Talk:Nazareth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Turn of the era" references

None of the three references deleted has any force for a settlement at the turn of the era. Zvi Gal ("Lower Galilee During the Iron Age", Eisenbrauns, 1992) surmises the area covered during the "Early" Roman Period from the locations of kokh-type tombs, which came to the Galilee after mid-I CE. (On this critical issue see the work of specialist H-P. Kuhnen, "Palaestina in Griechisch-Roemischer Zeit," (Munich, C. Beck, 1990, pp. 254-55). Feig and Yavor also excavated kokh tombs, i.e., post-50 CE burials, as Feig herself notes. The Feig tombs, incidentally, are not in the Nazareth basin, but are 2.6 km away from where Bagatti excavated. They belonged to a different village ("Nazareth Tiriah"). Renejs (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Renejs, while I respect your intimate knowledge of this subject, I feel your edits have rather consistently tried to buttress the point of view that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century, to the detriment of the article. There are a number of scholars who disagree with that opinion.

For example:

• The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (2006) [1], in discussing the first century Galilee on page 305 states:

  Ongoing archaeological work in Nazareth has revealed surprising evidence of stone masonry and viticulture. Although the extent of archaeological investigation thus far is quite limited (owing to the fact that modern Nazarreth is a large inhabited city), all indications at present suggest that Nazareth of late antiquity - in close proximity to a major highway linking Caesarea Maritima in the west to Tiberias in the east - was an active and productive center, whose inhabitants would in all probability have had no need to seek employment in outlying areas. Portraits of Nazareth as a sleepy, isolated village are the stuff of pious imagination and hagiography, not critical study.

• The Uttermost Part of the Earth (2005) [2] page 145 notes:

  Archaeological evidence that Jesus's Nazareth was higher up in the hills than the present town. It appears to have been settled some time during the thrd century BCE during the Hellenistic era when the Ptolmaic Empire ruled Palestine. The town was of absolutely no importance in classical times, its modern importance resulting strictly from having been Jesus' home.

• Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (2005) [3] states:

  Although sparse ceramic remains from the Early to Late Bronze Age and the Late Iron Age were found, there is no archaeological evidence of built structures from these period, aside from tombs. The primary structures and material remains derive from the town of the Late Hellenistic to Late Roman periods, a Byzantine church and monastery, minor Early Islamic period remains and acrusader church and monastery.

• Fifty Major Cities of the Bible (2006) [4] explains:

  While some archaeological excavations were conducted at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, the first large-scale modern excavation is the work of Bellarmino Bagatti carried out in 1955. While the Church of the Annucation was being rebuilt [...] Bagatti was given the oppotunity to excavate in and around the structure. While there is scanty evidence of some activity here as early as the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550 BCE) and the "Israelite Period" (pottery sherds), most of the remains date to the Byzantine Period or later. However, Bagatti did find locally made pottery from the first century consisting mostly of cooking pots, water jugs and so forth. But he did not find any trace of imported vessels. There were few material remains that could be identified as houses, but what there was indicat3ed these structures were little more than hovels with earthen floors, sometimes incorporating caves. Bagatti found nothing that could be identified as public buildings during this time, including a "synagogue".
  Based on the location of burial tombs, which would have been located outside the village proper, Bagatti estimated the size of Nazareth during this period to be about ten acres with a population between 200 and 400.

Perhaps we could work on representing the differing opinions regarding the extent of the archaeological evidence? Your formulations seem to present Bagatti's work as confirmation of your thesis regarding a lack of settlement in the first century. Others seem to think differently, as evidenced above. All significant viewpoints should be represented to achieve NPOV. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut- - Please see your talk page for my response.Renejs (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazaret vs. Nazareth

The Greek text cites the name as Ναζαρὲτ.

1. How come the final ת didn't get rendered as θ instead? In (afaik) every other case, it did.
2. How come the Latin Bible (and thenceforth the English one) renders the final sound as th, even though the Greek text is the original and thus the ultimate auhority? --80.250.159.240 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple changes at once

Dear Mr./Ms. Smith, Making a dozen or more changes at once in this controversial article is not acceptable. Each change will stand or fall on its own merits or demerits and must be substantiated if it goes beyond grammar and syntax. It is easy to revert multiple changes, and I will do so as opportunity arises. However, if one or two changes are made at a time, with references that can be checked, then you are certainly on safer ground. Renejs (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will work to ban "Smith" if tendentious edits continue

Hello "Smith," Repeated persistence in adding unsubstantiated opinion leads inevitably to an "edit war." If this is your wish, I'm prepared to work to have you banned from contributing to the Wikipedia article "Nazareth" in future. First step is soliciting a "third party opinion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. For Wikipedia, VERIFIABILITY determines the issue, which is an excellent criterion. So, please be on notice that you edit tendentiously at your own risk.Renejs (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Smith's edits will not get him "banned", but if they are identified as consistent vandalism, then he/she could be temporarily blocked either from Wikipedia as a whole or from the article Nazareth. If edit wars between you and Smith persist, then both of you risk being blocked temporarily. I've noticed his additions do not comply with the sources, and so I will warn him on his talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me, that Renejs has one ideological goal which is to control the Nazareth article and to promote Atheist views in it. That is fine. I will not collaborate however. I do not engage in an edit war. You are the one, who has been deleting my legitimized changes and additions.Smith2006 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you must assume good faith. POV will not be tolerated in this contentious article and if its general stability is affected I will block both of you. Thankfully, edit wars have ceased. Now, Smith, your edits do not harm the article, but they need to have a source to back them. Add a citation to the text you want to add and there should be no problems. --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious demographics?

