Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 2

message: It is not only sedentarized bedouins who live in "unrecognized villages". There are original palestinian villages which have not been evacuated during the 948 war, but were not recognized by Israel, and lack very basic services, not "social" services: e.g., no electricity, no water. --Josce 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unrecognized villages"

message: Related and unrelated. Does anyone object that I move the article from Israeli Arab to Israeli Arabs? Plural is the norm for articles about populations. This is also the first term in the article. gidonb 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine.  Will a search for "Israeli Arab" still find its way, directly, here? Lokiloki 06:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because it becomes a redirect with the name change. gidonb 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Jews in israel know that every month or so a suicide bomber, an arab, explode in their midst. Most often he arrive at the scene with the help of other Arabs, most likley Israeli Arabs. This cause mistrust. Mistrust is not racism.
While many Arabs live in "Jewish towns" such as Tel-Aviv, not a single jew is allowed to live in Taybe, Um El Phaem, Baka and other Arab towns so please stop the nonsense about "Racism" as far as where people can live. I would agree that it is much harder for an Arab to get a job in Jewish places (hard but not impossible, as most Arabs eventually works inside Israel) but it is almost impossible for a jew to get a job in an Arab town. (mot 100% impossible as few do work there) Zeq 07:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "Ghetto"s. Some towns are among the poorer places in Israel but some are not. In some of them there are large mensions in some there are shacks. Many non-Arabs work there, shop there (this has gone down after in teh 2000 riots Israeli shoppers were attacked, but now it is slightly resumed. Zeq 04:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism or distrust on a security basis 

message: Poll result can be manipulated by choosing how to ask questions and how to interpret respondent that are not so sure.
I suggest to remove the poll results about Racism as it is noting more than a PR stunt commisioned by a an organization that has an agenda. Zeq 07:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir: They were reported in a presumably neutral source, Ha'aretz, and, like polls used in many other places in Wikipedia, attempt to quantify the discrimination of Israeli Arabs.  If you feel that the polls are biased, please provide citations for such.  I have provided citations.  Lokiloki 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why I did not delete it just NPOV the languge. Clearly the poll itself is not worth much but if you want to inculde it I moved it to the appropriate section in correct terminology. Zeq 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

message: The intro is already far too long, so please don't extend it even further, Loki. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I've commented out the statement
Lieberman has made more radical statements in the past; in May, 2004, while part of the Ihud HaLeumi, he proposed transferring 90 percent of Israeli Arabs: "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost." 
While this is true, as I point out, the sentence probably doesn't belong in this article, as it appears to have been a one-time off-the-cuff statement, rather than a party platform.  It may belong in the Lieberman article, but I can't see why a one-time statement by a politician, which was not even part of the platform of the party he was with, a party which no longer exists, and which was never in government even when it existed, would belong here. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to disagree; if a well-known politician endorses blatantly racist policies, then it is notable. I think a statement of this sort could only be regarded as an off-the-cuff remark if he had withdrawn or apologised for it. Palmiro | Talk 13:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view the remark isn't largely supported.  Look at the election results.  This is why personal views have no place in Wikipedia. Antgel 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avigdor Lieberman's views 

message: All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states.  It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government.  Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted

message: If you are re-editing the content, it would be nice if you could add additional sources. Instead of saying misleading things like, Education has improved 500% since 1969... (how hard is it to go from, say, 1% to 5%)... it would be nice to start off with some hard figures, as in, actual current percent and actual numbers, rather than rates of improvement which are misleading. Lokiloki 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you were the one that earlier moved the polls showing that many Jewish Israelis discriminated against Israeli Arabs. And now I see that you are glossing over that racism and discrimination, and including no references in the intro. Lokiloki 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And more

