS" if you accept that he is not an RS in the context of this topic (Arab citizens of Israel)". Please show me where I have used this phrase in reference to Safian and not a general principle. Or is this statement yet another product of your imagination?<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  18:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankh, I think I've been pretty clear. I am not interested in debating "general principles". This talk page discussion is about the use of Alex Saffian in this article on the basis of Wikipedia policies. I have cited the relevant policies, and pointed out that no evidence has been adduced that Saffian is a significant opinion that has been published in RS on this topic. Evidence should be produced, or he should be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dlv9999, I think I've been pretty clear. I am not interested in being maligned by your straw man arguments that are wholly unsubstantiated. Evidence should be produced, or they should be removed.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but it is irrelevant to the fact that no evidence has been provided to justify Saffian's inclusion as a significant opinion that has been published by RS on this topic. Per WP:UNDUE the material should be removed until such time as evidence is provided. Dlv999 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Camera writes "Alex Safian, PhD" at the head of its article without noting that the PhD is in an irrelevant subject just goes to show how unscrupulous an organization it is. Leaving that aside, or not, the article is being used as a source for "argues that since they are not required to serve in military, yet still have all the rights accorded Jews in Israel" but I really can't find any mention whatsoever of military service in that article. Is this argument based on a false premise? Zerotalk 14:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hat note
A hat note was placed on this article in July 2009, stating "This article is about the Arab segment of Israeli citizens. For Palestinians as a whole, see Palestinian people ." This has been removed today by two editors on the grounds that "this article about israel arabs not palestains people" (sic) and "This article is not primary topic for 'Palestinian People'". That is precisely the reason that this hat note is needed, and I consider this removal to be unhelpful and misleading. What do other editors think? RolandR (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this issue was already addressed in the discussion two threads up. I don't see any consensus for the change, or even reasoned arguments supporting it. Dlv999 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Roland: In general, hatnote are used to help readers distinguish between articles with similar names, or articles they may find as the result of a redirect. I'm not sure anybody is going to find this article when they meant to find Palestinian people.
 * @Dlv999: I can't seem to find a discussion of the hatnote above. Can you point out which section it's in? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship
As far as I know, there is no such thing as "Israeli nationality". So from an Israeli official point of view, Israeli Arabs are Arabs by nationality and Israeli by citizenship (contrary to Jewish Israelis who are defined as Jewish by nationality and Israeli by citizenship). This legal seperation should be mentioned somewhere imo Teh hackz0r (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you will find WP:RS that say that you welcome to add it to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Title
Numerous sources refer to Israeli Arabs; why is this unusual title construction preferred? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, most recently in December. See Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 6, which closed as "No consensus to move". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like clarification why WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here, especially the guidance provided regarding the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun, overriding perceived neutrality concerns, the basis of your previous objection.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can read the linked move request for that clarification. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Arab
Does this article mean Jewish Arabs when they talk about Arab citizens of Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.35.195 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you see the first sentence of the article ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading assertion
Jobas, You can write Arabs Christians are the most educated group in Israel a million times, it still does not make it right. In most jewish cities of Israel the success rate is higher. The overall average is lower because Haredim usually dont do the exams. Therefore, to say the (very small) Arab Christian community is the most educated comunity is misleading and false. There are better educated groups in Israel, and in fact this group is the majority of Jews in Israel, namely secular. And also the national religious group have better results. In other words, the groups that do the exams, have better results. Furthermore, every major Israeli scientist, Nobel Prize winners, Turing Prize, Fields Medal, the Wolf Prize and others (and there are dozens of them here) are Jews. How does that fit with your assertion that the christian Arabs are the most educated comunity. (And there are dozens of communities in Israel. "Community" not applies only to religion). Anyway, I dont say Christians arabs are not educated. They are educated and i have all the respect for their contribution, but they are not the most educated community in Israel. This is simply not true.

יניבפור (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

יניבפור, according to "Israel Central Bureau of Statistics" it turns out that the percentage of Arab Christians who are entitled to a matriculation examinations is higher than among the Jewish sector and that Christian Arabs also had higher rates of accessibility to higher education than the other groups, and even they constituet only 2% of the israel popualtion, nearlly 6.4% of the students studying at the University of Haifa were Christians and at the Technion, the rate of Christian students was 5.0%. (and they constitute a higth percent among arab stundent's). and the rate of students studying in the field of medicine was also higher among the Christian Arab students, compared with all the students from other sectors and the percentage of Arab women who are academy students is much higher than other sectors, so this groupe can be classified as educted.

