Talk:Uzeir

Statement by Huldra
and I disagree here; he wants this (and other places in Israel) to be called "Arab", I prefer "Palestininian Arab". Both of us use that to link to the article Arab citizens of Israel.

We can see from Arab_citizens_of_Israel, that most Arab citizens of Israel prefer to include the word "Palestinian" when they refer to themselves; I therefor think Wikipedia should do the same. We respect African American when they refer to themselves as that, (and not Black Americans), we respect Chelsea Manning when she wants to be known as that (and not as Brad Manning), why should we not give the same respect to Arab citizens of Israel?

Number 57 and I have discussed this in detail under User_talk:Huldra, and we do not agree. I believe it is time to get some outside views, Huldra (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is; should we use Palestinian Arab or should we use Arab? I would compare this with Harlem: Not all African American   wants to be identified as African American  (and not as Black American), but most do. And since the majority of African American wants to be identified as that, then we respect that, and name  the places, such as Harlem, as populate by African American.

I don´t think WP:EASTEREGG is relevant here, Palestinian people is linked to in the first sentence in the Arab citizens of Israel.

And many/most of the articles on English Wikipedia about the Palestinian/Arab places in Israel were apparently started as a copy/translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. They apparently routinely call every Palestinian/Arab place for "beduin", even if the place had a documented history going back a thousand years or more (like this one). I suspect that if they had started as a copy of Arab Wikipedia they would have be called differently. I don´t think the history of the article is so very relevant here; that is really a matter of chance, who edited the article first. Huldra (talk)

Unfortunately, I don´t speak/read Hebrew or Arabic. I agree with Number 57 that if the Arabic-language article actually describes the village as being in Palestine, it is concerning from an NPOV perspective. But it also underscore my point about what this started as a copy of, is not unimportant.

I have been editing these Palestinian places for years, I started with List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (because it was easy! I had the Khalidi-book), then went on to Arab localities in Israel and then to the places on the West Bank. And, to put it bluntly, most of these articles were in a very bad state when I started. Most of them are still very sub-standard, (IMO); there are simply so few editors who are interested in writing the history of these places. That I have focused on adding history, and removing (the many) obvious falsehoods; I don´t think that should be counted as an argument for keeping status quo. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57
As far as I can see, there are four options for describing this village: The article was created in 2008, and was initially described as an Arab-Bedouin village. This was changed in 2013 to the current wording (i.e. simply "Arab village").
 * 1) a village. To the point, but omits information that would be useful to the reader.
 * 2) an Arab village. Clear, neutral and conveys all the information needed. The article linked to is at a similar title, and avoid casting national aspersions on the residents that they may or may not identify with.
 * 3) an Israeli Arab village. Correct (the residents are indeed Israeli citizens), but unnecessarily repetition of Israel (the sentence ends with "in Israel").
 * 4) a Palestinian Arab village. Unnecessarily confusing to the reader – the residents are not Palestinian citizens, and may not identify as Palestinians (it's by no means a universal opinion, as shown by the fact that there are even Arab members of the Jewish Home party). The link is also an WP:EASTEREGG (as a normal person would expect it to link to Palestinian people) and so is expressly discouraged.

Personally I think it's fairly clear that option 2 is the best choice of wording, and that option 4 is probably the worst. The introduction of an article on a village is not the place to play identity politics – this is a complex issue and best discussed on the article linked to. Number  5  7  21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Re Huldra's comments about the source of this article, I created it in 2008. I did use the Hebrew Wikipedia article as a base, but it was not a direct translation (my Hebrew is not that good). I took some very basic information from it, and put it into a formula I used on hundreds of village articles I created. But anyway, I think the comment about the source language is a red herring – other language Wikipedias will use different phrases depending on what is the WP:COMMONNAME as determined on that language's Wikipedia (the Arabic-language article actually describes the village as being in Palestine, which is rather concerning from an NPOV perspective).
 * I also dispute the claim that the article history is not important - we often consider stability when deciding whether a term being introduced is controversial or not. Hulra herself has been editing this article since 2010 and never felt the need to introduce this additional description until now. Number   5  7  23:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One final comment on the source/translation thing - the idea that the version adapted would lead to bias relies on two assumptions - firstly that the source version is biased or uses inappropriate language, and secondly that the translator is not clever or neutral enough to take any bias out. However, my experience of the Hebrew Wikipedia is that it often suffers less pro-Israel bias than the English version (presumably because the activist types prefer to edit the English version?). I would also hope that I am clever and neutral enough to spot bias and reword where required. If I had translated from the Arabic version, I would certainly not have stated that the village was in Palestine, as it's clearly not true. Number   5  7  00:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion (discussion)
Yes, Uzeir is in Israel, not the Palestinian territories. Its population is probably virtually 100% Arab.