message: It seems that the last paragraph of the intro is trying a little too hard to convince us that Arab Israelis are (undeservedly) well-off. This paragraph probably doesn't belong in the intro to start with, but regardless, it should be rewritten in a more neutral tone, as right now the selection of facts and statistics seem deliberately chosen to convey the POV that Arab Israelis are free from oppression and, in fact, very well-off. The paragraph briefly mentions that some Arab groups do not share this view, but no explanation of the opposing POV is made. Kaldari 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also note that international human rights organization do not share this view, neither does the European Union.--Marielleh 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The fact that the introduction provides all these glowing details about the status, wellbeing, and fame of Israeli Arabs, and then presents only a gloss of the discrimination and racism that they experience (and in the previous version, these facts were counterclaimed with even more statistics about their relative well-being compared to other Arabs elsewhere) is POV.  I am placing a POV dispute on this article. Lokiloki 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored the original title of this section.  The vast majority of is a POV reproduction of an American report on discrimination, not racism.  The notion that Jews and Arabs are different "races" is, itself, rather racist. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one has responded to this, I've gone ahead and removed the quote. Kaldari 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Palmiro | Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Zeq 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the demographics section of the article is not about the conflict, it's about demographics. I have cut the quote to include only what is relevent to demographics. Political POV is not appropriate in that section. If the quote were in a section about Jewish/Arab conflict I would feel differently. Kaldari 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Demographics is becoming an important aspect of the conflict so the quote is relevant. Please stop trying to hide it. Zeq 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to hide it. If you want to include quotes about the conflict, that's fine with me. Just don't put them in the demographics section. The quote in question is an extremely provocative quote from a figure with a political point-of-view. Tacking it onto the end of the demographics section (which is otherwise occupied with striaghtfoward NPOV statistics) is inappropriate, and frankly seems to be motivated by a desire to push a particular political POV. For example, if you do a search for the quote on Google, many of the places it is mentioned are in articles of political commentary which are anti-Arab Israeli. Yes, it is sourced, but because something is sourced certianly doesn't mean its not POV. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? This seems to be a rather obvious POV example if you ask me. Kaldari 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry you see it this way but I disagree. It is a relevant quote as I explained above. If you want you can find something to add (if you think the quote is POV and you must balance it with another POV) but in any case please don't remove sourced content. Zeq 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe that one person's provocative assertion that Arab Israelis need to out-reproduce Jewish Israelis is important and relavent enough to include in the demographics section of an encyclopedia article about Israeli Arabs? Do you believe that such a quote would be included in a similar article by Britannica? Do you really believe that having equal numbers of provocative POV quotes in a article is what the NPOV policy endorses? Would you recommend that I add some provocative quotes by Avigdor Lieberman to balance things out? Kaldari 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it is charateristic. And yes, if you find a quote by Liberman that is charteristic of the situation please include it. Make sure it is a recent one. Zeq 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's the only thing we all agree on. What do you think about the rest of the paragraph? Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well now it is just absurdly POV. In case you haven't done so, I would encourage you to read over the Wikipedia NPOV policy and seriously consider how it relates to this paragraph. Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your frustration and convictions are admirable, and believe it or not I am sympathetic to most of them. I have no interest in downplaying the abuses that muslim women face or violence perpetrated in the name of religion or "honor". There are places on Wikipedia to illuminate those issues: Women in Islam, Religious violence, etc. "Israeli Arabs", however, covers a broad range of people, cultures, politics, and history and it is not proper for us to stereotype or systematically characterize them in a negative light here. Our job as encyclopedia editors is to present a balanced view that readers on all sides of the conflict could read without feeling attacked or slighted. It is also important to paint with broad strokes. Scattering anecdotes, news clips, and quotes throughout Wikipedia articles tends to lower their overall quality. Instead of picking and choosing example facts to relate, we should be providing a synthesis of all known facts and points of view related to the issue and then providing references to specific examples. If you do use a specific example, explain what that example is supposed to illustrate rather than just adding it to stand on its own. Wikipedia articles should be explicit and confident (but fair) rather than relying on inuedo, propaganda, or selective evidence. Sometimes it is useful to practice writing for the enemy, in order to make sure that your own biases are not skewing an article. Also, try to make sure that you are adding information where it is most appropriate. For example, if you want to add information about Bedouins in general, it would make more sense to put it in the Bedouin article rather than here. The Bedouins section here should specifically be about Israeli Bedouins and their unique characteristics (so as not to be redundant). Information about "Honor" killings (which is not unique to Israeli Muslims) would be more appropriate in an article about Muslim fundamentalism or Religious violence. Piling it on here seems like we're trying too hard to force the issue where it may not be most appropriate. Some time in the near future I would also like to work on editing down the discrimination section, so that it provides an overview of the issues rather than a laundry list of complaints. It's easy to pile on examples of bad behavior to support one side or another, what's hard is to provide a fair synthesis of facts and opinions that (most) everyone can agree on. Kaldari 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now there's a valid angle if you can cite references for it: the conflict between Islamic customs and Israeli laws. The trick here is to make sure that you're not doing original research, i.e. it would be tempting to cite articles which present examples of backwards islamic customs and then say "look, this conflicts with Israeli law", but that would be original research and POV-pushing. If you can find some articles that discuss the legal conflict, however, that would be fair game and totally relevent (assuming you keep the tone as neutral as possible). I think information like that would be an interesting addition to the article. Kaldari 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: According to an Arab israeli writer http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/073/784.html there is an increase in honor killing among Israeli Arabs. Zeq 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources about "honor killing"

