Talk:Neve Shalom

Untitled

what's the wisdom of translating the name to English? You don't do that to names!! Besides, it is a small village, what it does in the category: Cities in Israel? --Nitsansh 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neve Shalom ~ Wahat al-Salam is the name we consistently use for our village at home. The American Friends of Neve Shalom ~ Wahat al-Salam tend to use the translation "Oasis of Peace" or "The Oasis of Peace" as being easier for Americans to get their tongue around. How Wikipedia pundits prefer to list it is of no significance to us, as long as the links lead to it.

Regarding the transliteration of the Arabic name, we continue to use "al-Salam" in our English language literature, just because someone originally thought that was how it should be spelled, and it stuck. Standard transliteration rules for Arabic call for a spelling that is based on actual pronunciation, rather than a direct transliteration of written Arabic. -- nswas.org webmaster, -- Howardshippin.

October 8, 2012: I was just asked about this again, after someone changed the Wikipedia name to "Neve Shalom". The only thing I can add to what I said previously, as a resident of the village and as the person responsible for its web site, is that we ourselves made the decision a while back to switch the name around in our official literature, to be "Wahat al-Salam ~ Neve Shalom", precisely in order to reassert the Arabic version of the name.

We aren't responsible for Wikipedia; we can only mention our preferences. I see that if I do a search for Sam Clemens in Wikipedia, I reach a page with the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Clemens and if I do a search for Mark Twain I reach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain, but that these are the same article. Isn't it possible to do something like that for our village's name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardshippin (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Name change

I'm requesting a move from Oasis of Peace to Neve Shalom, being as it seems to be more likely that someone searching for the place would use that formulation. This was reinforced when I ran a Google test: "Oasis of Peace" + Shalom returned 14,900 hits while "Neve Shalom" + Salam returned 60,700. "Oasis of Peace" + Israel returned 37,300, though many were erroneous, and "Oasis of Peace" + Salam returned 10,700. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do no think that this move sould be made. But to facilitate the move if anyone wishes to make it, I will remove the blocking edit which prevents an ordinary user makeing the move. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question on my talk page. IMHO The redirect take care of other names and as the two communities in the area have different names for the place, using the English translation covers two policies WP:NPOV and WP:NC. Recently the page "Liancourt Rocks" was moved to "Dokdo" the Korean name for the rocks. The Japanese name for the rocks is "Takeshima". In a WP:RM vote just over a year ago to stop the squabble over the name to use the English name, but in an ambush attack the Koreans managed to cease control of the name in a survey which not one Japanese expressed an opinion. So now it is open NPVO war on the place. Just have a look at at the talk pages! Believe me you are better off improving the article than changing the name which could easily spark an endless argument over what the article should be called. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

How can it be that in an article on a tiny Israeli village dedicated to Jewish-Arab reconciliation, there is no attempt to break down the population figures into the numbers of Jews and of non-Jewish Arabs? Are there 198 Jews and two non-Jewish Arabs? (And are these Arabs Druze, Christian, or what would be much more significant, Muslims?) Or are there no non-Jewish Arabs at all, so that we just have some Jews talking to each other? Or is it 50% each, or what? The question is certainly relevant given the alleged purpose of the community, and is even more relevant given that the Jewish activists in the "Peace Now" movement on the Israeli side have numbered in the hundreds of thousands, while there has not been even a quietist Palestinian "Peace Now" movement at all, and the few courageous peace activists on the Palestinian side who might occasionally raise their voices are routinely condemned as "collaborators" and "traitors" by the P.A. government and are imprisoned if not killed. Are the non-Jews in this village (if any) Israeli Arabs who link up with Palestinians and seek to promote peace there too, or are they linked just with other Israeli Arabs and try to promote peace internally in Israel (also a worthy and necessary goal), or are these Israeli Arabs quietistic and non-activist in the wider communities they represent? Are they religious or non-religious themselves? Are they let us say very unrepresentative Communists who already join with Jewish Communists in Hadash? And how about the Jews in this community - are they anti-Zionists and leftists from the fringes of Israeli society or more centrist and even include those on the right? Are they religious or secularist? I am struck by what the article just forgets to discuss, topics which happen to touch on the essential issues at the heart of its alleged purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.237.116 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

article name

Wikipedia should follow the name used consistently by the subject community, both in their websites and their literature. They would not wish to prioritise one language over another. Accordingly, I have restored the name which has been stable since 2008. --NSH001 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I also thought the name shift odd, but looking at the editor, who has a fine record in my memory, I left it thus thinking some consensus debate must have determined a change. My thought was:'If there is indeed a policy ground for this (one name), exceptions should be made for cases like this because the dual naming the community uses has an intentional purpose underwritten by Israelis and Palestinians there. One name on either side would break that parity.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I moved it is that we don't do joint names for things even if they have different names in different languages (for example Lucerne–Luzern). We do also not use what a community wishes (hence why we have Ivory Coast and Burma, not Cote d'Ivoire and Myanmar). Instead we use what is most common in English, and here it's fairly clear that this is Neve Shalom. Looking at the English language media in Israel we find:

Haaretz has 9,410 hits for Neve Shalom and 8 for Wahat as-Salam

Jerusalem Post has 1,050 vs 190

Times of Israel has 12 vs 1

Ynetnews has 50 vs zero

Also, we should definitely not be using "Wāħat as-Salām" in an article title - words transliterated from Arabic should not have diacritics. Number 57 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You happen to be wrong. Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, to think of the first off the top of my head is there because the place has two identities.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

From memory that article has a horrendous story behind it, and the joint name was a one-off compromise that satisfied no-one after years of edit warring. I don't think that's needed here. Number 57 18:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it has, so does the area. You go there and it's happened that using Italian in a shop, you can get a dumb look, hands in the air, and, in German, 'Ich verstehe nicht'. As you move to the door, grumbling "che stronzo!", not unusually the chap will shout at you:"Va fanculo!"

In any case, others are El Paso-Juarez, Aoraki / Mount Cook, Vitoria-Gasteiz for example. It's the ' "we" (wikipedia) don't do dual terms' that worries me. Wikipedia does accommodate situations like this. As for the analysis of Israeli sources, that's systemic bias, since the descriptor in Israeli journalese is for a Hebrew readership, whereas Neve-Shalom/Wahat as-Salaam is what the place is actually called by the people who live there. I suspect if you checked the Arabic Israeli press the nomenclature would go the other way.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at, and ponder, List of double placenames. That the community adopted this double-barrelled usage was in defiance of the ethnocentrism in toponyms that I have analysed in the essay on my talkpage, which gives a substantial amount of documentation from Israeli sources as to why we should be sensitive to the issue, and respect the terminology self-identifier of those who live there.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I specifically went for the English language press - the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel don't even have Hebrew versions. The List of double placenames just seems to largely a list of places that have merged into one and have double barrelled names as a result. The only town I could find on there that would be similar to this is Vitoria-Gasteiz. The article claims this is its official name. However, the official name of this location appears to be Neve Shalom. But anyway, a requested move is probably the best way to solve this. Number 57 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but Haaretz and Ynet do, and, as I have often had occasion to advise them after reading articles, they translate most of their articles from Hebrew, and it shows idiomatically, so statistically they don't count. If you wish to give more credibility to a government brochure than to the folks who live there, well. . . .If as NSH001 says the dual name has been stable since 2008, the onus for requesting a move from its stable form to the one you prefer lies on you, surely? Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, well if they don't count then the other two (Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel) still do and they were fairly overwhelmingly in favour of NS. And yes, I think the central government definitely has more of a say on what the "official" name of the place is as opposed to the residents. As for where it should be moved from, well it was originally at this title, but I don't think the moved had been spotted by many (the Mateh Yehuda template link hadn't even been fixed), but if someone does want to move it back to the joint title before an RM, just don't do it with the diacritics. Sadly I suspect any discussion will get flooded with the usual unpleasant I-P crowd with easily predicatable voting patterns and will result in stalemate. Number 57 21:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, that I don't have much time for editing Wikipedia (let alone extended discussion) for the time being. Strange that a community whose raison d'être is to promote reconciliation and understanding could produce this sort of disagreement. Re transliteration from Arabic, as usual there are numerous possible permutations, including using (or not) diacritics. As far as I am aware, no general consensus has ever been established (see WT:AMOS for example), but the question of which particular transliteration to choose is relatively unimportant. However, what is important is that one language should not be prioritised over another; this holds both as a general principle, and even more so in this case, given the purpose of the community. --NSH001 (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to move again, but I can't believe you've moved it to a title that include a tilde. Please fix this ASAP. Number 57 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. One can debate the possible transliterations (of which the community use several), but they do use the tilde, which I also happen to think is quite elegant, and emphasises the unity of the community. --NSH001 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that "emphasises the unity of the community" is a valid argument for using a non-standard character? All I can see on their website is hyphens and slashes. Number 57 14:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, contrary to what you state, the tilde is a standard ASCII character (7E), present on all standard English keyboards. There is nothing I can see on WP:TITLE forbidding the use of the tilde. As for the choice of transliteration, I used the version of the name I am familiar with, from the community's literature in my possession - they use the tilde consistently throughout all the literature, and also on their UK site. --NSH001 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Neve Shalom ~ Wahat al-Salam → Neve Shalom – In the discussion above, there are seemingly two arguments for having a joint name - (1) that it would be what the residents want, and (2) that we have one or two other places with joint names. I don't believe that either are sufficient to override WP:COMMONNAME.