I specifically opted for a third opinion as opposed to inviting opinion from the respective WikiProjects (or even an RFC), as unfortunately the alternatives would only serve to bring people with heavily entrenched opinions to the debate, who will comment along entirely predictable lines. This usually leads to an outcome decided solely by which WikiProject brings the most members. Instead, I would far rather have an outside opinion from someone who is not involved in this subject area and who can approach it in a balanced and non-prejudiced way. Number  5  7  22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What you write is correct. And this could indeed affect many other articles on Wikipedia. And I totally agree with Number 57 here; I also would prefer an outside view. Discussions on Israel/Palestine issues on Wikipedia looks too much like trench warfare. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I take your point about trench warfare in this subject area. 3O is non-binding, but at least I believe that we three want NPOV, and we can probably construct a decent case to answer. So, my provisional view is as follows:


 * The key thing about "Arab villages" is that their population is predominantly ethnically Arab, and this is something that can be stated about a village without raising POV issues. On the other hand, matters of citizenship, self-identification of national (or any other tribal) group do have a POV payload and should be avoided as far as possible.


 * Insofar as the word "Palestinian" refers to a geographical region, if the article states that Uzeir is a village in Israel that falls under the al-Batuf Regional Council, then saying it's in the geographical region of Palestine is tautological, hence unnecessary. And since the term "Palestinian" also has some political payload, to that extent it also expresses POV. Even if the majority of Arabs in that area prefer this term, some are opposed to it, and a majority POV is still a POV: we shouldn't espouse it at the expense of the minority. So I do think the term "Palestinian" should be avoided here. By the way, the article Palestinian people defines these people as "the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region". Largely, but not exclusively, so I think that linking "Palestinian Arab" to that article is a bit Easter-eggy.


 * But I also think that pipe-linking the term "Arab" to the article Arab citizens of Israel is about equally Easter-eggy, since obviously not all Arabs are citizens of Israel. Arab is a redirect to the article Arabs. I think we should use that, and only link Arab citizens of Israel from the See also section.


 * Finally, I think we can improve on the term "Arab village". It's accepted terminology, but it begs a question. Really, it's the population, not the village itself, that is Arab. (For comparison, those villages built for British expats in Spain aren't called British villages. They are in Spain and under Spanish jurisdiction, therefore Spanish :)) It would be better just to say that Uzeir is a village, and then to say that as of such-and-such a date, its population is/was predominantly Arab. This needs a source (but so does the statement that it's an Arab village, for the same reason). FN8 tells us that the population was 100%, but that was in 1945, when the population was 150 and the modern state of Israel had not even been created. Can we find more up-to-date census data?


 * Drawing this all together, I'd suggest the following as a possible reformulation of the lede paragraph, together with adding Arab citizens of Israel to the See also section:


 * Uzeir (عزير; עֻזֵיר) is a village near Nazareth Illit in the Lower Galilee region of northern Israel. It falls under the jurisdiction of al-Batuf Regional Council. Like other villages in that jurisdiction, its population is predominantly Arab. In 2006 it had a population of 2,600.