message: I'm currently trying to get this page in shape. I've put the in-use tag on it and I'd appreciate it if that could be respected. If anyone wants to make an edit, please e-mail me. I'll see that faster than a post on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loki, are you not going to allow me to do this edit? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can... sorry, I was editing a specific section open for some time which I thought wasn't the whole page, and I made no changes apart from the title.  Anyway, go ahead... Lokiloki 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make an extensive copy edit of this article, because it's a mess. I placed the tag on it, and left a note here. Despite that, you made an edit and continue to post progress reports to the talk page. I have only just started!! Please let me do it, or tell me you're not going to let me, so that I don't waste any more time. Every time I have any dealings with you, there's a huge amount of talk and time-wasting, Loki. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratio of good content to discussion should be about 1:10.  That is, there should be 10 times as much discussion, analysis, and debate as there is good content.  This seems to generally be true on most articles.  Content should go through the boiler of scrutiny and discussion.  Presumably that is the purpose of talk pages.  By the way, I noticed you qualified the Ha'aretz poll on racism today as being from a pro-Arab group: interesting to see this in light of your edits elsewhere which denied such qualifications of other authors. Lokiloki 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting dangerously close to violating NPA, which I assume is your intention, so I'll keep this brief. There is no point, no point at all, in discussing an article as badly written as this one. It needs to be rewritten almost from scratch. I was about to try to do something like that, then you'd have had something to discuss. And I did not qualify the poll as being from an Arab group. Stop posting to me, stop annoying me, stop interfering with my edits, don't post to my talk page again (ever), don't make accusations, and stop trying to tell me how to write and use sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Yan, sorry not to have seen your comment before now. I may come back to this at some point in the near future. If I do, I'll set up a draft page for the rewrite because it's likely to take a few hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In use

message: SlimVirgin:  You keep deleting my messages to your discussion page and tell me to take it to the article talk page.  Okay... but it isn't related to the article.  In my talk, you accused me of trying to get a high edit count.  I asked on your talk page what the benefit of such is, and why make such accusations.  Thanks for answering.  By the way, feel free to return that "in use" tag... I was editing specific sections rather than the page itself, but I won't do that either...  Lokiloki 03:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not post to my talk page again about anything, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-dokey.  Do not post on my talk page again, either.  You have done so 5 times today.  Lokiloki 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been answering you! I take it you will now allow me to continue to work on the encyclopedia? Remember, if you edit while the tag is on, I will get an edit conflict when I try to save, so please don't. That is why I left the note above, asking people to e-mail me if they wanted to edit, which you have now also done, but you went ahead and edited anyway. *blink* SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you answer about the high-edit accusation you leveled against me? (Incidentally, I spend 10 hours per day on Wikipedia, so high edit count seems natural). Lokiloki 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, I've changed my mind. I'm too angry to edit now. Mission achieved, Loki. You may spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia, but nine of them are devoted to annoying people. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To SlimVirgin

message: "Most Israeli Arabs are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." The author of this sentence probably meant: "Most Israeli Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense because 170,000 Bedouin cannot be a subset of 150,000 Muslim Arabs as the current version of the sentence states. Pecher Talk 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher and Zeq, I had just started what was going to be a rewrite/copy edit, but was interrupted by Lokiloki who had objections, so I gave up. Therefore, the intro may need tidying. Feel free to go ahead. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't give up just because one user annoyed you. This article can really use a copyedit, and you were already working on it. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Ynhockey. This is a complex subject that very few people know about. With Liberman proposal of redrawing the borders to exchange territory (where 1/3 of israeli Arabs live) this subject will get interest. Zeq 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article intro and set theory