Maariv have describe the arab christian sector as "the most successful in eduction system" http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/319/566.html. so according to Israel Central Bureau of Statistics when they were talking about Communities they mean a religious Communities and they considered Jewish education system as a group, and if you want to separete the jewish sector to national seclular and hardim then why we don't mention that alos islamic sector is component from bedouin (who had a low percent of educted), settled and adyghe, and to mention that the overall average (of muslim sector) is lower because bedouin usually dont do the exams.

And sorry dear i can't understand why you deny the contribution arab christians scientist they have alos a distinguished scientists DR.yaqub hana who work in waizmann Institute of Science and elected as an EMBO Young Investigator or hosam hayek who devolped an “electronic nose" and has received several awards for his research, and others. Fianlly when it's written here that the most educated group in Israel (in sence of religious groupe) it's not false becouse according to "Israel Central Bureau of Statistics" Arab Christians have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations, both in comparison to the Muslims and the Druze and the Jewish sector ,and being the majority of Nobel prize or scientist are jewish have do nothing has nothing to do with that sentence (the majority of the scientist and Nobel prize winners in the U.S.A are not jewish but no one deny the fact that american jewish are the most educted group in U.S.A althougth most of scientist are not jews).-- Jobas (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a joke.

"the percentage of Arab Christians who are entitled to a matriculation examinations is higher than among the Jewish sector"

As I already told you, most of the haredim don’t do matriculation examinations And those who do, that is secular Jews and religious Jews, have higher achievements so it makes no sense to say Arab Christians are the most educated community in the country because there are some more educated communities

"even they constituet only 2% of the israel popualtion, nearlly 6.4% of the students studying at the University of Haifa were Christians and at the Technion, the rate of Christian students was 5.0%"

Most of the Christian arabs live at the north of Israel, so it's only natural they will study in Haifa (it seems you don’t live in Israel and don’t even know what im talking about?)

"and the rate of students studying in the field of medicine was also higher among the Christian Arab students, compared with all the students from other sectors and the percentage of Arab women who are academy students is much higher than other sectors, so this groupe can be classified as educted."

Many Arabs tend to learn medical professions and less other professions such as psychology, architecture, computers, Engineering etc as the israeli jews. It does not make them more educated ofcourse. I also never said that Arabs Christians are not educated. I only siad that they are not the most educated community in the country.

Its not "ma'ariv", it's 1 journalist. You know how many things were written over the years in Israel on these issues? Almost always when talking about exams results, they separate the haredim because they are not doing exams. The Bedouins do the exams, that’s not true, also its not true that the results are low because of the Bedouins.

"And sorry dear i can't understand why you deny the contribution arab christians scientist"

I did not deny, I said clearly that its educated group. But not the most educated. And there is no question about it that this is not the most educated group in Israel. This is ridiculous. Moreover, no one would consider the Christian Arab population most educated in Israel.

And you keep repeating the same thing. But the fact is that the 63% is not so high. In some jewish cities in Israel its 80-90%, and in general in the secular sector it's higher although its almost half of the students. And in the religious sector its actually 70% now.

So when you put it that way "the christian arabs most educated community" it's missleading.

יניבפור (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * you just look in superior to other people nothing more, we speak about THE WHOLE GROUPE being in some jewish cities in Israel it's 80-90% that mean nothing, you can't comprare a city to whole groupe, as whole groupe christians have a higher rate than the jewish, and you still caliming it's not high, the funny part that "Israel Central Bureau of Statistics" and the "Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs" have cited in thier site that: "Over the years, the Christian Arabs have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations, both in comparison to the Muslims and the Druze and in comparison to all students in the Jewish education system", so accroding to Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and the Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs is highest.

why that made you angry? you are just trying all the time analysis of the statistics and blown up it. so what if most christians live in north or if they prefer to study medicine most of Druze also live in the north and they are more less as the number of christians and they have less difficults since they are doing the milarity but their percent is not even close to the christians in univeristies. you removed the information just becouse you don't like: המגזר הערבי נוצרי הכי מצליח במערכת החינוך יותר רופאים, יותר אקדמאים ויותר זכאים לבגרות. נתוני הלמ"ס מעידים כי בריחת הערבים נוצרים מהחינוך הציבורי הביאה להישגים. I wrote this sentence exactly that supported with source and you just removed and mockery it.