 * What do you think? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I think the proposed version is unnecessarily wordy. My two comments would be that
 * There is nothing wrong with describing it as an "Arab village". Places in Israel are commonly labelled according to their ethnic makeup by both the local and international media.
 * The village's population is 100% Arab – the Central Bureau of Statistics figures for 2011 state there were no Jewish or "other" (i.e. non-Arab) residents).
 * As per point 1, neither Huldra or I have a problem with "Arab village" - this is accepted and appropriate terminology. The question is whether any other qualifiers are necessary. If you are concerned about easter eggs, we could instead link the words "Arab village" to Arab localities in Israel rather than linking just "Arab" to Arab citizens of Israel, so it would read "Uzeir (عزير; עֻזֵיר) is an Arab village in northern Israel." Number   5  7  12:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That is only the first sentence. I thought that collapsing the "Located" construction made it less verbose, and that the addition of population data would be an addition of useful information, the more so as you have now provided an up-to-date source. The statement that it's an Arab village needed sourcing in any case. Currently, in the article body there's lots about that from 1945 and earlier, but nothing up to date. I didn't think a third opinion had to be confined to questions on which the discussants disagree, but please yourself if you choose to ignore anything. It would certainly be better to link the whole phrase to Arab localities in Israel, rather than "Arab" to Arab citizens of Israel. --Stfg (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll add that I already recognised in this morning's post that "Arab village" is "accepted terminology". But the fact remains that it is loose terminology, for reasons I outlined before, and it's divisive. If we're going to insist on the use of loose and divisive terminology just because it's established, then we're going to help perpetuate the established loose and divisive thinking that such terminology expresses. We can do better than that, simply by being more rigorously factual. Secondly I don't think it's constructive or polite to bat aside a constructive proposal with the simply unconstructive and unsubstantiated criticism that it's too "wordy". Content comes before linguistic elegance. Hell, it's not as if we're looking at a finely crafted and heavily peer reviewed WP:Lead section that faithfully summarises the information given in the body, while the body provides the citations. This little stub needs more constructive development and less defensiveness. --Stfg (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how "Arab village" is loose terminology - I think it's fairly clear what it means, and it is rigorously factual. I also don't understand how it's a "divisive" term – no-one is disputing the fact that it's an Arab village. Hulra and I are simply disputing whether we need to add the word Palestinian or not.
 * I'm sorry you think disagreeing with your proposal is being impolite, but would you rather I have lied and not said what I think? Number   5  7  15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition in Arab localities in Israel states "Arab localities in Israel includes[sic] all population centers with a 50% or higher Arab population in Israel." That is, it assigns to the locality an epithet based on the majority population, disregarding any (current or future) minority population, who are thus presented as outliers. That is why it's both loose and divisive. It's loose also because a village is more than just its population. Considering jurisdiction and locality, for example, we might just as accurately say that it's an Israeli village. And gain or lose what, exactly?


 * I didn't say that disagreeing with my proposal was impolite. I said that making an unconstructive and unsubstantiated criticism ("unnecessarily wordy") was impolite. Perhaps you'd like to substantiate it now, or to suggest improvements to the wording that preserves the full content of my proposal. Or if it's content that you object to, discuss that and don't raise red herrings about wording. (Obviously my "predominantly Arab" phrase can be replaced with the exact percentage or numbers, citing your source. I invited that already in my original opinion.)


 * I for my part don't understand why you are so keen to avoid stating that the population is 100% Arab, given that you have a source to say so, nor why you are so insistent that the term "Arab village" must be used. Given that I've already stated my view about inserting "Palestinian", I also don't understand why you wish to imply that I should be confined to discussing only that aspect. This is Wikipedia, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with stating the fact that the population of the village is 100% Arab, and haven't said I do (I actually stated above that it is), so I'm not sure where you got that from?
 * My comments re it being wordy were because the first sentence seems to try to fit too much description about the location in, whilst also avoiding one of the defining characteristics of the village. To make it clear, I appreciate you taking the time to help us try and resolve the situation, and of course you can propose whatever you like, but it shouldn't mean I can't disagree with you!
 * But anyway, let's wait for Huldra's opinion on the appropriateness of "Arab village" and the alternative proposal. Number   5  7  16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: Firstly, I think both Arab localities in Israel and Arab citizens of Israel should be linked to in articles about places in Israel with a majority Palestinian Arab population. And they normally are, often there is a "See also" section for Arab localities in Israel. As Number 57 said, our disagreement is really about using Arab or using Palestinian Arab. I must admit I don´t quite understand the argument above: "And since the term "Palestinian" also has some political payload, to that extent it also expresses POV. Even if the majority of Arabs in that area prefer this term, some are opposed to it, and a majority POV is still a POV: we shouldn't espouse it at the expense of the minority. So I do think the term "Palestinian" should be avoided here." My view is that whatever you define yourself as, is a POV, (nearly by definition). So if you define yourself as an "Arab" that is a POV, if you define yourself as Palestinian, that is also a POV. It seem to me that by avoiding using the word "Palestinian", we are choosing a minority POV over a majority POV.  Huldra (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you guys need to take this to a wider forum after all. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Bye. --Stfg (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your work, anyway. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)