message: http://www.jordanembassyus.org/remarks.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=409643&contrassID=2
Zeq 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: Is anyone saying that the Arabs who bear Israeli citizenship are a distinct ethnic group? If so, who's saying it, and what's the ethnic distinction between Arab citizens of Israel and other Palestinian Arabs? (Or is the claim that Arab Israelis aren't Palestinian Arabs?) --Uncle Ed 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic groups and their names

message: HRW claim that "on the basis of their parents' military service". In israel, many Jews and many arabs do not serve in the army. Thus it is not a discrimination against any specific ethnic group. Haredi jews for example are also exempt from military service and as such are suffering from the cut in vetren benefits. Zeq 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HRW 

message: I reverted The one exception is Arab residents of East Jerusalem. In 1967, the East Jerusalemites were given a one-time offer for citizenship. Most refused and today, the majority of that population do not receive voting rights. because it was long and not totally factual (being as residents of East Jerusalem are eligible to all social benefits and vote in municipal elections). Is there a source that residents of East Jerusalem are no longer able to apply for Israeli citizenship? Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Jeruslalem residents 

message: I’m afraid I cannot take seriously several entries here, and the general weighting of the material chosen (another way of dressing up POV). It would take a long essay to reveal the POV hidden in this entry. So instead I will focus on the most egregious example: the line that Israeli Arabs (or whatever you want to call this group) have “equal protection under the law”. No one who knows anything about the subject will read past this false statement. Israel lacks a constitution, so I wonder in what ways the writer(s) of this line believes such protection is offered. The only overtly human rights legislation Israel has on the books is the Basic Law on Freedom and Human Dignity (1992), but that doesn’t posit equality as a fundamental right, nor freedom of religion and expression. It also defines Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, as do many other recent laws, thereby giving official recognition to group rights for Jews but not for Arab citizens. Although officially Israel may enshrine equal individual rights, the country’s legislation ensures groups rights (for Jews only) take precedence. Off the top of my head, here are a few ways in which Israeli Arabs lack “equal legal protection”:
1. The Law of Return offers only Jews automatic citizenship. Palestinians are denied all citizenship rights under the revised Nationality Law. This means that an Israeli Jew can bring relatives to Israel under family reunification principles, while an Israeli Arab is legally excluded from doing so. How is this equal protection?
2. Some 100,000 Israeli Arabs (mostly Bedouin) live in communities the state refuses to recognise under the Planning and Building Law (1965). In other words nearly one in 10 Israeli Arabs is denied all public services such as water and electricity, and their homes are subject to demolition, by law. Only Israeli Arabs live in such communities because of the way the law is framed.
3. The Jewish National Fund and other international Zionist organisations are offered special quasi-governmental status under Israeli law. The JNF owns 13 per cent of the land in Israel (inside the 1948 borders), most of it given to it by the government in especially prized areas for habitation. The JNF is bound by its charter to discriminate in favour of Jews, and given its special status nothing can be done to challenge that in the courts. 
4. Under the Absentee Property Law (1950), the state has confiscated the land and property of all Palestinians not considered to be inside their homes inside Israel on a specific date during the war of 1948. They have no rights ever to reclaim their property or return to their land. This law targets only Arabs, not Jews, and continues to deny the rights of 300,000 or so Israeli Arabs (the original dispossessed and their descendants), who are are effectively internal refugees. That's about one in four of the Israeli Arab population
5. Let’s not forget that Israel still has a set of emergency laws it inherited from the British Mandate that, though technically can be applied to all citizens, are in practice used almost exclusively against Israeli Arabs with no oversight from the courts. This is hardly equal protection. 
I’m not even mentioning the myriad forms of not-so “covert legal discrimination” documented by David Kretzmer. 
Also, can anyone cite a reference for 200,000 Palestinians entering Israel under family unification? I don’t accept as proof the Population Administration, which was shown by a Haaretz investigation to have fabricated similar figures. According to Haaretz, they found 6,000 such cases. I think the 200,000 figure includes the 170,000 illegal entries (not a unification issue) and I think this latter figure too is dubious. This is part of the government's demographic timebomb discourse. 
And finally, why no reading list of the seminal works on the subject: Sabri Jiryis’s The Arabs in Israel (1975), and Fouzi el-Asmar’s To be an Arab in Israel (1976)? It would also be worth directing readers to other important recent works, including David Grossman’s Sleeping on a Wire (1993), Dan Rabinowitz’s Overlooking Nazareth (1997), Susan Nathan’s The Other Side of Israel (2005), Dan Rabinowitz and Khawla Abu Baker, Coffins on our Shoulders (2005), and my own Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (2006). JCook10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equal protection