I see that Nazareth is largely an Arab town, but this article should really give exact percentages of Arab/Jew/other, and more importantly how said Arab population breaks down into Muslims and Christians. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The "etymology" section should give a simple explanation of why the city is called "Narareth". What Arabs call Christians certainly doesn't belong in this section. There is also unsourced material implying that Nazareth did not actually exist in New Testament times. Even it was sourced, this material would belong under "The skeptical position", not etymology. Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What the current inhabitants of Nazareth call it is certainly relevant. And the words in Arabic that derive from its Arabic name which are used to refer to Jesus and to Christians are also relevant and interesting. This is after all the town associated with Jesus and Christianity. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology is not place for theories questioning whether Nazareth existed in New Testament time. There is already another section for this called, "The skeptical position." These theories are of some interest as a counterfactual academic exercises, but they are nowhere close to mainstream and should not be presented as if they were. Judea vs. Galilee issue has no secondary source and is therefore WP:OR. Kauffner (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the OR should be removed. But I disagree with your bifurcation of the two sections. I'm working on a new version at User:Tiamut/Nazareth name. You will see that I've divided the biblical and extrabiblical references in their own subsections. I think its best to differentiate between theories and mentions in texts or on tablets. Tiamut^talk 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazareth and background info

In the bible,the book of Isaiah chapter 48 verse 5 mentions Nazarene.

(note) The Hebrew for 'see' is chazon receiving trance like messages.

The Hebrew for hidden things is 'netsoroth' which in Hebrew is Nazareth! What are your views on this, as you state the name Nazareth is not found in old manuscripts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.144.164 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First house from Jesus' time found in Nazareth

This Israeli site: [JP] tells that the first house from Jesus' time was found in Nazareth.Agre22 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Hebrew

Is there some new wiki rule that prevents us from using the Hebrew name for a city in Israel? I've listed a couple of examples that show that it is quite common to have Hindi names for Indian cities, Russian names in Cyrillic for Russain cities, why is Hebrew an outcast? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew is already listed in the infobox, under Hebrew name, and in te first sentence of the introduction. Having it noted on the map as well is simply overkill. Regarding the other two examples you cited, so what? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS i8s not an argument. The inclusion of the Hebrew and the Arabic on the map alongside the English here is unnecessary and redundant clutter. Please stop restoring it. Tiamut^talk 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So "Hebrew" is "redundant clutter", but Russian or Hindi is acceptable on this project? Is that what you are getting at? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is مكّة المكرمة redundant clutter over at Mecca? what's the obsession with Hebrew? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew and the Arabic do not belong on the map. Both are already included in the infobox and in the first sentence of the lead. There is no need to include them on the map too. (You have reverted three times now to restore them: 1st revert: [5], 2nd revert: [6], 3rd revert: [7]). Please stop. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Hebrew. Tiamut^talk 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agrre that it makes the map cluttered - I'd be ok with removing it from there -don't know how, though. I disagree that it is clutter to have it in the title, so please stop removing it from there. Los Admiralos (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical Position

As a fringe theory, I have maintained its inclusion per wp:fringe. However, I have removed the large chunk dedicated to it, and some of the numerous clearly POV edits attempting to give undue weight to the theory. See wp:undue. --Ari (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, user:Renejs, do you happen to be the same Rene who has written a book published by American Atheist Press which just happens to push the exact same fringe theory you are attempting to have dominate this article? In any case, I remind you to check out the policies on fringe theories, conflicts of interest and undue weight. --Ari (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89, you are arguing an unsourced opinion that my material is "undue weight." However, I've properly sourced material showing that many important biblical scholars have questioned both the relation between "Nazareth" and "Nazarene-Nazoraios." Some scholars, though not as many, have also questioned the existence of the "city of Nazareth" at the time of Jesus, one with an unlikely "synagogue" and "crowd" as described in Lk 4:16-30. These skeptical theories are certainly not new and, in any case, no longer fringe (the first never was "fringe").

You only recently drastically started amending this article (I see your first edit is yesterday 1/11/10 at 05:03). I've been working on this article for years--you, for one day. I resent your being a Johnny-come-lately and accusing me of "vandalism." I also question your motives and see that you've worked on The Gnostic Paul the Christ myth theory, etc., showing a very traditionalist agenda. . . In the Nazareth case, you havn't shown anyone that you understand the arguments, because you don't deal with them--you only delete and accuse. If you contest the substance of what I've added, then you need to add substantiating references for your opinion. You need to argue the material, not simply accuse me of being "fringe" and a vandal. That's cheap, and I worked hard to reference what I wrote. If you think a subsection "The skeptical position" is too much weight, you could have argued that long ago when the subsection was around with Zindler's arguments. As you see from Kauffner's discussion entries above, we've gone around this bush already about the relevance of these theories, and no one questioned that there was a place for them in the subsection "The skeptical position." Sure, it's not "mainstream," but it needs much more than a passing mention. The number and quality of the scholarly sources show that this "skeptical position" needs a subsection--just like it used to have until Gilabrand deleted it. Incidentally, I didn't immediately revert his edit, because I needed this time to source the minority view--something that's done.

Ari89, if you revert this material you clearly are the vandal, as far as I'm concerned. Argue the material, not your opinion.Renejs (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Undue weight was given. Details on the fringe theory are worked into the main body of the article. And I was working on it further before you decided to (without reason) revert a number of edits. Dedicating a section of wp:or on the topic of a fringe theory is not how its done.

2. No, I have actually edited this article before responding to your recent pov pushing.

3. I see no reason to respond to the childish personal attacks.

3. No, I will not "argue" on a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is about wp:verifiability - not original arguments or Renejs' personal synthesis. The fringe theory is being included in the main discussion (as it currently already is, e.g. on the topic of a lack of references.)

--Ari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, instead of discussing the issue you go straight back to vandalising the article. Do you not realise that the point of my edits is integrating the fringe theory into the main section on the history? Do you not realise that there is no reason to set out the individual methodology (in terms of original research) of how you have come to believe that Nazareth did not exist? This in itself is POV pushing (especially noting your polemical website on the topic), original research, and giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Furthermore, do you not realise that the fringe theory exists in the main section on the early Christian era? Etc. Stop pushing your own fringe agenda for a minute and notice what is happening. --Ari (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whooh down!! We're talking about more than the existence or not of Nazareth. We're also talking about the linguistic connection between "Nazareth" and other important terms that occur in the New Testament (Nazarene, Nazoraios). Some scholars consider these linked (the traditional position) and others don't. That's also a major issue.