Even if this isn't successful, I hope that at least we can remove the use of the tilde in the current title. Number 57 14:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Number, I won't participate on this, since my views are clear here, and I'd prefer that whatever decision is taken, be taken by the wider community without I/P editors like myself getting involved and making this look like a partisan tussle. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• oppose for the reasons stated in the section above. In addition, I believe it satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, but even if that were not the case, the need for neutrality takes priority. --NSH001 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support I absolutely oppose the use of the tilde here, which is inappropriate both by Wikipedia's naming conventions and general English usage. It would appear from both coverage in reliable sources and common sense (the community is in Israel) that the Hebrew name is the best choice for the article. But Wahat al-Salam would also be a great improvement over the status quo. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change again

User:Jenks24 closed for a change. I was out of action for the last month, and in the meantime the wider community (i.e., non I/P old hands) input one looked forward to was not forthcoming except for one vote. Really, it is 2/2. I've discussed this with the closing admin here, and while I have a high regard for the time and intelligence Jenks has extended me to explain his reasoning, I'm not sure that the move on such a delicate issue reflects the kind of discussion such a challenge to the village's own name for itself, which declares by the double name, neutrality vis-a-vis the polemical either/or world of most reportage on that area, warrants.

and apropos, can someone explain what has happened to formatting. Everytime I edit, I have a window which refuses to provide me any longer with markup options.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I did drop a line to the community to ask them what their thoughts were about the change which has now been adopted. While I think Philip Beard Shearer's suggestion above 'Oasis of Peace', back in 2006, still has much to recommend it, I'll repost here what Howard Shippin has now kindly informed editors about the village perspective, by repasting a copy of his comment below:-

October 8, 2012: I was just asked about this again, after someone changed the Wikipedia name to "Neve Shalom". The only thing I can add to what I said previously, as a resident of the village and as the person responsible for its web site, is that we ourselves made the decision a while back to switch the name around in our official literature, to be "Wahat al-Salam ~ Neve Shalom", precisely in order to reassert the Arabic version of the name.

We aren't responsible for Wikipedia; we can only mention our preferences. I see that if I do a search for Sam Clemens in Wikipedia, I reach a page with the URL Sam Clemens and if I do a search for Mark Twain I reach Mark Twain, but that these are the same article. Isn't it possible to do something like that for our village's name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardshippin (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I take responsibility for what happened. Jenks had absolutely no way of knowing the two reasons behind my decision not to directly participate in the vote, aside from the fact that my objections to a name change were raised earlier on and, as per procedure, he did what procedure required and tallied Number57's proposal with BDD's support and concluded that it was 2 vs.1. So the formal protocols were observed, though the actual on-page facts show that there were two opposes, vs a proposal which garnered just one external support vote. There is therefore nothing to be said to put in doubt the impeccable propriety of the procedure, which was just. There is ground I believe for eventually asking for a formal review, as opposed to the informal reconsideration I canvassed with the admins. If this is done, I hope my (retrospectively considered) folly of abstaining out of scruple, so that the wider community would discuss and judge the merits of the proposal and objections (an aspiration not fulfilled), will be, if not approved, at least understood as a sign that I prefer these things in the I/P area to be thrashed out by input from absolutely neutral parties.--Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Palestinian" in the article

An IP recently changed all references to "Palestinian" (and some of "Palestinian Arab") in the article to just "Arab". This was reverted by NSH001, and I then counter-reverted as the IP's edits seem to make sense.

The existing usage of "Palestinian" confusing to readers because many would automatically assume we are talking about Palestinians (e.g. in the sentence "came from both Jewish and Palestinian members of the village"). However, the residents in question are actually Israeli Arabs. Therefore I believe that just leaving it as "Arab" is an improvement to the article.

Perhaps more importantly, the phrase is frequently used alongside "Jewish" (in reference to the other main group of residents), so we are talking in terms of ethnicity rather than nationality. The two phrases should match each other (Jewish/Arab rather than Jewish/Palestinian).

Can we please discuss this without resorting to using capital letters? Number 57 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This will have to be a very brief response, as I have to go in a few minutes. The main point is that they self-identify as "Palestinian", and we should respect that. I do take the point that you made in your edit summary, and left your change in the lead, which is also stylistically neater. But, I repeat, it is not for us to erase their Palestinian identity. See also my response to your message on my talk page. --NSH001 (talk)

It is not about erasing Palestinian identity or respecting opinions, but rather about finding an appropriate way of wording the article so as not to confuse readers. As I said above, we do not refer to the Jewish residents of the village by their nationality, so we should not do the same to the Arab residents - it doesn't match. Number 57 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've changed the bilingual name, preferred by the kibbutz, (and discussed there) to an Israeli one, and now you want to elide 'Palestinian'). Have you some problem here? I don't think the elision of Palestinian Arab for Israeli Arab is any improvement either. According to the polls I've read there is a rising majority of Israeli Arabs who perceive their identity as Israeli/Palestinian. They are sons of Palestine before they are 'Arabs' (a very vague ethnonym, and much preferred by Israelis who are uncomfortable with Palestinians). I doubt any reader is confused. To the contrary, they will be 'enlightened' more than they otherwise would be by the default conservative right wing preferred term 'Israeli Arabs'. They are, by descent, Palestinian Arabs, and that specific identity, from formal and informal sources, is important there, as it is to the Jewish members who are doing important work bridging the two communities. You appear to wish to erase any trace of this tradition in the village.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

http://oasisofpeace.org/ ne-vè shal-om / waah-at i-sal-aam Hebrew and Arabic for Oasis of Peace [Isaiah 32:18] A village, jointly established by Jewish and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, that is engaged in educational work for peace, equality and understanding between the two peoples. http://nswas.org Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet again my point is being ignored. Why is a national term being used for one group of people ("Palestinian") but the ethnic term for the others ("Jews")? I do not wish to erase anything - the Arab residents would still be described as Arab residents. There are also other Jews of other nationalities, but the article does not refer to the residents as "Israeli Jews" every time they are mentioned. Number 57 19:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is ignoring your point. You are ignoring the points raised by the village, its spokesman Howard Shippin (see above), and its official sources. You are arguing abstractly and not according to sources, and in doing so, are pushing a POV. 'Jews' by the way is not an ethnic term. Falasha are Jews, so are Inca Jews, a third of Russian immigrants (300,000)are 'Jews' in one sense, but not ethnically. One could erase 'Arab' and simply write Palestinian Israelis, and Israelis, if you prefer. No problem. Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The wishes of the villagers is immaterial. If we paid attention to what residents wanted, we wouldn't describe Israeli settlements as such, yet we do because that is what is factually correct. Using "Palestinian Israelis", and "Israelis" is just farcical because the latter term covers the former. "Palestinian Israelis" is again a confusing term as it suggests dual nationalities. Number 57 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You created the problem. Sources are against you. Settlers are Israeli by self-definition, which appears to have escaped you. Our term is the same as theirs.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How did I create the problem? And the sources are not "against" me. The sources you refer to are the villagers' own, and as I pointed out, their views are immaterial. If we look at third party sources such as the BBC, LA Times, Chicago Tribune or the Guardian, they refer only to Jewish and Arab residents, whilst "Palestinian" is used to refer to the Palestinians. Number 57 21:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's go about this methodically.

Your argument from the beginning is that people who set up a village and give it a name, cannot have that name used on wikipedia. We must determine the name according to its official name.

I think the central government definitely has more of a say on what the "official" name of the place is as opposed to the residents.