message: This article currently claims that only 4% of Bedouins serve in the IDF without citing it's source. I have twice queried this claim, only to find the "citation needed" I placed removed and the source still not verified. I simply would like to know where the this statistic comes from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.79.39.127 (talk • contribs).
according to this the number vary between 5% to 10 % :  Zeq 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bedouins in the IDF

message: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273263,00.html Zeq 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new info 

message: I've removed the statement that Arab MKs are being investigated by police for visits to an "enemy" country. Muhamad Miari has not been a Knesset member since 1992, and Muhamad Kanan has not been a member since 2003. This entry is simply incitement, it adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding.RolandR 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians 

message: As per a number of comments on this page, I have flagged this article as disputed. Particularly egregious is the claim in the introduction that Arab citizens enjoy full rights as citizens as Israel. This is a patently false statement. See the websites of the Arab Human Rights Association (www.arabhra.org), Mossawa (www.mossawacenter.org), the I'lam Media Center (www.ilamcenter.org), and a selecton of links on the situation of Palestinian of 48 at The Electronic Intifada(http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/search.cgi). 
The entire article needs a massive rewrite. It's POV is blatantly Zionist and contradicts even articles published regularly in Ha'aretz and Yediot Aharanot. I will begin making edits but would appreciate the input of others in highlighting the most problematic sections to begin with. 82.102.241.6 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have continued making changes, renaming the section on "Initial Measures taken by the Israeli government" to "History" and moving it up to the first category under the lead, while expanding its content. I am slowly making my way through the entire article which is too long and badly need reorganization, setting aside the POV issues outlined above. Any suggestions on how to streamline the rest of the reogranization is welcome. Tiamut 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Discussion 

message: I think it should be mentioned in the article that the education minister Yuli Tamir recently ordered that all Jewish schools have lessons about the Kafr Qasim massacre in light of its anniversary on October 29. I'll try to find a news link, read it in a metro newspaper (Israeli) myself. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds interesting and relevant. The article as it stands doesn't seem to have any material on the massacre, though. Presumably that would need to be included too! Palmiro | Talk 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kafr Qasim massacre

message: (First time here)
I think this paragraph should be changed or deleted, it's POV:
Like other indigenous minority populations elsewhere in the world, the relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. The attitudes of Arab citizens of Israel toward Israel range from deep resentment to pure loyalty.
:As regards the first of the two sentences, I disagree. It's an important point further elucidated in this study  by Ismail Abu Saad at Ben Gurion University in the Negev. I will add the source so that it does not seem like WP:OR to passersby. The second sentence, I'm neutral about. I would prefer a citation for it though, so I will add a . (By the way, this is my note from a few days ago. Tiamut 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV:indigenous minority  

message: There seems to be a bug somewhere. Clicking on the Edit link for sections of the article actually takes you to the next section, rather than the one where it appears. I don't know how to fix this -- perhaps someone with more experience can fix it, and also let me know ho so that I could do this in future. RolandR 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing bug in article? 

message: The examples listed here simply does not match the headline. Either the headline must be changed, or almost all the examples must be cut out. Regards, Huldra 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish Citizens Killed in Violent Acts by Individual Arab Citizens" 