Prove your accusations. If you think the skeptical position material is "fringe"--PROVE IT. If you think it gets too much weight--PROVE IT. If you think there's original research here--PROVE IT.

You've got a hard sell trying to convince ANYBODY that adding sourced material from leading scholars is "vandalism." Sorry. . . DELETING it is vandalism!Renejs (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything but an irrelevant childish comment? --Ari (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your ARBITRARY and UNSUBSTANTIATED deletions of my relevant and well-referenced contribution are "irrelevant" and yes, "childish."Renejs (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you mean deletion of original synthesis which I placed back, with tags noting its poor nature so you would act like an adult. I guess if you give a child an inch they'll take a mile. Grow up.--Ari (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure like throwing mud, Ari89. THAT'S childish, kiddo!Renejs (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I've fully protected the article page while you sort this dispute out. User:Ari89 and User:Renejs have both been edit warring, and can consider themselves fortunate that I haven't blocked them both, which I would have been entitled to do. However, that wouldn't solve the problem here.

Consider dispute resolution to address the issue at hand, and also please keep calm, and remain civil, throwing accusations of vandalism around won't help anyone.

Thanks. GedUK  10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no dispute with the article as it stands now. Resolution was probably already reached just before this article was locked. There is still some minor need for cleanup in "The skeptical position" section--(1) the paragraphs should be numbered; (2) "citation needed" after the first sentence of the subsection can be deleted (the ensuing paragraphs provide a wealth of citations).

I'm not convinced that the "previously unpublished synthesis" warning is appropriate here. Everything in the section has already been published, and references are provided. There is no "original" statement, and the "synthesis" is not new but can be found in the works cited.Renejs (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But I do. As it stands, the fringe theory is worked into the main section, and for some reason we are doubling up the information in an individual section. This is clearly undue weight given to a fringe theory (especially whose only active proponent is you and your website?).

And the original synthesis tag is appropriate as the arguments provided are original research and synthesis. Firstly, if you claim that those four arguments are what are used by proponents of this marginal theory, you need a citation from a reliable source stating this. Similarly, your citations appear to misrepresent the respective authors (some which are over 100 years old cited as if they are current consensus) to forward an argument that they do not make. --Ari (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89, you've got tunnel-vision on the "no-Nazareth" thesis. "The skeptical position" deals with something else and equally important: doubt that the word "Nazareth" relates to Nazarene-Nazoraios. This view is not fringe at all. Major names in New Testament research doubt the relation. Incidentally, I've checked 2 of the 3 references you added here. They are irrelevant and do not deal with THIS issue, but assert that Jesus indeed came from Nazareth.

Skepticism regarding the non-existence of Nazareth is now found in "Archaeology" well down the page. In fact, it's at the very end of that section, expressed in a single sentence by Cheyne: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a 'city called Nazareth' in Jesus' time." This is a minimalist presentation of the thesis and should not keep you awake at night. It is old [fact] and gaining ground among liberal scholars [fact]. You maynot like it, but still to be restored to the article are the sentences: "However, some modern scholars argue that Nazareth may be, in fact, where Jesus was born [fact:see Meier 216], while others argue that Nazareth didn't exist at all [fact]. The critical question now under scholarly and polemical (atheist and Christian) debate is when exactly and at what stage in the Roman period Nazareth came into existence, that is, whether settlement there began before or after 70 AD (the First Jewish War)." [Fact]

It's clear that the debate has been opened, and the Wiki article should reflect that. Doubts are now being expressed by a GROWING number of liberal scholars. The doubts refer firstly to the relation of "Nazareth" to "Nazarene" and "Nazoraios," and secondly to the existence of Nazareth in I CE.Renejs (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} A trivial change in "The skeptical position" section would be very helpful and I'm sure has consensus: changing the "#" to actual numbers (1,2,3,4) at the beginning of each paragraph. This will help tidy up the section. Renejs (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The hash marks (#) are wikicode for automatic numbering, but the blank line between each one meant it reset. I've fixed this. GedUK  11:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we change to partially protected or remove the protection altogether? It's been a while... gidonb (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New picture for infobox

I'd like to replace the picture of the Basilica of the Annuciation is the infobox with a panorama of the city instead. The photo there currently is better suited to be in the infobox for the church itself, rather than for the city of Nazareth. I took a photo today that I think would be a good candidate. If no one disagrees, I'd like to request an admin to make the substitution. Here it is:

A panoramic view of Nazareth from the El Kishleh neighborhood

Tiamut^talk 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

and yet the Basilica is the most prominent and known monument in the city, while the panorama doesn't show a distinct feature of the city. DrorK (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Drork, the Basilica is in this picture at right of center. Nazareth is a city, not a cathedral. Tiamut^talk 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89's wholesale & unjustified deletion of "The skeptical position" section

Reversion to 03:59, 5 April 2010. There are several obvious reasons:

(1) ARBITRARINESS. Removal of entire section by Ari89 is censorship and a gross disservice to readers of Wikipedia, who have a right to all the relevant and provable facts on Nazareth. Ari89 must present evidence for the deletion of EVERY sentence (and every word) removed, especially when those are referenced by accepted experts. He may not think the non-dominant view is important, but others certainly do, as evidenced by the many scholars who are cited in "The skeptical position" which Ari89 has now tried to arbitrarily remove. He calls it a "fringe theory," but that is an incorrect characterization, as there are qualified and published theologians (is Ari89?) who disagree with him and with his characterization (as do I, and I happen to be an expert on Nazareth archaeology). The restored "skeptical position" section itself shows where Ari89 is wrong on many counts. More correct is that the no-Nazareth thesis is a minority view, which is why it doesn't begin section 3.2, "Early Christian era." No Nazareth at the turn of the era may be a "fringe theory" according to Ari98's definition of "fringe," but he is certainly in no position to dictate to the world what is and is not "fringe." It is not "fringe"- - it is minority and non-dominant. Today, the no-Nazareth view is well-known (as opposed to only a few years ago), and Wikipedia owes it to readers to reflect ongoing publications and the current state of the debate, with MULTIPLE SIDES represented.