Well Neve Shalom is all, or in part, in no man's land, neither in Israel or the West Bank, though claimed by both. Even Israel's law courts can't determine whether it is Israeli or non-Israeli land (two judgements from memory Judge Ron's (2005) and another reversing it (2009). It is located in the notorious Latrun salient. So, technically, wikipedia cannot give it an official designation, and does well to keep out of the dispute by accepting the double identity of its founders and community, which the Israeli government challenges by calling just Neve Shalom, with no other authority than the fiat of law applied to a land whose national status is not yet juridically determined in international law. So neither what Israel prefers or what Palestinians in the occupied West Bank think is anything more than POV pushing. It is uniquely in an area that, though occupied in 1967, was before then, neither part of Israel nor Jordan. This fact itself messes up any POV pushing that gives an advantage to either side. And that is why the only neutral way to designate it is by self-designation- all other terms represent a claim by outsiders. Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit summary (Undid revision 571551788 by Nishidani (talk) This is in keeping with the fact not all Arab citizens of Israel are "Palestinian". The more inclusive term is preferred) by someone who can't have found this page except by a tip-off or following me here explains nothing ('is preferred' by whom?), and I regard it as the kind of behaviour that is deliberatvely disruptive, since, in addition, there was no attempt even to reply to the points raised here.Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Going back to your first response, we are not talking about the name of the village here, we are talking about phrasing used to describe the residents. You insist that "all other terms represent a claim by outsiders" - this simply isn't true. The only "outsiders" with a claim to the area are Israel, the Palestinian government and potentially Jordan. The sources I provided are media based in the UK and US (some of whom are known for their pro-Palestinian stance). As for inferring that the editor in question has been canvassed off-wiki, I suggest you retract that. There are a lot of tenditious editors in this area of Wikipedia, but I do not stoop to their level. Number 57 08:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jordan has no legal or historic claim to the area. I did not say you canvassed off-wiki, and from your past record I would challenge anyone who argued that, since, as far as I remember, your behaviour as a wikipedian has always been correct. The person who reverted my edit is notorious for jumping into contentious pages without troubling to even following the talk page, to make a preferred POV revert. He followed, I guess, my contribs. Both you, and NS and myself have long bookmarked this page. The point is, without prior discussion you made an edit, which both NS100 and I contested. The edit you made was controversial. We are discussing it on this talk page. Intrusive preemptive POV pushing to retain the edit is inappropriate, and properly, no alteration to the page from the way it stood before your edit should take place until some consensus is achieved. That is why the page must be restored to the earlier state. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the third response in which you have failed to acknowledge that I've provided sources which describe the residents as Jewish and Arab. Why are we not discussing that? Number 57 10:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Because earlier you ignored the widespread evidence from newspaper sources (Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, New York Times, Guardian, BBC) that designate the place as Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, by arguing what counted was the official Israeli view. With that, now you emphasize these sources when they appear to refer to the designation of Arabs as Israeli Arabs and not Palestinians, to make a further POV tilt. In all of this methodological cherrypicking and chopping, you switch reasons according to the one coherent point your various attempts to modify the page underline: that the descriptive language should be modelled on the default Israelocentric bias you share. So, I don't take this at all seriously. It alters the criteria for judgement according to the result desired. And as to ignoring, you've ignored virtually everything, in this thread and earlier ones, that your interlocutors have argued, or brushed it aside as not what interests you. I would be happy to see this page written to reflect the realities on the ground, which are, in the philosophical foundations of that settlement, neutral or equidistant to politics. You are not: what its founders think, and what its community is happy to underwrite, is, for you, irrelevant nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got that completely the wrong way round. I was the one who provided evidence from those sources (except the Guardian and the BBC were not even mentioned until this discussion, and the New York Times until you mentioned it just now - are you perhaps thinking of a separate debate you've been involved in elsewhere?) about the name of the village - see my post in this section at 18:48 on 29 August 2012. You were the one who said we shouldn't be using sources like Haaretz, claiming it was "systemic bias". Number 57 11:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither newspaper sources nor an administrating power can be definitive in such a geographically and politically distinctive situation as this. Its 'official' name is as all of its relevant documents, and signs, indicate, and attempts to pull the community one way or another in the I/P battle counter its whole design and purpose. This is what your two proposals insist on doing, under the name of 'officialdom'.

The article claims this is its official name. However, the official name of this location appears to be Neve Shalom.

This is deceptive. The Israeli government writes underneath 'Neve Shalom' 'Neveh Shalom, or Wahat al Salaam, is the first Jewish–Arab settlement in Israel.' No evidence. Just Israeli official shorthand., clarified in the details.

I think the central government definitely has more of a say on what the "official" name of the place is as opposed to the residents.

The 'official' name which underpinned your ovcerthrow of the earlier consensus, stable for 4 years, was what Israeli tourist brochures, and 'the central government' determined in your view. That was not an argument. I have official Israeli brochures that say Israel is all of Palestine. And secondly, the area happens to be governed by Israel, but technically, is not yet in Israel in international law, just as it is not in 'Palestine'. So there is no ground for preferring the administrative power's term over its actual name, unless one prefers the 'official' Israeli perspective to be showcased. As to evidence from newspaper sources, aside from systemic bias and Israeli newspaper shorthand (Neve Shalom to avoid using the neutral nomenclature proper to this distinctive community), that goes both ways. All major news sources have and do use the double nomenclature. Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion is not about the name, it's about something completely different. You seem to be avoiding the actual topic, or when you do focus on it, making false accusations about what has been said or done in the past (an apology or acknowledgement that what you said above about ignoring newspaper sources was completely untrue would be welcomed by the way). Number 57 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am calling you for cherry picking sources to make a point, on each occasion. Of the four newspapers you cite for Israeli Arab, three actually have referred to that village by its dual name. When you wished to remove the Arab name of the town you selected sources for that perspective. When you wish now to remove 'Palestinian' you select sources that use 'Israel Arab' even though those newspapers happen often to use Neve Shalom -- Wahat al-Salam. So you are scrounging for whatever you need to repress any hint that the terminology favoured by the village, for its name, or its Israeli-Palestinian moiety, contradict the 'official' terms favoured by the administrative power over a village in no man's land. POV pushing, in short.

• You cite the BBC for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4921770.stm Israeli Arab/Neve Shalom

But

• Hugh Sykes BBC News - Small steps for peace still forged in Mid-East BBC News 11 December 2010 (mentions on a BBC that the village’s name is dual:’But does the children's experience at Neve Shalom/Wahat al Salaam endure? ‘ And the village spokesman interviewed on the incident is reported as saying:'These crimes are a direct continuation of incitement waged by ministers and lawmakers against Palestinian citizens of Israel," said Ahmad Hijazi, director of the School for Peace, which runs programs from the village. "Now this is spilling over to target the left wing too," Hijazi said.

2) You quote 'Oasis of Peace' Israeli village targeted by vandals June 8, 2012 But that LATimes article Has ‘Israeli village’ in the header and underneath ‘Arab and Jewish residents living together in the village of Neve Shalom -- Wahat al-Salam ("Oasis of Peace") awoke Friday to find the community had been vandalized overnight..’

• 3) Tom Hundley Arabs, Jews Coexist Under Glare Of War Chicago Tribune February 19, 1991 (Well no evidence there but it comes from 1991. Barrel scraping the past to 'update' this 2013 revision?)

• 4)Virginia Quirke Storms of war torment the hilltop oasis of serenity The Guardian October 29, 2000 for Israeli Arab, so poorly written by the way it confuses Arabic with Arab (40 families, 20 Israeli and 20 Arabic,)

But

• David Hirsh, Breaking Down the wall Guardian 22 June 2006 writes of the Roger Waters concert:

He's playing in Israel today. He was originally planning a Tel Aviv gig but he came under pressure from the boycott campaign. Instead of cancelling, he has moved the venue to Neve Shalom/Wahat al Salam, a village, in between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, called in English "Oasis of Peace". This village was founded jointly by Jewish and Palestinian Arab peace campaigners to educate for peace and to live in a mixed community.

I've plenty more but the cherrypicking and selective emphasis in these dual operations is patent. The BBC, the Guardian, the LATimes you cite for 'Israeli Arab' also call the place by its dual name, which contradicts your earlier arguments, and the two are intimately interwoven, not distinct issues. You appear to be trying to 'israelize' what is a near unique experiment in cross-national identity and coexistence, where not one, but two cultural and national identities have equal weight and are shared. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, can you please indent your comments properly - you're making it very difficult to read. I also note that you are still not acknowledging the false accusations you made above (and where the New York Times comment even came from). But anyway, as for cherrypicking, you seem to be using a direct quote from Ahmad Hijazi to show how the media describe things - that's not how it works. As for accusing me of barrel scraping (re the Chicago Tribune source), I just used the media stories that came up first in a Google search. And in case you have misunderstood, I am not making any claims for "Israeli Arab" - I have not cited the sources for "Israeli Arab" as you claim to be, but just for "Arab" (see my comment at 21:40 on 4 September 2013 - no mention of "Israeli"). You just seem to be desperately obfuscating the discussion by conflating the naming issue into this completely separate issue, as well as resorting to making personal attacks (alongside false accusations) about my motivations. Number 57 12:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see you reading my arguments accurately and you say the same of myself regarding yours. For those who follow closely the scholarship on Israeli identity, there has been a decided shift since 1991 (Chicago Tribune article) in the way the Israel's Palestinian Arabs perceive themselves. That's the first thing I note when sources like that are used: lack of attention to details. You think I am obfuscating the discussion. I note simply that you have twice entered the page to challenge language that, on each occasion, no one for years found problematical. The two interventions have only one logical explanation, your editorial preference to rid the page of anything but terms that reflect an Israeli perspective, which I regard, if true, as particularly obtuse, permit the term, for an article on a village which is formally dedicated since its foundation to overcoming both Israeli and Palestinian (and Arab) prejudice, often by attention to language (in its classes). It was a grievous distortion introduced, with lousy argumentation, an extremely exiguous contribution by outside wikipedians, with a razor edge majority (only because I, out of misspent delicacy or scruple, abstained from casting a vote) on the page that the Arab term is downgraded as a secondary (also) name when the village was founded in no man's land, on leased and ceded land, with the specific remit of giving no priority to either nation/culture/ethnos in the conflict. Whatever your motivations, the logic of your proposals is obvious, and it is distinctly POV pushing on an article which deals with a group of people who want to rise above the conflict, as, taking a leaf out of their book, I think we editors should try to do. So, that said, I hope the air is cleared. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you are resorting to snide personal accusations rather than sticking to the core content of the debate - claiming that I am attempting to "rid the page of anything but terms that reflect an Israeli perspective" and "POV pushing". The only thing I'm interested in is creating a factual and neutral encyclopedia. Pro-Israeli editors accuse of of being biased against Israel; pro-Palestinian editors accuse me of being biased against the Palestinians. The fact that I am accused of bias by both sides is a good sign (in my view at least) that I am actually one of the few editors left in this area who deem NPOV to be an important facet of editing. Number 57 20:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not making snide accusations, or accusations period. I am stating what I see as a small but consistent pattern of intervention that disturbs NPOV, and worse, goes against the values of self-definition of a mixed community that does not want to see itself defined in Israeli or Palestinian Arab terms, but in Israeli-Palestinian(Arab) terms. It exists as a tertium quid (the fact that it ios technically on no man's land is significant). If one wanted to be completely neutral, indeed, one could drop the national designations altogether and say it is run by Muslim, Jewish, Christian and secular people. That is fundamental, and in two edits you have devised a variety of objections in favour of Israelocentric terms. This in the face of the village's own terms, and in the face of wikipedia's pillar NPOV, which means, old chap, not to take sides. That doesn't mean one cannot add pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian material. It means that articles must be balanced, and this article has the funny task of describing a village that proclaims as its mission in life a communal (as opposed to individual) NPOV, which happens to correspond to wikipedia's ideal. As for compliance with NPOV, I reverted Ykantor, a Zionist editor but a promising one, because he entered recently information I believe injurious to Israel's historical record. I've done that often. I didn't vote in the earlier debate because I trusted my perception that you had been fairly neutral in the past. I see with the second edit you support, from an anonymous idea, that perhaps on this page, that might not be the case, perhaps because you fail to see the points someone like myself observes in your editorial choices. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are making accusations, as detailed above, and please don't patronise me by calling me "old chap". As for "one could drop the national designations altogether", that is what I have been trying to promote all along (i.e. using Jewish and Arab), whilst you have been insistent on keeping national designations (for one side) in the article. Number 57 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You made two proposals.