message: The two events listed under "Arab Citizens Killed by Israeli Security Forces during riots "
are Land Day , and October 2000 riots (Israel). The latter is explictly a riot, as indicated by the title, and the former says, in its intro paragraph "The demonstrations were peaceful at first but then turned to violent riots as roads were blocked, and stones and Molotov cocktails were thrown. ". There no need to hide the fact that these were riots. Isarig 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article cited as evidence for the Land Day violence is in Hebrew and contradicts all other sources cited who make no mention of violence of any kind on the part of the demonstrators. The Jerusalem Post source cited there (not in the external links but in the body of the article) clearly states the demonstrators were unarmed. Until this contradiction is resolved, the heading should not read this way. Tiamut 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to remerge the two headings into one. Considering that police and the IDF were involved in the Land Day killings, the distinction is artifical and they were obviously separated just so as to make POV edits to the sub-headings, including words like "violent" and then "riots". Tiamut 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: Dear friends, I do wish you read the sources you bring carefully before jumping into conclusions, and making far reaching statements. I'll try to clarify some of the issues raised above:
#Any permanent resident of Israel may apply for full citizenship, and may get one if he meets certain criteria mentioned in the Citizeship Law, e.g. knowing some Hebrew, waiving previous citizeship etc. Getting a permenant resident status in Israel is not an easy process. The East Jerusalem residents skipped this tedious process, and became permanent residents of Israel shortly after the annexation. Therefore, they could apply for Israeli full citizenship soon after the annexation, but this does not mean that anyone who applied actually got full citizenship. Furthermore, the criteria for citizenship are quite harsh, especially as most Jerusalemite Arabs wished to maintain their Jordanian citizenship (which was valid until 1988, when Jordan cut its relations with the West Bank). Just to make things clearer - a person of Jewish background who wishes to immigrate to Israel, is not required to meet these criteria to get full citizenship.
#A permanent resident of Israel is entitled to all rights and must meet all demands like any full citizen, except the following: (1) using an Israeli passport (2) voting in the Israeli general elections (3) retaining the right to live and work in Israel when living and working abroad.
#Israeli Arabs have full civil rights in Israel. They complain about tacit discrimination in several issues and about a few laws that imply priority to Jews in buying state lands. Personally, I find these claims valid, however no one can deny they have effective civil rights as citizens.
#The so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Israeli Christian Arabs in Mghar in March 2005 was actually a conflict between Druze and Christian residents of the village which deteriorated into violant riots. The conflicat was over an allegation that Christian Arabs published photo-montage portraying Druze girls naked. For two weeks the entire Israeli society dealt with these alarming riots, and the Israeli police was heavily criticized for not doing enough to prevent it. However, this criticism was in the general context of enforcing law and order, and not in the sense that the police doesn't mind about Arab citizens. You might want to mention the October 2000 riots in which the police was criticized for using too much force when it comes to Arab citizens. Indeed this criticism led to a special investigation of the events, after the Arab MPs lobbied for it, and forced the government to conduct a special investigation. drork 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearing up several issues

message: #Considering the controversy about the definition of Druz as Arabs, we'd better of say "Arab and Arabic speaking people that are not Jewish". The Druz may or may not be Arabs, but they definitely speak Arabic.
#Some of the 150,000 Palestinian Arabs who became Israeli citizens in 1952 were refugees who managed to return to their homes before the borders closed. By the way, I wonder if we should write "Palestinian and Bedouin Arabs", as the Bedouins often distinguish themselves from the Palestinians.
#"Occupied East Jerusalem" - let us do without the complicated discussion about the legal status of Jerusalem. Saying that East Jerusalem was unilaterlly annexed is quite enough in terms of supplying required information.
#It is improtant to emphasize the special status of the Druze.
#It is important to emphasize the special status of Jerusalemite Arabs.
#The regard of Israeli Arabs as an indiginous minority is a theory or a claim. It is not a fact. It is very hard to determine which of the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine is an immigrant from other parts of the Middle East, or a descendant of such an immigrant, and which of them is actually indigenous. This way or another, the conflict between Israel and its Arab citizens cannot be said to be the mere result of a universal phenomenon of tension between indigenous people and newly established authorities. The main cause of tension is the Israeli Arab conflict. drork 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with these points except the last.  It is not controversial amongst anthropologists that most Israeli Arabs have roots in Palestine from before the Zionists started arriving.  It is only controversial as a public debate created by political activists.  Your final sentence is obviously correct, but it leaves unanswered the question of what the root cause of the Israeli Arab conflict is. --Zerotalk 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits - explanations and justifications 

message: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795055.html
"The figures show that Arab towns are reluctant to collect city taxes from their residents."
"determination on the part of city officials. Officials at the Israeli ministries charge the clannish nature of Arab society means the town leaders aren't taking steps that would be unpopular in their social circles, for instance, demanding their relatives pay tax. "
Zeq 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important article  

message: The last four cases in this section aren't examples of Jewish citizens being killed! Perhaps theses cases should go under some section that deals with treason.  But if they're are no Jewish citizens killed, a case cannot be placed under this classification.  Also, for the section in general, I think that the choice should be made between providing verbose details of each case or providing brief summaries.  The other "kill" sections under Intercommunal Relations maintain more of a list format, and I think that, for consistency, this section should also be brought into list format.  However, I admit this isn't my area, so please respond to my suggestions.  Thanks.  The Behnam 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I'll try to see to it soon, unless someone else is willing to rewrite that paragraph. drork 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Citizens Killed by Ideologically-Motivated Israeli Arab Citizens