(2) Ari89 TRIES TO REMOVE THOROUGHLY REFERENCED MATTER. "The skeptical position" section cites a multitude of well-known scholars in particulars and systematically corroborates the no-Nazareth thesis with facts of four kinds: (a) historic (lack of reference in Josephus), (b) linguistic (Nazoraios cannot be derived from Nazareth"), (c) literary ("The 'city called Nazareth' seems to be a geographical imagination; it is unmentioned in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, in Josephus, or in the Apocrypha"; and "No ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century"; and (d) religious ("it would certainly be unusual if they were referred to as "people from Nazareth. This makes it probable that originally, prior to the connection with the name of the locality Nazareth, the term [Nazorean] was the name of a Jewish sect or heresy derived from the root "observe" [nun-tsade-resh], and meaning "observant," "devotee," a term later used of the Christians."

(3) FALSE CLAIM. Ari89 falsely states that the no-Nazareth thesis "has been weighted into the main text appropriately"- - but it certainly has not. In any case, I do not agree with his view of that deletion of "The skeptical position" section is "appropriate" in this matter, nor do I see why anyone else should.

(4) SECOND FALSE CLAIM. Ari98 falsely states that his action of deleting the "Skeptical position" section was done "per discussion." However, a review of this discussion page shows him to be confabulating.

Section reinserted as it was before, to describe what is (arguably) the scientifically verifiable position, while leaving adequate scope to what is currently the majority view.Renejs (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed so I will not spend much time explaining this. (1),(2) and (3) [Ignoring your rant against myself.] What you call the skeptical position is a fringe theory, and this fringe theory has been worked into the main history section. We are not going to have a content fork of alternative fringe history attached to the end of the article just because you think this is how scholarship should be. It is about representing the debate as it stands, not a platform for the specific fringe theory you adhere to. --Ari (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Renejs,

1. Ari was referring to previous discussion.

2. WP: fringe shouldn't usually make up a large part in an article, nor do such sources belong as the major sources for the article.

3. You are clearly pushing a strict P.O.V. and are very vague in your actual discussion of the topic when debating material inclusion.

His edits should stand as correct. NJMauthor (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Woa. I suggest taking a look at Renejs' editing history. NJMauthor (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a fringe theory, it does not deserve its own section, and Ari's edit should stand. Actually, I don't really see the purpose of this theory, unless one is trying to push a POV. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The material you've deleted is certainly not "fringe" because it's well-referenced to reputable scholars! You've arbitrarily deleted important and pertinent citations by Bultmann, Cullmannn, and others, each with multiple references to show that they weren't simply writing in a vacuum. Look, skepticism about Nazareth goes back many generations. It's not "my" position or new at all. You're trying to delete a hundred years of skepticism because you want to defend the majority view. But wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's not opinion-based but evidence-based, and that's why "The skeptical position" needs to be there and prominently so. When you delete material, you have to show one of the following (a) why it is clearly wrong; (b) why it is clearly not relevant; (c) why it is clearly redundant; or (d) why it is clearly unlikely ("fringe"). This has to be unambiguous for a deletion to be made, otherwise what is ambiguous and still possible becomes a minority view. If that possibility has the backing of reputed scholars, then it is certainly not "fringe." We're not primarily talking Nazareth archaeology here, either. You're trying to delete important linguistic, historical, etc. material.

Look, it's not enough to accuse me of being "fringe." You have something much more difficult (and impossible) to do: to show that the material you're deleting is itself "fringe"! I challenge you to refute the following for starters: "O. Cullmann wrote that "According to Acts 24:5 not only Jesus, but also the Christians were called NAZORAIOI; it would certainly be unusual if they were referred to as "people from Nazareth. This makes it probable that originally, prior to the connection with the name of the locality Nazareth, the term [Nazorean] was the name of a Jewish sect or heresy derived from the root "observe" [nun-tsade-resh], and meaning "observant," "devotee," a term later used of the Christians." This is important information about Nazareth and early Christianity that we can't merely delete but must deal with.

The referenced linguistic, historical, etc. material in "the skeptical position" is not *my* opinion, is not new, and (by definition) is not fringe. Any scholar who studies the difficult issue of Nazareth will admit that there is at least some room for multiple views here, and this has been carefully noted for a long time. Finally, one should always be suspicious of people who delete wiki material (rather than add to it), especially material which is well referenced to noted scholars. Please do not insert your head in the sand in these changing times: the skeptical position is not new, and it is not "fringe"! Renejs (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:UNDUE. A minority opinion, which you readily admit this is, should not be given so much weight in an article. nableezy - 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." According to this definition, the belief that Nazareth didn't exist in the early first century qualifies as fringe for Wikipedia's purposes. Eugene (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Word's to avoid

I just misspoke (mistyped?) in my last edit summary. "claimed" isn't WP:WEASEL, it's WP:CLAIM. Sorry about that. Eugene (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just found this on the IAA Web site. How much more "official" does it get? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazareth does not exist, how are you saying that it does?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David: (Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

This is a recurring complaint here. Sufficed to say that mainstream archeology accepts the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century. Eugene (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the core of the modern day city has not been systematically excavated. The only excavations have been on the ground of the Basilica of the Annunciation when it was rebuilt in 1967, at Mary's Well when it was rebuilt in the late 1990s, at a store beside Mary's Well when it was being renovated around the same time (see Ancient Bath House of Nazareth, and most recently, this last year on the grounds of a convent. Thee is much yet to discovered. Tiamut^talk 15:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Félix Bonfils