let's see here the thing that you considered as joke: in 2003 67% of christians arab sector rates of success in the matriculation examinations while 56% and here there is no mention to the divisions inside to the jewish sector:מנתוני הזכאות לבגרות עולה ש-67% מבין תלמידי י"ב הנוצרים היו זכאים ב-2003 לבגרות לעומת 56% בלבד בחינוך העברי
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3055609,00.html

הנוצרים בישראל: משכילים יותר, עירוניים יותר, מבוגרים יותר here it cited that Christian Arabs have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations comprare to muslim and druze and jewish and here anther time no no mention to the divisions inside to the jewish sector.
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3188920,00.html

cited here: The CBS noted that when taking into account the data recorded over the years, Christian Arabs fared the best in terms of education in comparison to any other group receiving an education in Israel.
 * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4323529,00.html

For example, in 2011 the number of Arab Christian students eligible for a high-school diploma stood at 64% in comparison to only 48% among Muslim children, 55% among Druze and 59% in the Jewish education system in general. (-no mention to the secular and relgious national jewish-)

They were also the vanguard in terms of eligibility for higher education. Some 56% of Arab Christians, compared with 50% of Jewish students; 36% of Druze students and 34% of Muslims received a high school diploma that met the basic demands of Israeli universities".

all these sites called christians as strong and doing very good in education not only maariv.

--Jobas (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

-- I changed it and this is my compromise: "Christian Arabs are one of the most educated groups in Israel. Christian Arabs have had quite high rates (63%) [69] of success in the matriculation examinations, both in comparison to the Muslims and the Druze and in comparison to all students in the Jewish education system as a group,[70] although lower than the secular Jewish education (64.5%) and the national religious Jewish education (65.9%)[71]"

"Community" and "group" can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily in the religious context. Either way, as a community, there are more educated communities in Israel.

You can not ignore the fact that secular jewish community and the religious community receive greater success in matriculation exams. If you do not mention it, it's misleading And makes the reader think the intellectual elite of Israel is Arab Christian, which is not true at all.

In addition, Judaism is not just a religion but a nationality, What makes the definitions of community and group even more problematic. As there are Arab Christians and Arab Muslims and Arab Bedouins, there are Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, etc. And the choice from what point of view to look at the things is arbitrary. You could refer to the Arabs (christians and muslims) as one community, regardless of religion, for example

יניבפור (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

excuse me you're minimize the fact that the Christian community is educted and yes not less than the jewish, you removed my paragraph that backed with sources just becouse you don't like that truth, you removed: The rate of students studying in the field of medicine was also higher among the Christian Arab students, compared with all the students from other sectors. and the percentage of Arab Christian women who are Academy students is much higher than other sectors". or that Maariv have describe the Christian Arabs sectors is: המגזר הערבי נוצרי הכי מצליח במערכת החינוך

by the way when "Israel Central Bureau of Statistics" made the statistics it take the jewish sector as one sector without this divisions between secular or national relgious comparison to christians and muslims so the information is not "misleading" and the sentence of: Christian Arabs have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations, it's the same sentence cited by Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs.--Jobas (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's ridiculous. Because of one journalist who writes nonsense. Its nonesense becouse of the fact – again- that the secular and religious education students have higher achivements in matriculation than the christian arabs. The haredy education system is a diferent story and you cant mix them. They are not doing these exams, so you cant put them in this equation, and that’s what this journalist failed to do. You know how many articles were written about education in Israel over the years? the Central Bureau of Statistics gives a lot of dry data. Did you check all the data and graphs at the Central Bureau of Statistics? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you can not write what you want. Most data show that christian Arabs are not the most educated community in Israel:

let's look at the following data: To this day, won the Wolf Prize, one of the world's most important prizes in science, 21 Israelis - all of them Jews. ten israelies won the Nobel Prize - all of them Jews. Turing Award - the most important award in computer science - won three Israelis – all of them Jewish. Fields medal, the most important prize in math 1 jewish-israeli. Godel prize for theoretical computer science 15 isralies, all of them jewish and so on... in Israel Prize won hundreds of people in all areas of knowledge. Almost all of them Jews. why you dont mention all these data? So to say that the Christians Arabs are the most educated group in Israel is just absurd. And the fact that there are more Christian Arabs (per capita) studying medicine today does not mean anything. It is a matter of social orientation. There is very few Arabs in high tech, much less engineers, psychologists, architects, etc. why not mention this? it's writen in one of the links. (and Second, this statistics takes into account the Haredim that do not learn medicine. by the way, again, i agree that the christian arabs are successful in education, but you present things in wrong and misleading way. יניבפור (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the from information of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and the Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs is more reliable than your analizing by the way it's not about one journalist. look here to different statistics from diffetent year's none of them talk about the divisions inside to the jewish sector or the haridim or secular jewish. so all of them are nonsense?????.