• Drop the double Hebrew-Arabic name for the Hebrew name alone, which you said was 'official'
• Use 'Israeli Arab', which is 'official,' instead of Israeli-Palestinian or variants which is the now dominant self-descriptor, and used by Arab villagers there as well. Arab is an ethnic designator, and it does not imply attachment to a territory, whereas 'Jewish' does imply attachment to Eretz Yisrael etc. 'Jew' is either ethnic or confessional, unlike 'Arab'. Bruno Hussar was an ethnic Jew who converted to Christianity, which is tantamount under Israeli law to losing one's rights as a Jew to become Israeli (Oswald Rufeisen). In some religious perspectives conversion to Christianity is understood as a renunciation of Jewishness. I'm not responsible for these horrible complications in our terminology, but they make me very wary of attempts at unifying terminology as if these broadbrush terms were precise. They aren't. Howard Shippin was or is a British Christian. His children are Jewish.

I.e. you are pushing the 'national (Israeli) designations' in violation of WP:NPOV - the no man's land was seized by Israel in 1967, and since administered by it - and the well-attested and carefully chosen descriptors used by the village itself and in many fine sources. You can't see that. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Either you have completely misunderstood this whole discussion, or you are deliberately twisting my words. I have never suggested using "Israeli Arab" - I only want the word "Arab" to be used in the article (see the very first part of this discussion "Therefore I believe that just leaving it as "Arab" is an improvement to the article."). Number 57 10:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I read everything in terms of what I know about the politics of self-definition, and in this instance, specifically what we read (though it is only a small source for what is known) at Arab citizens of Israel

How to refer to the Arab citizenry of Israel is a highly politicized issue and there are a number of self-identification labels used by members of this community.[14][15] Generally speaking, supporters of Israel tend to use Israeli Arab or Arab Israeli to refer to this population, while critics of Israel (or supporters of Palestinians) tend to use Palestinian or Palestinian Arab without referencing Israel.[16] According to the New York Times, most prefer now to identify themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel rather than as Israeli Arabs.[17] The New York Times uses both 'Palestinian Israelis'[18] and 'Israeli Arabs' to refer to the same population.'

So review what has been argued. I assumed you were familiar with this.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are trying to prove with the text above, but could you at least acknowledge that you made another false accusation in claiming that I was trying to use "Israeli Arab" in the article? Number 57 21:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to restart the discussion by (a) reminding you that all terms are complex in their nuances (b) we are dealing with Israeli Jews and Israeli (Palestinian) Arabs and that (c) your objection was 'The existing usage of "Palestinian" (is) confusing to readers because many would automatically assume we are talking about Palestinians (e.g. in the sentence "came from both Jewish and Palestinian members of the village"). However, the residents in question are actually Israeli Arabs.

I.e. you think readers must assume what you assume, that the word 'Palestinian' refers exclusively to Arabs in the Occupied Territories. The evidence is that most Israeli Arabs prefer to self-identify as 'Palestinian citizens of Israel' not as 'Arabs'. In other words, they have no problem with seeing themselves as Palestinians in Israel, but you prefer to call them just 'Arabs'. We are really splitting hairs over a few simple phrases, but I fail to see why think saying 'Israeli Jews' or 'Israeli (Arab) Palestinians' is troublesome. There is no policy involved here, just a personal feeling on your part. (It's no big deal to say that what you interpret as a 'false accusation' (no one argues in here, they all accuse, in certain eyes) was simply a momentary memory lapse, and is neither here nor there, nor worth personalizing as something of acrimonious or maliciously misrepresentative intent).Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Compare the usage of the most recent and important academic paper on this village. i.e.,Maria Chiara Rioli, 'A Christian Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bruno Hussar and the Foundation of ‘Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam’,' in Quest. Issues in Contemporary Jewish History, Journal of Fondazione CDEC", n.5 July 2013
• In 1970, after a long genesis, the joint Israeli and Palestinian experience of the village of ‘Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam’ (‘oasis of peace’) began.
• Palestinian Arabs who were hostile to the new-born Jewish state,
• Palestinian population belonging to the Latin Church
• The arrival of a new group of Israeli families of Jewish and Palestinian Arab origin
• The need to provide education to the children of the village, whether Jews, Muslims or Christians, Israelis or Palestinians,
• In 1984, the village consisted of about 70 members, half of them Jews, and half Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians.
• A year later, on 11 April 1987, 20,000 Israelis (both Jews and Palestinians) had gathered in NSWASNishidani (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read the article, and it appears that you have been cherrypicking what suits you and ignoring what doesn't. You conveniently omitted the following quotes from the article in your list above:

• "Jaffa, mostly populated by Arabs, had shown him the complex situation of the Arab population in Israel"
• "the social and political division between Arabs and Jews"
• "The difficulties for NSWAS to penetrate the Israeli Arab world"
• "the School for Peace was visited by about 8,000 young Jews and Arabs"
• "After visiting the School for Peace and participating in a work group of young Jews and Arabs"
• "The Center opened four ‘Yad b’Yad’ (Hand in Hand) schools in Israel, with the goal to promote education to Arab and Jewish children together"
• "he searched inside NSWAS between Jews and Arabs"

Could you explain why you left these quotes out? In the meantime I've started an RFC, specifically to get some outside input, as this is not a productive debate. Number 57 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is dealing with Neve Shalom. There is no shadow of a doubt that Palestinian identity is asserted by its Arab community and respect by its Israeli Jewish community.

In 1984, the village consisted of about 70 members, half of them Jews, and half Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians.

A year later, on 11 April 1987, 20,000 Israelis (both Jews and Palestinians) had gathered in NSWAS.

The essential point is that (a) the writer has no meta-discussion of these terms, whereas (b) the sources cited below do, and you have not produced one academic source focusing on the meta-analysis of these terms to disprove my proposal (c) the sources below specifically identify the terminology you advocate as part of a political programme by official Israeli government sources (d) if the article is about Neve Shalom, we should accept its explicit terms of self-address, which for the Arab community means a descriptor using 'Palestinian', the term you wish, as does the Israeli official line, to cancel from discourse.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're conveniently omitted two of the quotes above:

• "he searched inside NSWAS between Jews and Arabs"
• "The difficulties for NSWAS to penetrate the Israeli Arab world"

With regards to your "essential point", why did you even bring the paper up in the first place if it doesn't have the meta discussion you refer to? It looks like you're grasping at any straws you can get to try and argue your case - once one straw has been broken, you move to another. Number 57 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RS which analyse the terms under discussion above

• (1) Rebecca B. Kook, The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian citizens in Israel, Lexington Books, 2002. pp. 67–68

"The category of "Israeli Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities. As it indicates, this category assumes and constructs two levels of identity. The first is that of Arab. Local Palestinians who remained in what became Israel were designated as Arabs rather than Palestinians. This category refers to the realm of culture and ethnicity and not, clearly, politics. The official government intention was for the "Arab" to designate culture and ethnicity and the "Israeli" - to designate the political identity. [... In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector," or, in certain sectors the more cryptice 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."]

• (2) Rebecca L. Torstrick, The limits of coexistence: identity politics in Israel,University of Michigan Press, 2000 p. 13.