Ok, note for when this article is no longer protected; this postcard[8], now in the article, is actually based on a picture by Félix Bonfils (died 1885); it should be noted. Huldra (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no authority on the Yardenna Alexandre discovery ever dates it to explicitly the life time of Jesus

Such an explicit date is mere conjecture, as the article cited for the source here in this Wikipedia entry does not specify the discovery to the lifetime of Jesus, but rather, to the "Early Roman period" which includes that time frame, but is not exclusive to it and goes on well into the 2nd century. This article here- http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

says that "The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE". Sorry, but 67 CE is three decades too late for the time of Jesus. So while this is definitely an important historical find, trying to assert that this was from the life time of Jesus is conjecture and demands a source be linked with an explicit statement from an authority stating as much. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.18.26 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources to state it was from the time of Jesus, you can contest that and I agree with you that such a precise dating at a preliminary stage may very well be dubious. However, our job is not to do original research, but to report what the sources state. --Ari (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What came out of Yardenna's own mouth isn't original to me. However, the wording of the previous edit puts words in her mouth without citing an explicit statement, as I have already pointed out. She never says it was from the life time of Jesus, she merely said it shed light on what life was like in that time. The writings of Josephus do that too, they show us what life was like at that time, yet his writings nor Josephus himself date to the life time of Jesus. The site was dated to early roman based on the pottery sherds[as per linked article "The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE"]. And Yardenna herself gave 67 CE as the most probable date for the pit in which the pottery was located. That's from her own mouth, so again I say, that's three decades too late.

I'll leave in the part about the life of Jesus, since "early roman" is inclusive of, although not exclusive to, that time. However, I am going to add the word "might" to clarify that it MIGHT be to the time of Jesus. I hope then, we can finally come to terms on this article and let it be. Sound okay to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.18.26 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nablus & Nazareth,photos and one more link that needed to be added

This week a delegation group from Nablus (Including Nablus Muni.) came to Nazareth to build a relationship between the two cities (Econmey and etc.) one of the resault of the meetings between the two municipalties is to have a "twin city" realtionship between the two

Another issue .. I'm trying to upload a photos that I toke from my camera and put it in this page but it's all the time deleted. I'm trying only to improve the photos... By the way i'm updating the logo of the municipality (puting the new logo) and it also had been deleted

The page of "azareth, The Magical City" on FB is now recognized from the Nazareth Munivipality and should be added http://www.facebook.com/Nazareth5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anan Maalouf (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to replace pictures

I want to replace some of the pictures on the page of Nazareth on wikipedia ... most of the pictures are old\appropriate for Nazareth City

All photos were taken by me, but my problem is that I'm new on wikipedia and I don't all the liescens and stuff....

I also think that we need to add some lines about the last Pope visit and about the biggest Amphitheatre in the middle east in Mount Precipice

I will be happy if anyone can help with my problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareth City (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

10x for bringing new photo and updating a caption. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology & Palestinians

One etymology is far more widely accepted than the others, so it should get WP:DUE prominence. In the international news, the word "Palestinian" almost always refers to non-Israelis, i.e. the Arabs in Gaza, on the West Bank, and in the refugee camps. Moreover, the description "Arab citizens of Israel" is a satisfactory explanation of the nationality of these Nazareth residents by itself -- and it links to an article that elaborates on the complexities of this issue at great length. Kauffner (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the etymological theories are just that - theories. Why would we highlight one theory that is not conclusive from among many theories in the lead of all places?

About "Palestinian" as an identifier for this population ... the two sources cited for the information in the lead use "Palestinian". Indeed, most Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinians. Per MOS:IDENTITY, within articles, we should use the labels that the people in question prefer themselves. Given that both the sources and our policies agree, I see no valid reason we should not use Palestinians here, at least some of the time. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Tiamut that self identification is important to note here but I don't think it's crystal clear what the Nazareth arab poplation are identifying themselves and I don't think we should assign them labels when it's not perfectly clear. Cause I think the vast majority see themselves as Israeli citizens and arabs at least no? But I don't think everyone identify as palestinian. Here's the charts for the arab self identification for Israeli arabs overall from the Israeli arab article:

Self Identification of Muslim Arabs, 2008
Palestinian Arabs			43%
Arab Israelis			15%
Muslim Israelis			4%

Self Identification of Christian Arabs, 2008
Palestinian Arabs			24%
Arab Israelis			24%
Christian Israelis			24%

By the way do you know how to spell this; Makam el nabi Sain Mosque in arabic? I only know the words المسجد & نبي. It's a Nazareth mosque. Thanks! Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that poll to represent the best scholarship on identity issues among Arab citizens of Israel. It should really be replaced with this source, which gives a more comprehensive analysis and reflects the other material cited to high quality reliable sources in our article on the subject. The fact is that the vast majority of Arab citizens prefer to identify in whole or in part as Palestinian. The sources we have discussing the Arab citizenry of Nazareth also use the term "Palestinian Arab" or "Palestinian" to refer to them. This means that use is in ine both with our guideline on identity (MOS:IDENTITY) and with our policy of WP:V. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to treat every etymology theory as equal. Some are more widely accepted than others. I went to the MOS link that was given and I didn't see anything relevant. The residents might self-identify as a long list of things and not every self-identity needs to be given, or at least not all of them in the same sentence. The word "Palestinian" has been added repetitiously, twice in the lede although the lede is only four sentences long. Kauffner (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that one speculative etymological theory is more widely accepted than others. And even if that were the case, I don't see the need for speculation of any kind to be included in the lead. There are far more important facts not currently represented there that could be and highlighting one nconclusive theory on the etymology of the city's name seems wholly unnecessary and undue. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When u mention it, regardless of nationality/ethnicity anyone finds this sentence; The Mayor of Nazareth is a Palestinian Christian a bit excessive? It really doesn't belong in the lead, the mayor's name is already in the infobox, so maybe this should be somewhere in the history section or a government section if at all, but really not the lead. What do you think? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to include mention of Ramez Jaraisi being a Palestinian Christian in the lead. That should be moved into the body of the article. I'll do it if you like. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though I don't think it is the best solution, I don't find Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel unacceptable. So it's fine for me. But I still think the mayor part is a bit farfetched. First of all it seems as it's just thrown in there without any regard to the flow of the text really & doesn't add anything. Secondly I think writing that he is a Palestinian christian might imply that he is a non-israeli palestinian which he is not, but writing he is a christian palestinian arab citizen of israel is a bit tedious. Thirdly we already said close to 100% of the popoulation is palestinian arab israeli so it would be like writing the mayor of Tel Aviv is Jewish, doesn't really belong in the main article unless there is something surrounding it, I still think it could be interesting to note that he is christian since they are in minority in Nazareth. And forthly do we know what his self-identification is? Cause now we are talking about an individual and that's a different story. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Krašovec, 2010

