Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Within the infobox, please correct the Arabic name,

المواطنون الفلسطينيون في إسرائيل → المواطنون الفلسطينيين في إسرائيل

The adjective gets the nominative case of the noun — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 05:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support: This is a grammar fix and I am happy to trust Cheesedealer on this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

85% of Druze men

I removed the following:

It was estimated that 85% of Druze men in Israel serve in the army,

The reference url is dead, and has been since it was first archived by Wayback. The text was added in 2007 here.

I found a copy of the Olive Branch magazine dated Winter 2006/Spring 2007 here. It does not contain the statistic.

For this reason I've removed what would anyway be a very outdated statistic. If anyone can find a better reference, ideally newer, then the appropriate figure can be re-inserted in the "Conscription" section.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

Edit

@Stephan rostie: I think this change is POV; the Palestinian Druze Arabs for example mostly were not subject to what the Palestinian Christian and Muslim Arabs had been subjected to, owing to them forming an alliance with the Zionist movement. The previous version was NPOV and more accurate. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t remove the “mostly” part of the “mostly Palestinians” for that reason. Leaving a room for the Druze and some bedouins who sided with the zionist militias, while at the same time adjusting and improving the due weight to cover the bulk of the arab citizens of israel who are predominantly the Palestinian muslims and christians. That was my rationale. Stephan rostie (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I still think the previous version was NPOV and speaks in tangible legal terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@האופה: While it could be legitimately argued that the EJ part was overdetailed for the lede, why did you remove mention of discrimination and Palestinian and Syrian population? [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Please participate in the talk page discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

POV language that I haven't seen in any other articles about the status of Palestinians in other states in the region. HaOfa (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: To clarify I asked two questions about removal of: 1- discrimination 2- Palestinian and Syrian population.

Your answers on the second question are irrelevant to WP:POV which states that significant viewpoint must be represented equally. Can you please source any viewpoint that disputes that Palestinians were largely discriminated against until 1966? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: I am still waiting for your response. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Four pings and a month later, I am still waiting for a more elaborate response/engaging in a discussion from the editor in order to form a consensus about this simple issue. Pinging @Barkeep49: @Selfstudier:. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is less "newsy" than many others in this topic area. So my personal opinion is that consensus will have been reached (on a WP:SILENCE basis) if there has been no further engagement after 4 weeks which by my count would be Dec 15. And obviously attempts to game this can be noted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for response. Note that silence is an essay not a guideline, and I think this interpretation is risky because it could give editors the right to delay the insertion of content to WP. The relevant guideline is WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Fails to engage in consensus building." Makeandtoss (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Definition of "Arab"

In the article, Demographics of Israel, it says that the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics considers Armenians to be Arab. This differs from the way Armenians generally consider themselves, and the way most others consider them also. I think this deserves some explanation in the article. I also wonder what other groups might be considered Arabs by the Israeli government. (Persians?) Rlitwin (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Arab is also a linguistic-cultural identity; Palestinian Armenians are Arabic-speaking, regardless of whether they have Palestinian or Israeli citizenship (though Israeli government unsurprisingly does not consider Arab Jews or Arabic-speaking Jews to be Arabs; that is how the Israeli state viewed its citizens starting 1948: either they were Jews or non-Jews). Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, at least in terms of demographic statistics. Citing the Central Bureau of Statistics, it says, "21.1% [of Israeli population] (around 2,080,000 people) are Israeli citizens classified as Arab, some identifying as Palestinian, and including Druze, Circassians, all other Muslims, Christian Arabs, Armenians (which Israel considers "Arab")." Rlitwin (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-identification of Arab Citizens of Israel/Israeli-Arabs/Palestinian Israelis

The section on Israeli Arab identity in the header was not very rigorous and is at odds with a number of attitudinal surveys that have been carried out in recent years.

I noticed that most of the existing sources on the predominance of Palestinian-Israeli identity used in the header didn't don't incorporate or don't directly cite attitudinal surveys. I've added references that link to many recent attitudinal surveys and have cited some direct quotes that you can observe on the main page. Noteduck (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck: Note that the opening paragraph should be kept general, and neutral, and is not the place for conflicting attitudinal surveys. Even if moved down, lede is a summary of body, and this does not fully reflect the body in a proportionate way. I disagree with its inclusion; you should gain consensus for it on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: according to that standard, to return to the original sentence:

The majority of Arabs in Israel now prefer to be identified as Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The original sentence refers to self-identification, which is a fairly crucial part of identity, and was seen as sufficiently significantly to be placed in the lede, i.e., as being important as per WP:WEIGHT. Unless the original statement - that Israeli Arabs/Palestinians predominantly identify as Palestinian Israelis - was inappropriately placed in the first paragraph of the lede to begin with, providing contrasting sources on this point, contested as it is, is perfectly appropriate. Looking at the WP:LEAD policy:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

And this is indeed a contested topic and a prominent controversy. The new material makes no stylistic departure from the previous version other than to acknowledge that this is a contested matter. The amended wording is concise and the sources of high quality - I think it is consistent with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV and should stay. Noteduck (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck: Yes, that should also be dealt with. But at least this is about the majority. Reminder that the opening paragraph has a special guideline MOS:OPEN, that avoids being too specific, which outlining multiple conflicting studies on self-identification certainly is. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Notions of identity among Arab citizens of Israel are complex and multifaceted and encompass civic, religious and ethnic components. Some sources report that the majority of Arabs in Israel prefer to be identified as Palestinian citizens of Israel, while recent surveys indicate that most name "Israeli", "Israeli-Arab" or "Arab" as the most important components of their identity, reflecting a growing "Israelization" of Israeli Arab identity."

The first sentence is too editorial for an encyclopaedic entry, the rest can be moved down to the last lede paragraph on identity, while trimming the "reflecting..." bit, which is a big claim taken from a single source. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:

I'm just a bit unsure what standard you are using for the lede here. By what standard you could recommend keeping original sentence in the first para:

The majority of Arabs in Israel now prefer to be identified as Palestinian citizens of Israel.

while rejecting stronger sources on alternative identities from "Palestinian" (note that several of the sources cited in the previous version are purely anecdotal). Do you think this sentence was errantly placed in the first lede paragraph and should've been moved to a lower paragraph earlier? I'm a bit surprised as yourself and others have been editing this page for quite a while, but this sentence has been left in the first para. I can see that the sentence of my additions starting with "Notions..." is perhaps a bit verbose, but I don't see any justification for removing the alternative conceptions of Israel Arab/Palestinian-Israeli if the point about Palestinian identification is to stay, especially as it is backed by very recent and rigorous sources. Noteduck (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck: The same standard, as I had already noted; it is also a problem and should be removed, and I did not say it should be kept. The claim about very recent and rigorous sources should be carefully examined. I draw your attention to WP:PROPORTION in which concerns about recent events is highlighted. Also I am surprised about the "rigorous" part since there is clear criticism within the Media Line report towards the survey. This only highlights the subjectivity of such surveys and the fact that they should not be in an objective opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: okay, can you suggest what would be your preferred wording for the lede then? Noteduck (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Noteduck: I did in my third reply to you.. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)