. "The indigenous Palestinians comprise 20 percent of the total population of Israel. While they were allowed to become citizens, they were distanced from the center of power because the Israeli state was a Jewish state and Israeli national identity incorporated Jewish symbols and referents. Government officials categorized and labeled them by religion (Muslims, Christians, Druze), region (Galilee Arab, Triangle Arab, Negev Bedouin), and family connections, or hamula (Haberer 1985, 145). In official and popular culture, they ceased being Palestinians and were re-created as Israeli Arabs or Arab citizens of Israel. Expressing Palestinian identity by displaying the flag, singing nationalist songs, or reciting nationalist poetry was illegal in Israel until only very recently. Self-identification as Palestinians, Israeli Palestinians, or Palestinian citizens of Israel has increased since 1967 and is now their preferred descriptor. It was only under the influence of the intifada, however, that many Israeli Palestinians felt secure enough to begin to refer to themselves publicly this way (as opposed to choosing the label Palestinian only in anonymous surveys on identity)."

• (3) Dan Rabinowitz, Khawla Abu Baker, Khawla,Coffins on our shoulders: the experience of the Palestinian citizens of Israel, University of California Press, 2005 p.43

"The Palestinians were included in the first population census in 1949 and were given the right to vote and be elected in the Knesset ... This notwithstanding, Israel also subjected them to a host of dominating practices. One was a discursive move involving the state's introduction of a new label to denote them: the hyphenated construct "Israeli Arabs" (Aravim-Yisraelim) or, sometimes "Arabs of Israel" (Arviyey-Yisrael).The new idiom Israeli Arabs, while purporting to be no more than technical, bureaucratic label, evidenced a deliberate design. A clear reflection of the politics of culture via language, it intentionally misrecognized the group's affinity with and linkage to Palestine as a territorial unit, thus facilitating the erasure of the term Palestine from the Hebrew vocabulary. The term puts "Israel" in the fore, constructing it as a defining feature of "its" Arabs. The Palestinians, already uprooted in the physical sense of the word, were also transformed into a group bereft of history."

• (4) Muhammad Amara, Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages, John Benjamins Publishing Company.1999 p. 1.

"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].

• (5) Dov Waxman, "A Dangerous Divide: The Deterioration of Jewish-Palestinian Relations in Israel". Middle East Journal, Winter 2012 66 (1): 11–29.

  Identifying the Arab minority as Palestinian has now become common practice in academic literature. This is because most Israeli citizens of Arab origin increasingly identify themselves as Palestinian, and most Arab NGOs and political parties in Israel use the label "Palestinian" to describe the identity of the Arab minority. My use of the term "Palestinian is in accordance with the self-identification of the majority of the Arab community in Israel."

• (6) Jodi Rudoren, 'Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens,ì New York Times 12 July 2012:

‘After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.’

• (7) Ilan Peleg, Dov Waxman, Israel's Palestinians: The Conflict Within, Cambridge University Press,2011 pp. 2–3 (note 4), 26–29.

"In numerous surveys conducted over many years, the majority of Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinian rather than 'Israeli Arab'.

• (8)Sherry Lowrance, "Identity, Grievances, and Political Action: Recent Evidence from the Palestinian Community in Israel". International Political Science Review, 2006. 27, 2: 167–190.

"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", indicating some degree of identification with Israel to "Palestinian," which rejects Israeli identification and wholeheartedly identifies with the Palestinian people. … According to the author's survey, approximately 66 percent of the sample of Palestinian Israelis identified themselves in whole or in part as Palestinian. The modal identity is "Palestinian in Israel", which rejects "Israeli" as a psychological identification, but accepts it as a descriptive label of geographical location.… The establishment-favoured "Israeli Arab" is the second-most popular response in the survey, reflecting its dominance in Israeli social discourse. About 37 percent of respondents identified themselves in some way as "Israeli", double-counting the "Israeli Palestinian" category as both "Israeli" and "Palestinian". Although much smaller than the percentage identifying themselves as Palestinian a nevertheless considerable number include "Israeli" as part of their identity, despite the hardships placed upon them by the Israeli state."

• (9)Asʻad Ganim,The Palestinian-Arab Minority in Israel, 1948-2000: A Political Study, SUNY Press 2001, pp.52-53 p.53

This civic affiliation with Israel and national affiliation with Palestinians is a hallmark of the stream’s attitude to the of the Palestinian minority in the 1980s. Unlike the late 1960s and 1970s, when they were conscious of a conflict and fissure in the Arabs’ identity, between the Israeli component and the Arab component, in the 1980s they postulated two affiliations-Israeli and Palestinian-Arab- which together constitute a single complex identity in which the two parts march together and work synergistically rather than overpowering the other. .Hence it was emphasized that the civic and legal affiliation was totally Israeli, while the emotional an national affiliation wa Palestinian-Arab.’

• (10) Daniel Lefkowitz,Words and Stones : The Politics of Language and Identity in Israel,Oxford University Press, 2004 p.15

When I phrased my topic in terms of “ethnicity,” . .Israelis took it to be historical in focus, and my interest in Palestinian Israelis was missed. “Ethnic” differences between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are widely felt to have disappeared, while Arab Israelis are not thought to participate in “Israeliness” enough to constitute an “ethnicity”- they are officially termed a “minority”.’… ‘Real Arab-Jewish relations occur in the Occupied Territories, not in Israel. Again, Palestinian Israelis were rendered invisible.’ p.15 (2) Three main social groups compete for an emergent Israeli identity: Palestinian-Arabs; Mizrahi, or Jews of Middle Eastern heritage; and Ashkenazim, of European heritage. P.16)

• (11) Neil Caplan, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories, Wiley-Blackwell 2011 section loaded terminology pp.16ff

‘other readers may have difficulty with my frequent references to “the Palestinians,” preferring instead to refer to these people as “Arabs,” consistent with their belief that there is no such thing as a separate Palestinian people who are entitled to a separate Palestinian political state.’

• (12) Muhammad Amara,'The Status of the Palestinians in Israel in an Era of Peace', in Alexander Bligh (ed.) The Israeli Palestinians:An Arab Minority in a Jewish State, Frank Cass/Routledge 2003 pp.243ff.,p.270

'As for the definition of individual and collective identity of the Palestinians in Israel (they were allowed only to choose among predefined options), in both cases most chose an identity that includes 'Israel' in some form. With regard to their personal identity 75.2 per cent chose a definition that includes 'Israel'; when it came to the collective identity of the Palestinians in the country, the figure was 76.2 per cent'p.269

Israeli Palestinian Arab descriptors.

Name	Individual identity	Group identity
1. Palestinian	4.9	4.9
2. Arab	11.5	9.9
3. Israeli	13.1	11.7
4.Palestinian Arab	8.4	8.9
5.Israeli Palestinian Arab	38.1	23.8
6.Israeli citizen Palestinian Arab	34.0	40.8
Total	100.0	100.0

• (13) David McDowall, Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond, University of California Press, 1991 p.153

However, certain political characteristics have been developing among the Palestinians which are likely to prove more durable and significant in the long run than present party affiliations. The first is the steady growth of Palestinian identity since the mid-1970s. In 1976, according to surveys by the Jewish Israeli, Dr Sammy Smooha, only 46 per cent described their identity in Palestinian terms, whereas by 1980 the proportion had risen to 55 per cent. The significance of these figures is in the relative growth of this Palestinian sense of identity, rather than the actual percentage, for many would have been cautious in affirming Palestinan identity to Haifa University interviewers. In 1982 a Palestinian psychologist, Nadum Rouhana, found that 74 per cent of his sample of adults defined their identity in Palestinian terms. Among young adults (18-25) the figure rose to 80 per cent. Furthermore, while most described themselves as Palestinian-Arab, among those who chose alternative descriptions more opted for the identity 'Palestinian' than 'Arab'. Only 18 per cent, according to Rouhana, identify themselves as Israeli Arab, compared with 38 per cent in the 1980 Smooha survey. What precisely does being an Israeli Palestinian Arab mean? The answer provided by the Rouhana survey indicates that out of eight categories – homeland, Palestinian people, Arab nation, Arabs in Israel, class, religion, family and Israel – attachment to the ‘homeland’ (meaning Palestine) outweighs all others, even attachment to the Palestinian people.

• (14) M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami, A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict:1897-2008, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers ‎2009 p.227

Presently, there are approximately 1.3 million Palestinian Israeli citizens in Israel, constituting nearly 20 percent of the country’s total population. The status of this group remains ambiguous, as an Arab minority within a Jewish state. Given this circumstance, the very terms that are used in reference to this group are politically charged. TThe Israeli National Security Council refers to members of this group as “Arab citizens of Israel,” while members of this group often use the word “Palestinian” in their self-descriptions, with many adopting the term “Palestinian citizen of Israel” or Palestinian Arab citizerns of Israel. This term implies that the State of Palestine still exists and that some Palestinians are outside of Palestine, while others are still inside. The implications of this term cause Israel to doubt the allegiance of its Arab Palestinian minority. Palestinian Israelis are often discriminated against in official policy and administrative practices, and their communities are often denied the services and financial support provided to Jewish Israeli communities. . .This situation was improved somewhat in the early 1990s when Palestinian Israeli parties entered into a coalition agreement with Tutzhak Rabin’s Labor Party, helping it to win a parliamentary majority, which resulted in better social services for Palestinian Israeli communities. But, in comparison with Jewish communities, Palestinian Arabs are still behind in receiving public services and financial support from the government.’