message: Shalom to Shamir1 and others, 
On 01:08, 22 December 2006 Shamir1 carried out an edit with the following comment: (Rv. The 12 Israeli Arabs were killed by Palestinians (please stop, Abu Ali)). I do follow events in Israel quite closely, and all the controvosies I have heard so far have been about whether it was "necessary" for the Israeli police to kill the 12 citizens (and one non-citizen). This is the first time I have heard the allegation that they were actually killed by Palestinians. I would appreciate it if Shamir1 or one of his friends would provide some evidence or references for this new (to me at least) allegation. Thanks Abu ali 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could Shamir1 really believe that?  Unbelievable.  Shamir1 should stop this blatant pov pushing. --Zerotalk 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a good quote and I tried to add it to the article, but someone reverted it on the grounds that there already is a citation of the Or commission in the section. I think that there is no prohibition on quoting from a document more than once and the quotes say different things. Could it be that the quote was deleted because it sheds too much light on the situation of Arabs in Israel? Abu ali 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2000 killings 

message: Jews and Arabs have lived in the area for long time. No one can claim to be the only indiginous people. 
New arrival: Many jews arrived during the last 150 years but so did arabs. Not all jews arrived in the last 150 years and not all arabs arrived during that time. But many from both sides did. Zeq 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many Jews and Arabs were in Palestine 150 years ago? Does anyone have a link to the figures. Perhaps these should be incorporated into the article? Abu ali 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is some in Palestine but watch out for the junk like quotations from Katz. --Zerotalk 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: of course not. but then neither are the jews Abu ali 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite correct. It is poorly source POV-pushing intended to make a point. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to miss the point, the sentence says that "this can be regarded in the context of indigenous/minority..." (slash meaning and/or). This means _not_ that all palestinians are indigenous. Read the sentence again with fresh mind and/or read []. --Magabund 10:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully understand the point of all your edits, Magabund. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just say that WP:SOAP? Seeing something "in the context of" means not "this is it". Should be not so hard to understand concept. --Magabund 09:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiginous ? 

message: Hi (or should I say Shalom),
I added a sentence to the effect that there has never been an arab minister in any Israeli government. I think that this is significant. Arabs make up 20% of the population but 0% of the cabinette. This sentence has been removed a number of times on the (in my opinion) rather weak grounds that it is WP:OR. This is not original research, and is an uncontroversial fact which is well known to anybody with even a superficial knowledge of Israeli society. Does anyone here dispute the fact that there has never been an Arab minister (not counting deputy ministers or Mizrachi Jews)? If so please give me just one counterexample. If not, the please reinstate the sentence into the article. Abu ali 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a verifiable reliable source for your original research. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that the MFO site is not a reliable source?  Or are you saying that you can't verify this information there?  --Zerotalk 09:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one Druze minister for a short period of time. It was Salah Tarif. By the way, Israeli Arabs make up 20% of the population only if you include the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as Israeli territories. Otherwise they are 16% of the population. drork 09:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dror, thanks for the correction. I'll correct the article Abu ali 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when you correct the article, please do not use polemics like "although... only one...". State facts, without editorializing. WP is not a Soapbox. Isarig 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig giving orders and telling me how to write and what to write. What a suprise....not! Abu ali 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the further original research. We list what we know, not what we guess at. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Jayjg, you can't just lable everything you don't like as original research. And as you seem to be concerned enought about Israel to write hear, maybe it is time you learned some of the stuff you don't know. Abu ali 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read WP:NOR. You can't come to your own conclusions about these things, you need to cite sources making these claims. This is basic, fundamental policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Original research is anything and everything that you can't support using a verifiable secondary source. You can't personal go to a list of ministers, research it yourself to count how many ministers of this or that ethnicity there have been, and then post it to WP. Please read WP:NOR - as this is spelled out quote clearly. Incidentally, I would have expected that after you had blatantly violated WP:NOR by editing the article to say "no Arab ministers", based on incorrect personal research of the kind I have just described, and were found out to be WRONG about this OR, you'd exercise a little more humility here. Isarig 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not say it was you - I was responding to Abu Ali. There's no need to discuss my apporach - it is very very clearly spelled out in WP:NOR: Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.  The term indigenous, as used in the article, is not used in the source given in that form. Isarig 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think making comments like "See Talk, indeed - it's about time you actually contributed something there" is very helpful, particularly after I did just contribute something there.  However, you have not replied to the point that there only being one Muslim junior minister is now clearly backed by a reliable source, not original research. PatGallacher 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrot emy comment before I saw your edits to the Talk page, which you added only after you reverted my edits with a "See Talk" summary - I looked and talk and saw you had nothing there. To your comment: The WSJ article you have linked to is a for-pay article, so I can't verify it says what you claim, but the part I can see shows it is a an editorial by a pro-Palestinian advocate - hardly a NPOV source. Isarig 19:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please use reliable sources for these claims, sources that can be checked, and please realize that if your reverts keep re-inserting POV language like "This is recognised by the Israeli establishment", whatever that is supposed to mean, they will be reverted out of hand. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but any good material reveted in an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a zionist propoganda website may well be restored.Abu ali 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it ? btw. I suggest that to find balance between Jayjg and Abu ali we could phrase the sentence something like "...and at least one has served as cabinet minister". As it seems that you cannot agree whether there has been one or more. --Magabund 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have a reference from  from the Israeli Mistry of Foreign affairs which confirms that he was the first "non jewish" minister in Israel's history. And there are enough editors on this page who follow the Israeli media to confirm that there have been no ministers since. Salach Tarif was incidenly minister without portfolio, i.e. a minister without a minstry. Abu ali 10:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Arab Ministers: [[WP:OR]]? 