It's generally recognised in the study of Classical Greek that the representation of consonants which Greek doesn't distinguish is not (a) accurate or (b) consistent. Egbert J. Bakker A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language 2010 gives a good introduction, and Jože Krašovec The transformation of biblical proper names also 2010 a detailed survery of Semitic/Aramaic/Hebrew place/personal names into Greek. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazareth intro.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nazareth intro.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth did not exist in 1 CE

"There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.)"

Drawing on only the Gospels is not enough proof that Nazareth existed prior to 100 CE and was not founded and expanded because of the bible's influence. 71.86.157.30 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on the failings of Ken Darks' critical review of Rene Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth which is the basis of considering the book WP:FRINGE. 71.86.157.30 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Are the Arabs of Nazareth Palestinian?

Unlike the Arabs of the West Bank or Gaza who are so often in the media, those of Nazareth are Israeli citizens. The lede of this article currently states that the population of Nazareth is, "predominantly of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel." This conflicts with the dominant usage in the international English-language media, which treats the categories "Palestinians" and "Israeli Arabs" as mutually exclusive. The phrase "Israeli Arabs and Palestinians" gets 991 results on Google News, which makes sense only if Israeli Arabs are not considered Palestinians. When the word "Palestine" appears in contemporary news coverage, it is most commonly a reference to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. But of course of the Arabs of Nazareth do not come under this authority. Kauffner (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage examples:

• "He works with Iranian and Lebanese intelligence and with Israeli Arabs and Palestinians, according to the prime minister's office." New York Times, June 25, 2003.
• "In the first week of October, the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza Strip spread like fire to the Israeli Arabs." Boston Globe, Feb 1, 2001.
• "Bishara [a political leader in Nazareth] has been highly critical of the government's policies towards the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs," Jerusalem Post, Oct. 10, 2000. Kauffner (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See Israeli Arab#Self-identification. Zero^talk 07:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The survey you cite says that only 43 percent of Muslim Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves Palestinians. How they respond to surveys isn't really relevant anyway. And none of the survey data is specific to Nazareth. Kauffner (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification does matter when discussing people as individuals or groups. More importantly however is that more than one high quality RS used to write this article refers to the population as Palestinian Arab. One even says the town is "almost exclusively Palestinian Arab". Are you disputing the reliability of the sources? Tiamut^talk 08:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oic. Exclusively Palestinian Arab and no Israeli Arabs at all? All I can say is, do you read the stuff you write? Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You claim to know the meaning of "Palestine", but you give it inaccurately, then you use that to infer (aka original research) the meaning of "Palestinian" and get it completely wrong. You won't get anywhere with this line. Zero^talk 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The survey that you yourself cited does not support the idea that a majority of Israel Arabs can be considered "Palestinian", never mind "almost" 100 percent of Nazareth residents, as Tiamut has preposterously claimed. I am proposing to take something out the article. Such a proposal cannot be considered original research. The burden of proof is on those who want to keep questionable material in. Kauffner (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the sources supporting the description Palestinian Arab is Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia (eg. page 273: "Upper Nazareth was established as a Jewish urban counterweight to Palestinian Arab Nazareth"). There is more evidence there and among the others cited and more than can be cited. There are very few sources of repute in matters of identity that would call Nazareth Israeli Arab because it flies in the face of history and the facts. Nazareth was an important Palestinian Arab city before 1948 and it became a much larger city after absorbing Palestinian refugees from the towns Israel destroyed to create itself. In any case, I see no evidence that Nazareth should not be identified as Palestinin Arab, ony your protestations that it cannot be so. Tiamut^talk 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cities of the Middle East quote refers to the 1950s. At that time, the phrase "Palestinian Arab" was an idiom which meant something quite different than the word "Palestinian" does today. When Arab nationalism was riding high, "Palestine" was merely a geographic expression, to paraphrase Metternich on Italy. "Arab" and "Israeli citizen" are factual descriptors. But "Palestinian" is subjective, a claim that the residents of Nazarath have a "real" nationality that is different than the one they are legally assigned. Kauffner (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are just making assertions. Can you really not understand the relationship between ethnic groups and nationalities? It is ironic given the experience of Jews in pre-WWII eastern Europe who faced the same problem. Zero^talk 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see a coherent defense of the use of this term, just a lot of filibustering. But if the basis for this is the idea that Israeli Arabs in general should be referred to as "Palestinian", that has implications for many articles, and it goes way beyond Nazareth. So I think an RfC is appropriate. Kauffner (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you accept that a set can be described using more than one name by reliable sources and that that is both okay and commonplace ? The New Israel Fund for example say "Israeli Arabs – or Palestinian Israelis as some prefer to be called"[9] Or look at Haneen Zoabi who lives in Nazareth for example. She responded to the question "When you think about your identity, do you see yourself as an Israeli, an Arab, a Palestinian?" by saying "I am Palestinian—or Arab—and I am an Israeli citizen so I take my citizenship very seriously." on page 6 People, and we are talking about people, can be Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Israelis, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. What's the problem ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinian", it's the new smurfy. It means whatever you want to mean. This is a reason to use the word? Kauffner (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more interesting words, social construct and cultural genocide. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would refer to people as citizens of what ever country they hold citizenship. As such: "Swiss", "Dutch" "South Korean" "Palestinian" "Israeli". If the people in this city hold Palestinian citizenship then they can be referred to as Palestinian. If they hold Israeli citizenship then they can be referred to as Israeli. We could also just dodge the issue by referring in the article to people as "people living in Nazareth" or "people with Israeli citizenship" or "people with Palestinian citizenship". Joe407 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian isnt simply a nationality. In fact, a member of the Knesset from Nazareth calls herself a Palestinian (see for example here). This is an attempt to deny people of an identity that they ascribe to themselves, on the sole basis that a collection of unrelated news articles supposedly treat the term Palestinian and Israeli as mutually exclusive. Here is a book published by the University of California Press that calls Nazareth the largest Palestinian city in Israel. Here is another one published by Bergahn Books. Here is one by John Quigley (academic) that calls Nazareth the principal Palestinian city in Arab-populated Galilee. There are a large number of sources that call Nazareth and its residents Palestinian. nableezy - 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's not about nationality, but about self-esteem? I don't know why I didn't think of that one earlier. I enjoyed the "the principal Palestinian city in Arab-populated Galilee" quote. Perhaps the Arabs elsewhere in Galilee are less in need of validation. Kauffner (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think your commentary is helpful to this discussion? I don't. Academic sources describe Nazareth as a Palestinian and Arab city in Israel. The sources are not written by Palestinians in need of validation. Please stop with the smurfiness and stay on topic. Are the sources unreliable? Are there sources that use different descriptions that you believe render this description improbable? Can you share them? Tiamut^talk 09:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that it was about self-esteem, I wrote it was about identification, An identification that the sources apply to the city and residents of Nazareth, an identification that you wish to deny them of for no reason other than a now discredited argument on Palestinian and Israeli being mutually exclusive. While I understand it may be difficult to have ones argument be demonstrated to be garbage, reacting by denigrating others' comments, and, more importantly, the sources does not in any way come close to offering a valid rebuttal. Based on your inability to respond to the well-sourced fact that Nazareth is a Palestinian city populated by Palestinians, I take it that you have no argument and that you are now simply wasting our time. Please dont continue to do so. nableezy - 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Nazareth is an Israeli city, within the internationally-recognized boundaries of Israel proper, and is therefore populated by Israeli Arabs. Many of those Arabs are Christian, I'm sure they wouldn't be very thrilled to be called Palestinian... but regardless, the residents of Nazareth are not Palestinian, no matter how you look at it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sanctions headers. Try to remember that they say "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". It's not a forum so opinions without sources to support them aren't part of the consensus decision procedure. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank goodness for your comment Sean.hoyland. I so very badly wanted to answer that, Nazareth being my hometown and all, but I'll pass ... Tiamut^talk 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Several reliable sources say that Nazareth is a Palestinian city. That does not contradict that it is in Israel. Palestinian is not simply a nationality, and with several reliable sources supporting the label and none disputing it, no matter how you look at it, on Wikipedia Nazareth is a Palestinian city. In your edit summary you said do not add back without reliable sources, three such sources are listed here. Self-revert your tendentious edit. nableezy - 19:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The are numerous sources from every POV on every aspect of the Arab-Israel conflict. The sources given for this claim are: 1) Michael Dumper, who describes the city as "Palestinian Arab" back in the 1950s. As I have already explained, this is not really the same thing. 2) A book review of Beyond the basilica: Christians and Muslims in Nazareth. This book describes "Palestinian or Israeli-Arab" as the "usual" terminology. (p. 11) So the book is openly revisionist on this issue. Kauffner (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the several sources brought here, such as Kanaaneh, Rhoda Ann (2002), Birthing the nation: strategies of Palestinian women in Israel, University of California Press, p. 117, ISBN 9780520223790, All-Arab cities such as Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel and Quigley, John (1997), Flight into the maelstrom: Soviet immigration to Israel and Middle East peace, Garnet & Ithaca Press, p. 190, ISBN 9780863722196, The other major Jewish population centre in Galilee was Upper Nazareth, established next to Nazareth, the principal Palestinian city in Arab-populated Galilee. nableezy - 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quigly is an expert on international law and Kanaaneh is an expert on gender issues as far as I can tell. I don't think either is a reliable source for demographics. Not to mention that both are just using their favored terminology for Arab citizens of Israel which they use throughout their books. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to bring either source to RS/N if you like. nableezy - 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. Did I overlooked the birthing book? There's no excuse for that. For some reason, I thought we should follow the usage of BBC, New York Times, Jordan Times, New York Daily News, and Sydney Morning Herald. All of these sources treat "Palestinians" and "Arab Israelis" and two separate categories of people, presumably differentiated by citizenship. My favorite is this quote from Salon: "Almost all such [Palestinian-Israeli] marriages are between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs." I want see someone interpret that as self-identity. Kauffner (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything in that veneer of sarcasm that is so clearly masking a weak argument anything that shows that Palestinians cannot also be Israelis. And I dont see which of those sources says anything about Nazareth. But if you want general sources referring to the Arab population within Israel, you can start with these books (both discussed in this Economist review, both published by top quality academic presses). I dont see anybody refuting that several sources have been brought that say that Nazareth and its residents are Palestinian and not one actually contradicting it. You want us to accept your claim that because a collection of news articles may or may not differentiate between "Arab Israeli" and "Palestinian" that we cannot say that any Arab in Israel is "Palestinian". Im sorry, but the sources clearly dont agree with your view, and that is what counts here. nableezy - 06:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's one (out of many) contradicting your sources [10]. It calls them "Israeli Arabs" and specifically mentions Nazareth. Here's another [11].