• (15) Rebecca L. Stein,Itineraries in Conflict: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Political Lives of Tourism, Duke University Press, ‎2008 p.66

‘It was very worrisome to hear the word Palestinian five years ago. Today, with normalization (e.g. the Oslo process), it has become natural.’ He describes constant propvocations over the past few years from Jewish tour guides and Misgav officials who challenge his insistence on a Palestinian descriptor. They seek to replace it with the denationalized term Arab Israeli, still the state’s terminology of choice.’

• (16) Clive Jones, Emma Murphy, Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy, and the State, Routledge, ‎2002 p.43

The very term 'Israeli Arabs' is a value judgement since, as Michael Wolffsohn has argued, it confers legitimacy on a sovereign entity called Israel in which a substantial Arab minority lives. Other terms used are Palestinian citizens of Israel, or Palestinians in Israel, descriptions that are seen by some to question the legality of the State of Israel by laying clear stress on a Palestinian identity as the key communal reference point.’

• (17) Human Rights Watch,Second Class: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools, 2001 pp.11-12

Terminology regarding Israel’s Arab citizens is highly politicized. Increasingly, individuals are rejecting the term “Israeli Arab,” which is used by the Israeli government, in favour of “Palestinian ARAB.” Many, but not all, Druze and Bedouin in Israel also identify themselves as Palestinian Arab or a variation of that term. When referring to people, this report uses “Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel” or “Palestinian Arabs” because that is how most people we interviewed defined themselves. However, it should be noted that not everyone of Arab origin we interviewed identified herself or himself as Palestinian, and a few rejected the term altogether.

• (18) Deborah Sontag, “Israel’s Next Palestinian Problem,” New York Times Magazine, September 10, 2000 (p.48)

When a peace institute conducted a recent poll, it found that 70 percent of Israeli Arabs identified themselves primarily as Palestinians, compared with 27 percent in a similar poll five years ago.

• (19) Tamir Sorek,Arab Soccer in a Jewish State: The Integrative Enclave, Cambridge University Press 2007 p.3

‘While their Arab-Palestinian identity places them in a position of “an enemy within” for the Jewish majority, they are simultaneously considered suspicious – “Israelified Arabs”-by Palestinians outside Israel. ..as Arab citizens in a state that defines itself as Jewish, they suffer from diverse forms of prolonged discriminatory policies in diverse spheres. They are systematically excluded from the major, political, economic, and social centers of power in the state, . .Nevertheless, in spite of these contradictions, it does not seem that Arabs in Israel collectively abandoned being active players in these two spheres. Smooha (1999) has shown that the percentage of Arab citizens who identify themselves as both Palestinians and Israelis rose significantly between 1976 and 1995. According to Smooha, the politicization of the Arab minority in Israel since 1967 signifies a gradual integration into the Israeli public sphere, and hence, the demonstration of Palestinian identity in itself is part of an “Israelification process.” Although criticizing the methodology of self-labeling used by Smooha, many scholars of the field have recognized that both Israeli and Palestinian spheres are highly relevant for understanding the identification, self-presentation, and political orientations of the Arab citizens of Israel. This recognition has brought scholars to identify and investigate the diverse strategies that enable the Arab-Palestinian minority in Israel to cope with the tension created by the sensitive location in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’

• (20) Rabah Halabi, ‘Thoughts about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict,’ in Rabah Halabi (ed.) Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue: The School for Peace Approach, Rutgers University Press. ‎2004 pp1-12, p.3

’Israel’s policy was not limited to subjugating the Arabs by force; it aspired to rule them by constructing their collective identity in a manner different from, cut off from, that of the rest of the Palestinians . . Another, perhaps primary instrument for achieving this objective was the state’s control of the Arab educational system, which the establishment tried to manipulate so as to inculcate Arab schoolchildren with an indistinct, rootless, identity that elided their Palestinian selfhood. . .This massive policy has had an impact on the Palestinian minority in Israel . .The first study of Palestinian identity in Israel, on the eve of the 1967 war, revealed that the Israeli component was strong and deeply ingrained. The subjects saw themselves as Israelis first and as Arabs and Palestinians only to a lesser degree (Peres and Yuval-David 1969). . Over the years, the Palestinian component has grown persistently stronger until it has become the dominant element in the identity of Arabs in Israel, and, at the same time, the Israeli component has consistently weakened (Suleiman and Beit-Hallahmi 1997;Rouhana 1984, 1993; Smooha, 1983; Tessler 1977).'

• (21)Bill Strubbe , ‘Two Peoples, One Village,’ Yoga Journal, December 1996, Issue 193 pp.144- 148 p.146

"The correct term for the Arabs who live in Neve Shalom is 'Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship" Shippin explains. “The Israeli government uses the term ‘Israeli Arabs,’ but that is objectionable because their national affiliation is with Palestine, not Israel”.’

I'm not going to bother going through these one-by-one, but most of them seem to be about deprecating the term "Israeli Arab". Just to make it clear, despite Nishidani's claims above, this is not what is being proposed here. The final source doesn't seem to be relevant at all, as it seems to be about the Palestinians themselves. Number 57 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. Academic field studies or summaries of them in peer-reviewed literature do not deprecate: they state what polling, interviews, changes in society and language, reveal. Israeli official sources wish their Palestinian Arab communities to be called "Arabs", and this is what Number wants. The source literature extensively shows that those people self-identify as "Palestinian Arabs" ('Arab' alone means to them what it means to many Zionists, that these people have no intrinsic attachment to the territory but belong anywhere from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan.)Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the residents of the village be described?

Should the residents that are Arab citizens of Israel be described as "Arabs" or "Palestinian Arabs"? Arguments on both sides have been made in the discussion above. Number 57 16:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, for a neutral formulation:

Should the residents of Neve Shalom who are Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel be described as "Arabs" or "Palestinian Arabs". Arguments on both sides have been made in the discussion above.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Now you're just being ridiculous. The reason I used "Arab citizens of Israel" was to be neutral - that's where the article about them is. Number 57 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No. What you call 'being ridiculous' happens to be a matter of cleaving closely to the usage now widely recognized and adopted by scholarship on these Israeli communities. The reason you used Arab citizens of Israel is that it the way a wiki article has historically framed the category in obeisance to a usage that is known to have its political uses (non-recognition that Israeli Arabs are native Palestinians. That idea is abhorred, and they are not even classified, as are Druze as an ethnic group, for purely ideological purposes - the elision of a Palestinian identity within its borders). Wikipedia does not form a precedent, and secondly, it is not a reliable indicator of contemporary usage, as anyone can see reading that article's references to Lowrance, Peleg & Waxman, Rudoren, Amara, Rabinowitz & Abu Baker, Torstrick, Kook (and many other recent academic works only confirm their remarks). You wish to employ the preferred term of the Israeli government, which, linguistically, is known to be prejudicial to the perceptions of the group thus classified. I accept both the Palestinian Israeli Arab's preferred descriptor as do the majority of specialist academic sources dealing with them. You have an opinion and a preference so far, I have sources.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already provided the sources in the discussion above. But anyway, this section is specifically for outside input, not to continue this unproductive discussion. Number 57 18:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll reciprocate by putting the proper sources, i.e., the academic literature which identifies the usage you prefer as POV and problematical, and shows in great detail why another term must be employed. It is in the section immediately above this.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As you said previously, the Maria Chiara Rioli article is supposedly the most important academic paper on the village, so I think it's definitely worth any third parties who want to comment here reading that part of the discussion above and drawing their own conclusions about this discussion. Number 57 20:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They should read the whole paper, not the excerpts. If you wish, one can do an analysis of the terms, historical context, within that narrative, and count the way the Palestinian term comes to the fore the further the narrative proceeds historically to the present day. Historically, there is not a shadow of a doubt that 'Israeli Arab' was the default term through to the 1970s. Scholarship has, in great detail, shown that Palestinian is now the dominant term, also because 'Arab work' in Israeli usage (avodah aravit means a botched job, and Israel's Palestinian community prefers to distance itself from that kind of negative stereotyping, as refracted also in state usage. Rioli's paper is a good one, but we are dealing with the valency of 'Arab' as a sufficient description, something which is amply covered by the technical studies, cited above, on Israeli ways of describing their 'minority'.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the initial edit which started this dispute, the question seems to be something like: should all mention of the Palestinian identity of the Arab residents of the village be entirely expunged from the article?

Given our core WP:NPOV policy states that we should represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and that published reliable sources discussing the topic frequently refer to the Palestinian identity as important aspect of the topic, it seems untenable for us not to mention it.

Let's take for example the Maria Chiara Rioli article. The first sentence of the article sets the picture, "In 1970, after a long genesis, the joint Israeli and Palestinian experience of the village of ‘Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam’ (‘oasis of peace’) began."