message: Hi 
Zerotalk suggested adding the following quote from the Or commision. Iadded it to the descrimination section and it was deleted 3 times on spurious grounds. What do you people have to hide? Abu ali 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is "Examples of discrimination". What examples are given there? Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is titled "Descrimination". The quote from the Or commission, gives a clear overview of the existence of discrimination against Arabs. Is this the reason for your repeated attempts to delete the text? Abu ali 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How strange; after you changed the title, I didn't remove the information, but merely NPOVd the text around it, yet you reverted anyway, insisting I was still deleting the text. Could you please avoid blind reverts? Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake. I apologiseAbu ali 09:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Or commision quote repeatedly deleted, why? 

message: Arabs in Israel do much better than Arabs in Arab countries. Arab Israelis have equal rights. There ar even Israeli arabs abd palestinians even from the West Bank and Gaza working in Israel.There are Arabs [even some  israeli arabs, who are anti Israeli] in the Knesset. Arabs have equal voting rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dendoi (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a lot to do. For example it has a lot to do with the wish of the israeli arabs to remain Israeli citizens even when they have the ability to become Palestinian or other nations citizens. they have a complex relationship with Zionism and Israel in part because they, of all arabs, know the benfits of living in a westren style democrcay. Zeq 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard Israel supporters say "Arabs are treated like dirt in their own countries. Why should we treat them any better?" Abu ali 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard Arab citizens of Israel say "All Zionist must be pushed into the sea". Not sure how either is relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one who raised the arab countries quote. But I have heard it often, mainly used as a justification for the way arabs are treated in israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu ali (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean as better citizens who get full rights without many duties ? Amoruso 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, Abu Ali says "I have heard Israel supporters say "Arabs are treated like dirt in their own countries. Why should we treat them any better?"" What does that have to do with anything? Should a source be removed because you heard someone say that? Has that comment affected one's political rights or freedoms? Please, stay on topic. --Shamir1 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, I dont want to step into your war, but removed OR quote about this being a "fact" that arabs in israel are more free than any other arabs. The source does not support such conjecture. It just has a country index by some criterion. Yes, I live also in a "free" country by that index, but this is not to say that I'm better of or this is a "fact" or smth. --Magabund 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It compares Israel to other countries.  It is your OR to claim the the overall level of freedom experienced by Israelis in general is true for Israeli Arabs in particular.  This is a well-debated question.  Your source does not appear to mention Israeli Arabs at all. --Zerotalk 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out the reference to the chart, as it says nothing at all about Israeli Arabs. Since Shamir was determined to have the Freedom House material about the Israeli Arabs included in the lead but wasn't having much success giving an accurate summary of it, I have replaced his summary with a direct quotation of the main point it makes about the Israeli Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  best off Arabs