in 2003 67% of christians arab sector rates of success in the matriculation examinations while 56% and here there is no mention to the divisions inside to the jewish sector:מנתוני הזכאות לבגרות עולה ש-67% מבין תלמידי י"ב הנוצרים היו זכאים ב-2003 לבגרות לעומת 56% בלבד בחינוך העברי
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3055609,00.html

הנוצרים בישראל: משכילים יותר, עירוניים יותר, מבוגרים יותר here it cited that Christian Arabs have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations comprare to muslim and druze and jewish and here anther time no no mention to the divisions inside to the jewish sector.
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3188920,00.html

cited here: The CBS noted that when taking into account the data recorded over the years, Christian Arabs fared the best in terms of education in comparison to any other group receiving an education in Israel.
 * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4323529,00.html

For example, in 2011 the number of Arab Christian students eligible for a high-school diploma stood at 64% in comparison to only 48% among Muslim children, 55% among Druze and 59% in the Jewish education system in general. (-no mention to the secular and relgious national jewish-)

They were also the vanguard in terms of eligibility for higher education. Some 56% of Arab Christians, compared with 50% of Jewish students; 36% of Druze students and 34% of Muslims received a high school diploma that met the basic demands of Israeli universities".

all these sites called christians as strong and doing very good in education not only one journalist. so still a ridiculous information???

many arab christians scientists from israel have also took a distinguished prizes maybe not Nobel but they took Marie Curie Excellence Award or ERC Award or Knight of the Order of Academic Palms and some of them were among the world’s 35 leading young scientistst of 2008 or EMBO Young Investigator. some of them teach in prestigious universities or working in waizmann Institute of Science.

And the fact that there are more Christian Arabs (per capita) studying medicine is written here becouse the media has been focous about it. anther time we are not talking about "one journalist" or "one articale".

and excuse me why i have to wite under a paragraph about arab christians how many jewish in israel won Noebl prize or Wolf Prize or why about haredy education system it's so ridiculous were talking here about ARAB CHRISTIANS not about JEWISH, i think to put the information about there are more Christian Arabs studying medicine is more sense to write that Haredim do not learn medicine!!!!. -- Jobas (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

we are talking about it becouse you wrote they are the most educated in israel. and i dont want you to write about nobel prize winers, i didnt say anything like this. i just siad dont write nonesense שnd things that were not true, be precise in your definitions and descriptions otherwise its missleading. יניבפור (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good then who saied "why you dont mention all these data?" (noel prize,etc!!!), second see all the sites and look what they described the arab christian, and after tell me where the nonesense, and began with artical of maariv that described them the most successful in education system or ynet "christian are storng in eduction" or the site of Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs, just becouse you don't like dosen't make missleading or nonesense. you changed many times the sentence "Christian Arabs have one of the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations", even it's supported by sources just becouse you don't agree with that, that the nonesense. and which parts are not true that Christian Arabs have one of the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations? or more christian study medicne? or arab Christians were also the vanguard in terms of eligibility for higher education?? all these sentences was supported by sources.

and thank you for advice but i hope you will use it becouse it's funny that some one was pushing in other debates that a numerous nobel prize winner who raised as catholic or protestant as JEWISH (which it toatlly a nonesense) or someone convert to christianity which according to halaka is not jewish any more, or who is writhing missleading infromation and analizing without even sources,talk about Misleading assertion, and the ridiculous thing that you try to push Comparison between christians with the Jews even the section is about ARAB CHRISTIANS. Good Nigth.--Jobas (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read again what I wrote, maybe you'll understand what I mean you did not mention. I did not say you should mention Nobel Prize winners... So many times I've explained you why the way you present it is misleading. Perhaps wording for you look like nuances, I see here a problematic misleading. Especially in light of what you say here. For your last paragraph, There is no connection. A Jew is a person born to Jewish parents regardless of religion. Anyway, this is not relevant for our purposes. and im not trying to push Comparison between christians with the Jews. youre doing it in the aricle (לא שמת לב?) I have nothing against anyone, and I hope we finished with this debate. bye יניבפור (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

you are the one who's change his word's i understaning totally what you wrote, you still clams that's it's misleading just becouse you don't like that. i give it to you 4 sources from diffrenet sites and year's all of these from ynet maariv and the Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs cited exacly that arab chirstians has "have had the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations" you changed to be quit high and you claims that the journalist is wrong even it's not about 1 journalist, and plus in all of these site's no mention at all to the divisions inside to the jewish sector. no mention that most of the "Haredim do not do matriculation exams".