I don't think it is tenable to use a source that describes the topic as one of "joint Israeli and Palestinian experience", as the basis for removing all mention of Palestinian identity from the article. The source evidence is diametrically opposed to the proposed edit. It is true that the source refers to "Palestinian Arabs", "Palestinian population", "Palestinians", as well as sometimes simply referring to "Arabs", just as the source sometimes uses "Jewish Israeli" while at times simply using "Jew"/"Jewish". But, at the risk of labouring the point, a source that establishes the importance of the Palestinian identity to the topic in the first sentence and then repeatedly refers to it throughout the article cannot be used to justify an edit entirely removing this aspect of the topic from our article, even if you can find instances in the source where the author refers to the residents without highlighting this particular aspect of their identity. Dlv999 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that "Arab" or "Israeli-Arab" are more inclusive than "Palestinian". If they are Palestinians living in Israel, than they are also "Israeli-Arab", but not all Israeli-Arabs are Palestinians. This isn't a matter of POV, but a matter of semantics. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You have predictably ignored, and failed to analyse and respond to, the sourcing evidence, which is all that counts. Palestinians in Israel is a subset of Israeli Arabs? Oh really? Palestinian communities, meaning communities that descend from groups with long historic roots in Palestine, such as Circassians, Armenians,Maronites, Assyrians, Romani, Bosnians, etc., were all noted as part of the mosaic of the Palestinian people at the outset of the British Mandate, and none were 'Arabs'. Their descendents remain, and those Palestinian Maronites or Assyrians, or Armenians are not Israeli Arabs. They descend from their respective Palestinian communities. In any case, as my citation from Howard Shippin notes, the proper designation at Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salaam includes the descriptor Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed his point. Yes, there are arabs who are palestinian in israel. But there are also arabs who are NOT palestinian, ans so just "arab" is more inclusive. Further, if the term is being used as you describe (IE referring to the region, and not the ersatz country) then using the term is going to be very misleading, as it is almost always used in the context of the country in modern parlance. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point and ignore the sources. The resident usage is as cited above, the larger Palestinian Israeli community also is thus. We do not write on this out of abstract preferences but by looking at the weight of usage. I've done that. Number won't. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So, after almost a fortnight, we've had two comments from editors heavily involved in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who have !voted in entirely predictable ways, and just one comment from an outside editor. Is RFC really this useless, or was the well poisoned by the intial comments on the RFC? Number 57 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As you push for changes in an entirely predictable way. Yeah, sure, I'm to blame. I actually write articles in here, do the boring legwork. Then blow-ins nag away over a comma or a word, claiming it is POV pushing without caring to look at sources. I'm sure someone will drift in at the last moment to tip the scales your way, just as happened in the earlier RfC which the closing admin of course misread and ruined a fundamental principle.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I don't write articles? Number 57 20:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No. But I never see you round helping out in an area that is a stress zone, requiring an extenuating waste of serious people's time because of IP meddling, sockpuppetry, blatant POV-pushing of the kind the several regulars here have to put up with. I am stating that it is a repeated experience I have of working my arse off to write an article on a difficult area, only to discover that I am regarded as a someone 'heavily involved in the I/P area', perhaps even a 'well-poisoner' (I suspect an inadvertent Blood libel echo) and a corrective dab or several must be made that usually leads to nonsensical arguments on the talk page, but no work on the article. None of your proposals here have been policy based, or backed by sound in depth source analysis. They are based on a preconception about neutral usage. So, I diligently wasted hours showing why that preconception was wrong. Response. A dismissive silence. One editor dropped in, without reading the evidence, and gave an opinion. That's how wiki works. People who have to hammer at the rock face have to cope with people sitting round kibitzing, and the latter, more often than not, have their way. I'm a realist.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've created over 1,000 articles on Israeli people, places and organisations and all of them are on my watchlist so I can keep them free of vandalism and false information. However, I gave up "helping out" on the most contentious articles years ago because of editors like yourself who are on here with an agenda. If admins had cracked down on the nationalist POV pushers in the early years of Wikipedia, we'd be in a much better place, but as a result of a total lack of assistance, areas like this, Ireland and (bizarrely) Estonia became no-go areas for sensible editors. I'd much rather spend my time on writing articles on elections and referedums rather than get involved in pointless weeks-long circular arguments. Occasionally I crack and end up in discussions like here when I see a very annoying edit appear on one of the few contentious articles on my watchlist, but most of the time I have no patience for this kind of crap. As for the blood libel claim, you may be unaware that poisoning the well is a common phrase in England to denote someone pre-emptively ruining a debate and preventing constructive discussion. Number 57 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

'I've created 1,000 articles on Israeli people, places and organisations.' That's a considerable achievement. The problem is, there are an equal number of articles begging attention for another people, and prospective state in the area, and few will touch them. Those like myself who do, have to work much more slowly, and people who stay out, or get involved, say that to work the Palestinian side of the frontier is proof of 'pushing an agenda.' That's it: work on Palestine, on the politically incorrect side, and you are automatically pushing an agenda, 'poisoning the well' and whatever. There is but 1 editor of identifiable Palestinian descent occasionally active in this area, and god help anyone who thinks this is problematical, as a deficit of representation placing the neutrality of the encyclopedia at risk because hundreds, mostly IPs or sockpuppets, mawl and trawl its pages every month. It can all be fixed by 'non-Arabs' who happen to have abiding interests in the area, I guess. Certainly not by unconnected louts like myself.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are almost no editors currently editing on the Palestinian side who are only interested in encyclopedic content (the only exception I know is Al Ameer son, and he seems to be covering the whole Arab world rather than be focussed on Palestinian stuff) - hence why the only articles that get touched are the contentious ones, and everything else is left by the wayside. Alternatively, on the Israeli side there are complete sets of articles on every town, village, politician, political party etc because there are people interested in Israeli society who do that legwork. Looking at templates like {{Jenin Governorate}} and {{Hebron Governorate}}, it's obvious that there is a lot missing - why are none of the many editors on the Palestinian side (there are a lot of people who contribute from a Palestinian perspective on contentious articles) creating the missing articles?

The way I see it, this kind of area attracts three types of editors; residents of the region or those with an interest who are genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of their area and who are able to do so in a neutral manner; residents of the region who are here to try and "win the battle" with the enemy, and outsider activists who are here to "support" the side they favour in the great debate. Unfortunately those in the first category are very limited on both sides - on the Israeli side I could only really say myself and Ynhockey, and just Al Ameer son on the other. Number 57 16:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you look at my contributions and articles created, or, just say, several edits I did today, desultorily, before reading your reply, you will note that content is what interests me generally, and my work strives towards encyclopedic ends. The problem we have here is that whereas Israeli articles can be written without trouble (I don't edit them because excellent editors abound there), articles in which a national conflict is an intrinsic element, i.e., a clash of perspectives is reflected in reliable sources, you have a problem of a completely different order. If you've done 1,000 articles on Israeli, I can only commend your contributions and dedication. But, to be honest, were I prone to envy, I would be envious of the environment that allows you to do that. It is unproblematical. Those conditions, which encourage editors because one is dealing with simply the description of an internal state of reality, are not available in I/P (i.e. mixed perspectives articles where Israeli interests clash with Palestinian interests). You have a sociological schema of editors: and I come out as someone not 'interested in neutral coverage of an area'. Well, you are wrong, deeply wrong, as anyone can see if they look at my creation of the Susya article. I had absolutely no interruptions while I wrote the hardest part, on the archaeology and the synagogue. The very moment I started to deal with the Palestinian population's evictions, three editors marched in (four, but two were socks), and in lock-step, made it not only impossible to edit, but, by their obstinate mutual support, led me to calling their racket, and providing them with a diff to get me permabanned for lack of WP:AGF. I'm sure Ynhockey is a fine editor on Israeli articles. And I admit one can work with him on I/P articles, but his strong POV is self-evident, and his lack of independence from a national perspective was notable there. I had a hard time with User:Jaacobou. I stretched out a hand to help him on Haim Farhi - he resented it as an intrusion though I ironed out several problems. The Bruno Hussar was nothing but a few lines for years till I rewrote it. The Ezra Nawi article, which I suppose no one likes, was a conflicted mess of a few lines, wholly warred over because of disagreements about whether an homosexual incident was a pro-Israeli smear (challenged as WP:BLP) or something factual requiring mention (by an editor who clearly had it in for Nawi). I just stepped and rewrote it from top to bottom, mentioning all of the details of his conviction for underage sex, but also within the larger context of his activism. Sure, the people who obstructed that, without building the article, were unhappy that I registered that, according to very good Israeli informants, he had many admirable characteristics, but the full record documents this. The same with Hebron, and Joseph's Tomb most of the content there is unpolemical, historical. Any attempt to write materials on pacifists among the terroristic Palestinians (Nafez Assaily) got immediate moves (by an IP sock posing as a serious registered editor, and others) to AfD it. The realities all over the West Bank are violent, and if you depict them, you have to face a barrage of IP challenges, reverts, or regular POV pushers who try to cover that side of the reality up. But if I do handle a village, like Yanun, I try to give a fuller picture than mere conflict. Worst of all, and something your criticisms ignore, is that Israeli has immense coverage in sources, of things that are not contaminated by controversy, whereas, in large part, the description of Palestinians and their history, underreported, is almost invariably part of a larger narrative of conflict. Were it not for the quality of research done by Israelis and diaspora scholars, it would be hard doing more than thumbnail sketches. The most neutral history of the region is Henry Laurens unfinished 5 volume masterpiece, and if you read that against what most good RS say, you will only shake your head at the misdirections, underreportage, spinning and disinformation seeded even in excellent, pro-Palestinian scholars. not to speak of Israeli scholarship.