And while you claims that Central Bureau of Statistics gives a lot of dry data (when was about arab christians) you used these data for pushing secular Jewish education (64.5%) and the national religious Jewish education (65.9%), and when i put the last statistic (64) wgich supported by sources you remove it.

By the way the site in maariv calls christians as "the most successful in education system", and ynet calls them "strong in education" and the "most the educated", and Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs call them as the most successful sector in education, so still all of these infromation is misleading ha??. all what you was doing is to explans the data, you didn't even give one sources cited you claims. JUST BECOUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THESE DATA DOSE'NT MAKE MISLEADING.--Jobas (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

no (for god sake) you dont understand what im talking about in general. i waste my time. This was just an example of how you can show things כfrom a certain angle! and how It's a matter of choosing which sources to use.You know how many communities in Israel? Is the Arab Christian community is more educated than the immigrants from the former Soviet Union? probably not. Are they more educated than the Ashkenazim? probably not. You can not post things implied in several directions, thats exactly what is misleading. when you write "the most educated comunity in israel" - its deception. there are many comunities in israel. Only in your mind comunity means only a religious group.It's you who choose to use religion as an exclusive characteristic to Community. You could use a completely different characteristics then it turned out the achievements of Arab Christians as a community are not the highest compared, for example, to Ashkenazim or new immigrants, etc. the point is that you choose to whrite from this point of view. You might as well write the influence of Arab Christians in Israel is not large compared with the Ashkenazim, or secular, or immigrants from Ukraine etc. And since you insist I'll give you, randomly, link that displays things quite differently (one of many): ביהודי כולל החרדי עלייה של 1.7% מ-50.5% ל-52.2% וללא החרדי של 2.1% מ-59.7% ל-61.8%. במגזר הלא-יהודי בכללותו עלייה של 2.8% מ-32.2% ל-35%. במגזר הדרוזי עלייה של 8.5% מ-39.5% ל-48%. במגדר הבדואי בנגב עלייה של 2.8% מ-26.6% ל-29.4%. במגזר הערבי עלייה של 2.8% מ-32.2% ל-35%...

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3941891,00.html

ok, I had enough. end of discussion. יניבפור (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way the most educated comunity in israel was in sense of religous community (comparae to muslim,druze and jewish (as religious groupe- and probaly yes christians more educted than jewish as while groupe). I had enough too, go and make these discussion with the Israel Ministry of Forgein Affairs and Central Bureau of Statistics.--Jobas (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Representation in the Knesset
putting a report as an information source,that had been commissioned by an arab organization, about a subject of arab-israeli relations, is basically like putting a report from a far right group in israel about arab claims in the conflict. it's completely biased and misleading, and obviously not true. and on the subject, there is no law in israel that bans an arabic party. the only arabic party that had been ban was in 1965 because in its manifest was a goal of eliminating jewish presence in israel. from there on, there was 1 communist that had been banned, and the rest was far right jewish parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

opening needs changing
Refering to the Arab citizens of Israel as Palestinian culturally and linguistically is nonsensical. First, there is no language caled Palestinian. Second, there never was a Palestine or national Palestinian entity until after the creation of Israel and the victory of Israel in the 6 day war. Thus, all the Arabs living in Israel are linguistically and culturally Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.194.1 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So there is a language called Israeli, is there? RolandR (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No but there's also no language called Palestinian. I have edited the introductory paragraph in the interest of greater clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Star of David is also an Islamic symbol
I have tried to add this edit to the article many times because without it the article distorts facts: The Hexagram(Star of David/Seal of Solomon) is revered in Islam for it's connection to Solomon and appears in Islamic architecture.

Unfortunately since some Wikipedia editors don't like Israel and have this article on their "no one else can edit watchlist" my edit keeps getting reverted no matter how many sources I add. No matter if it is a news reporter or an Islamic blog or webpage(not a blog). So instead of trying again I have decided I will leave this here. I hope that one of those editors can see that having correct information is more important then proving a political point. And maybe just maybe someone else will see how cool it is that the Star of David/Seal of Solomon is both a Jewish and a Muslim symbol.

I will list a few more sources here in hopes that the edit will get made:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=focLrox-frUC&pg=PA434&dq=seal+of+solomon+in+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CARkUr38BqeqyAHDg4CICg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=seal%20of%20solomon%20in%20islam&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=KoiD_yafPT8C&pg=PA138&dq=seal+of+solomon+in+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CARkUr38BqeqyAHDg4CICg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=seal%20of%20solomon%20in%20islam&f=false

And here is a picture: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3422089 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You've used the Daily Mail and 2 blogs so far. They were removed because they didn't comply with policy and didn't support the content you added. The conclusions you draw from this provide useful information about the way you think, but they are not relevant to the page per WP:TALK. What you need are reliable sources that fully support the content you want to add. The two books you list are reliable but they have nothing to say about the Star of David as a national symbol and reactions to that. Remember, this is not about the cultural aspects of hexagrams. The section is about Israeli national symbols. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit I made had no reference to reactions to the Star of David by Israeli Arabs. You are confusing my edit with that of another person(who has not provided sources for their claim, hence the citation needed tag I added and you removed). Perhaps you could read the comment before reverting it. All it said was that the symbol is also revered in Islam, which disputes claims made in this article that the Star of David/Seal of Solomon doesn't represent Israeli Arabs. When in fact it does however unintentional that representation is. And furthermore blogs are used as references many times, perhaps you should try to search Wikipedia articles for them and remove them as well. I really don't understand why this is such a controversial claim I think it's really great that the symbol is shared between Islam and Judaism. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything and I'm not sure how I can be any clearer than my comment above. I'm not talking about the "is received with mixed feelings by some Israeli Arabs" statement. That was removed as unsourced and should not have been restored without a source. I'm talking about the rest, your content. This is about your not understand policy. In order to dispute "claims made in this article that the Star of David/Seal of Solomon doesn't represent Israeli Arabs" you need a source that does exactly that. You are not a source. You can't combine things to tell a story that has an ending you like. See WP:SYNTH. The article is about Arab citizens of Israel. The section is about Israeli national symbols in the context of Israeli Arabs and their views on these symbols of national identity. Content should be about that, not about the symbols themselves. Regarding blogs, yes, certain blogs can be used under certain circumstances. It's explained in the policy, WP:SPS. These blogs do not meet the criteria. I have made ~27,000 edits. Go and find the edits where I removed blogs that don't comply with that policy and see how many there are. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm alone in this but to me the section in this article about national symbols seems to be talking about the symbols themselves and not just peoples thoughts on them. I just thought that having information about the symbol itself could be useful, the way it is now can be misleading to others who assume that the article speaks about the symbols themselves and not only about peoples thoughts on them. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This JPost article has some history and contrasting opinions. Oran's and Tibi's opinions would need to be attributed to them rather than presented in the voice of the encyclopedia. A scholarly source would be better, but JPost is an RS and it has everything you have been looking for together in one place. Also, see this csmonitor source, another RS, which states (and note for interest that it's stated as an unattributed statement of fact), that "Today, Israeli Arabs enjoy voting rights and welfare benefits similar to those of Jewish citizens. But none of Israel's national symbols, such as the Star of David flag, represent their heritage." There are probably plenty of reliable sources out there that deal with these issues. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article Sean.hoyland, I was having a hard time finding one. What do you think of this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&oldid=578217901 Csi.southpark (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it includes Oran's perspective but excludes Tibi's perspective, an Israeli Arab. So it isn't really balanced and therefore doesn't comply with WP:NPOV as much as it could. You might want to try to figure out what is was that led you to sample a source in that apparently biased way and try to do something about it if you think it is likely to happen again with other content/sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Sean.hoyland you'll notice that the article already includes that point of view (Some Arab politicians have requested a reevaluation of the Israeli flag and national anthem, arguing that the Star of David at the flag's center is an exclusively Jewish symbol... a majority of the section is devoted to it and it even includes a quote). I really didn't see the need to add another point from that side. It looks balanced(maybe even tilted towards the other side a bit more) to me this way(one point each side). If you disagree then by all means add the quote from Tibi but there is no need too attack other users. Csi.southpark (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant as an attack. It was meant as constructive criticism. You did ask for feedback. Don't take things personally here. Biased sampling of sources happens thousands of times everyday in Wikipedia in every topic area. Also, rest assured that on the rare occasions that I attack editors, it doesn't look anything like that at all. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sean.hoyland in which case I apologize for accusing you, I must have misunderstood. I understand your point and on a different article I would agree with you but this one already has that side represented more than sufficiently (in my opinion). Csi.southpark (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The section can live without Tibi. Someone can add it if they wish, as you say. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Materials
Sources relevant to this article:
 * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4175679,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynhockey (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no. It isn't relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)