Of course, I see the Palestinian side with empathy, and that is where I tithe my time, since it is subject to extraordinary neglect (WP:Systemic bias). I have no apologies to make for this. It is part and parcel of an interest in disappearing worlds, societies that crumble under 'modernity' and its power structures, marginalized realities, that, before they succumb to the iron logic of the fate thrown their way, require some witness to how they, as opposed to everyone else with a horse in the game, see themselves. But, as my record shows, I revert automatically shit wherever it comes from, and have no problem editing in material people who tend to edit with me might prefer I didn't mention. Encyclopedias aren't Gradgrind compilations of hard facts: they describe tragedies, madness, imperial folly, and the only thing one must attend to is neutrality. Neutrality cannot challenge the content, but only the voice accompanying it. 'Arab' is the right resonance for the Israeli government, it implies no history or culture of territorial attachment to the land. It might look neutral to you: to Palestinians, in Israel or beyond, 'Palestinian' 'Palestinian Arab' or 'Israeli Palestinian' gives them an identity and a dignity that official usage denies them. The wiser minds at Neve Shalom understand this, and I don't see why, in this intricately politicized world, we should not accede to their preferred term. This has nothing to do with politics, for me, but for respect for a community that has a virtually unique double identity, difficult, torn by centrifugal pressures, that wishes to define itself in a way that resists discursivce domination or rhetorical slanting by one side or the other. Israel should be proud of them: you can't yet do that kind of thing in the State of Palestine, and the message it sends is as much a signal to that corrupt body, the PNA, as to anyone else.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Responding to what seems to be your main point in the above, we do not describe people or name articles based on how those people or residents/governors of places want to be called, but instead according to common usage (hence why we have articles like Burma and Ivory Coast), so the views of the villagers or indeed the wider Arab population in Israel (or at least the views you claim they have; I doubt very much that it is unanimous) are wholly irrelevant to any debate on naming formats. Number 57 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I already answered that in the earlier debate. There are plenty of examples on wiki of mixed toponymic nomenclature. Comon usage? Whose common usage? That wasn't my main point. My main point is that you can't see what all sources say, the POV valency in 'Arab'. The name it gave itself predates its incorporation into Israel, and technically, it is still in noman's land, so, there are good technical reasons, apart from other considerations, that justify the usage we have, which happens to be also an autonym. (That it is Israeli policy to avoid the word 'Palestinian' in favour of 'Arab' means your choice is not neutral. It is 'convenient' to one POV). You can't see that. Others can, and when they do, you write a sociologically of 'types' who can't be objective unlike yourself.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

'In colloquial Israeli Hebrew, Jews sometimes modify nouns with the adjective "Arab" in order to express a complex of strongly negative attitudes. Ta'am aravi, "Arab taste," for example, refers to bad, gauche, or inappropriate taste, as in clothing styles. Avoda aravit, "Arab work" refers either to dirty work, as in street sweeping, or work done lazily or sloppily.' Daniel Lefkowitz , Words and Stones, Oxford University Press, 2004 p.92

You are thoroughly familiar with Israel, so I suppose you bear this in mind when saying we should write ‘Arabs’ for Israeli Palestinians, in order to be 'neutral' and 'encyclopedic'. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so colloquial Hebrew is wholly irrelevant. This is getting fairly desparate now. Number 57 20:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So 'desparate' that in your 'rush and nervous haste' to cancel out the fact that Palestinians and Arabs are not interchangeable but disparate, you misspelt the word.As to it being the English wikipedia, sure. That's why I cited all those English sources you never replied to, but which constitute the kind of evidence we require for calls like this. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have to resort to criticising my spelling, then I don't think there's much more to say. Number 57 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I have provided 21 book sources. You none. I have tried to argue rationally for retaining the usage no one objects to but you. I wrote the page, you just niggle trying to alter it by misrepresenting the issue in RfCs, which I had to correct. You have dismissed rational arguments as 'ridiculous', or a 'waste of time' or used personal abuse, such as suggesting I am a POV pusher, fitting me into your personal sociology of bad IP editors, while proclaiming you and two others are the only decent chaps around. Now you say I am 'desperate'. Boredom at the presumptuous void I am talking to left me no option but to joke at your latest sally. Now, if you wish to proceed, ground your views in policy or RS. You have no evidence from either after several weeks to challenge an innocuous phrase whose neutrality, compared to the indefinite and, to many ears, demeaning 'Arab' you wish to impose on the page. Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Number57 : "on the Israeli side I could only really say myself and Ynhockey"

Talking about "sides" proves your vision of wikipedia is not the one that you defend here above. You should think about the deep philosophy that's behind WP:AGF. Today it is used as a "TAG" to win a dispute but this also reminds us that we may be wrong in the feelings and motivation that we give to other editors and that we should always see the positive way.

This being said and regarding the content dispute, if I follow you both well, you wonder how to name the "non-Jewish" unhabitants of Neve Shaloms. Are there :

• (1) "Israeli Arabs" or
• (2) "Palestinian Arabs [of Israeli citizenship]"

Nishidani has argued 1. they call themselves per (2), 2. provided numerous sources of style (2) and 3. provided source that explain the issues with choice (1). Regarding 1., Number57 argued 4. that we don't name people a given way because they decide so (and compare with the "settlers"), and 5. provided sources that name them per (1).

A. I am very sensitive to argument 4. in front of argument 1. but we have to take into account that Neve Shalom unhabitants are rather seen positively around the world whereas Israeli settlers are rather seen negatively. NEve Shalem action is legitimated (rightly or wrongly) whereas Settlers actions are considered unlegitimate (rightly or wrongly). That is the reason why (1) is also more "notorious" than (2). There are also counter exemples to argument 4. : we name the article about the Israeli Army : "Israeli Defense Force" because even if is controversed that it always acts by defense, it is the choice of the majority of the nations to refer to their army as a "defense" army and the majority of the world considers legitimate to have an army to defend oneself.

B. Per WP:RS, more important arguments are arguments 2 and 5. Given both options are given by sources, we should maybe report both. There are move provided by Nishidani but that is not the point. Personnaly, I think this must be weighted in taking into account the context : Neve Shalom was built in the no man's land between Israeli and "Palestine" (name it the way you like) with the political target to prove it was possible to build a bridge between both people. Neve Shalom doesn't want to build a bridge between the Arab and the Jewish unhabitants of Israel (it would have been built in Nazareth or in the Triangle) but between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

C. I understand argumentation 3 but I think we are close to WP:OR.

My suggestion is therefore to name them : "Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship" or simply "Palestinian Arabs" because it refers better to their political project which is not controversed by the vision of the majority.

Note that my only field of expertise is the 1920-1948 period.

Hope this helped. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have misread the RFC question - the choice is between "Arab" and "Palestinian Arab", not between "Israeli Arab" and "Palestinian Arab". Number 57 15:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your discussion has evolved much and it took time to read everything. I missed the precise focus but keep the main point.

From my analysis, it sounds logical that "Palestinian Arabs" is more accurate than "Israeli Arabs", which is more accurate than just "Arabs".

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you've missed the main point, which is understandable given the numerous attempts to mislead readers by Nishdani into thinking what you did. The phrase "Israeli Arab" is wholly irrelevant to this debate. What this is about is whether "Palestinian Arab" is a misleading term to use for Israeli citizens of Arabic origin and whether "Arab" is preferable for that reason. Number 57 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed the point.

I answer your question and then I leave this debate but I don't understand the link that you make : "What this is about is whether "Palestinian Arab" is a misleading term to use for Israeli citizens of Arabic origin and whether "Arab" is preferable for that reason"

My mind is that both : "Palestinian Arab" and "Arab" are misleading terms for "Israeli citizens of Arabic origin" because :

- "Palestinian Arabs" are these Arabs whose ancestors lived in Palestine in 1948.

- "Arab" refer to the hundred millions of Arabs living mainly in Middle East and North Africa

- "Israeli citizens of Arabic origin" refers to both the "Palestinian Arabs" who became Israelis after 1948 and to the Jewish Arabs who became Israelis between 1948 and the eighties after the exodus from Arab lands (but this 2nd vision may be controversial).

Good luck you both. :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Kurd people who live in Turkey or Iraq, would we call all of them just "Kurds" ? OR should we call the Turkish citizens "Turkish Kurds" and the others will be "Iraqi Kurds" ?

In my opinion they are called "Turkish Kurds" and not "Kurds" , (unless the issue is clearly limited to Turkey only). By similarity, one should use "Israeli Arabs" and not Palestinians, which is not well defined term, since it includes all Israelis (Arabs & Jews) who were the British Mandate citizens, and their descendents. Ykantor (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refer again to the terms of the debate above. This is not about using "Israeli Arab". Number 57 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)