It's pretty obvious that authors use their preferred terminology when describing Arab citizens of Israel, which makes this a POV issue. I'm a little surprised Sean didn't come up with his usual suggestion of making it vague, by just using "Arabs" for example, but I guess he wanted to make a point about cultural genocide or something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesnt contradict my source. I am not the one that claims "Palestinian" and "Israeli" are mutually exclusive, so finding one using "Arab Israel" or "Isralei Arab" does not in way diminish that it is also "Palestinian". And one of the sources you brought says They are citizens of Israel but belong to the larger Arab-Palestinian nation. So how again does that contradict my sources? nableezy - 13:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, its not my preferred terminology. Its the trrminology used by most reliable sources. Sure, you will find some who use Israeli Arab, but they do not address the lack of use of this term by the people themselves. And they do not contradict usage of Palestinian. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Tiamut^talk 07:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What's not your preferred terminology? Palestinian? Are you serious?

Both "Palestinian" and "Israeli-Arab" are POV terms in this context. We should use something neutral, like saying that it's the "largest Arab town" or "largest predominately Arab town" or whatever. Nobody has proven that Palestinian is the terminology used by most reliable sources or that it's the terminology most residents of Nazareth prefer, and frankly I doubt anyone will be able to. It's pretty obvious when looking at the sources that authors will describe it with the same terms they like to use for Arab citizens of Israel in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about someone with a user box that advocates violence against Israelis. So my guess is.....serious. Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, it's because I'm busy doing other stuff and not paying enough attention. I would be happy with just saying "people" but apparently it doesn't work like that. I'm interested in armchair cultural genocide hobbyists on Wikipedia and I was very surprised that Kauffner, who lives in Vietnam, a country with many peoples who self-identify in various ways with a nice big city that has 2 equally valid names, would be the one pressing this issue. Great efforts are made to erase the word Palestinian by many people in Wikipedia. It's good to have a hobby but it's most curious because you don't see it in the many other articles about people who self-identify as members of group. Anyway, I'm sure you guys can figure it out and don't need me. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm more concerned about the discussions staying on track and sticking to policy based arguments rather than being disrupted by irrelevant comments like the one I just made above for example... Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know nothing about my personal preferences NMMNG, so it would be prudent not to speculate.

If you examine the sources that are provided to you, you will find that how Nazareth is described is distinct fom other Arab localities because it is the only Palestinian urban center to have remained almost exclusively Arab after 1948 and it absorbed thousands of internally displaced Palestinians. Furthermore, the city and its mayor Tawfiq Ziad played an important role in the emergence of a Palestinian nationalism among Arabs in Israel . That is why you will find the preponderance of serious academic sources describing it as Palestinian. Because it reflects reality and the facts. Using Arab alone is denying this population's connection to Palestine and the Palestinian people, which is why the Israeli establishment prefers such descriptions, but we should not. Tiamut^talk 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. You removed "Arab-Israeli" from the lead of Arab Citizens of Israel claiming it was "offensive". I don't need to "speculate" about what terminology you prefer.

I have not seen a preponderance of serious academic sources describing it as Palestinian. I've seen a few sources describing it as such and others describing it as Arab-Israeli.

I get that you think things pertaining to Palestinian nationalism should be highlighted while anything related to the "Israeli establishment" (as if the BBC or the Jordan Times are part of that establishment) should be hidden, but that's not how things are supposed to work around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So what happened to self-identity? You lost that argument, so now you've got a new one. The gist of this one seems to be, "There's some book somewhere that calls them 'Palestinian'." Do have any idea how many books have been written on Arab-Israeli issues? Kauffner (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And the gist of your argument is that there is a news report that calls them Arab Israelis. Do you have any idea how many news articles have been written on such issues? nableezy - 13:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oic. At this point, I find it necessary to impart some basic information concerning how the publishing industry works. Major news organizations like the BBC or the New York Times, and probably even the Jordan Times, have what are called "styles". So on anything at all sensitive like this, the phrasing is decided at the organizational level. From my days as a copy editor, I can you that most reporters wouldn't know style from a hole in the ground. But it is the job of the copy editor to know and enforce such things. Of course, book publishers have styles too. But at least with the examples you have given, it seems likely that the issue was decided by the individual author and reflects his POV. You're welcome. Kauffner (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt aware I needed to thank you for anything. But to the point, none of your sources actually say that Palestinian and Israeli are mutually exclusive, and in fact one of the sources brought by No More Mr Nice Guy explicitly says that Arab citizens of Israel are also Palestinian. There are now several reliable sources that explicitly say that Nazareth is a Palestinian city, and not one that disputes this. For all your comments about style, you seem to miss what counts here. That several sources say that Nazareth is a Palestinian city, and none dispute that. So on Wikipedia, we can say that Nazareth is Palestinian. nableezy - 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because a claim appears in some book, we have to put it in the article. This is your actual argument? As I have explained more than once already, this is a subjective word usage issue. So we can't just pull up any old author and adopt his idiosyncratic usage. Big media organizations like the New York Times, AP and BBC are the people who set the pace on style. Kauffner (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny. No, because a reliable source says that as a fact Nazareth is a Palestinian city and no reliable source disputes it, that is why we should include it in the article. Big media organizations are, by the definition given at WP:RS, less reliable than books published by quality academic presses. As I have explained more than once already, your unsourced opinion on Palestinian and Israeli being mutually exclusive is refuted by several sources, some of which explicitly state that Nazareth is a Palestinian city, and others that are dedicated to the topic of Palestinians in Israel, such as the two I linked to earlier. nableezy - 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think of this as a factual dispute, then than the text should say something like, "Nazareth is a the largest Palestinian city is Israel, according to Birthing the Nation by Rhoda Ann Kanaaneh. However, in God has ninety-nine names by Judith Miller, it is described as, "Israel's largest Arab-Israeli city." There 156 post-1980 results for Nazareth as the "largest Arab city", only 9 for "largest Palestinian city". Kauffner (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Who said I dispute that Nazareth is Arab-Israeli? (But Judith Miller? Really? There must be a hundred better sources to support your point) What about me not thinking that Palestinian and Israeli are mutually exclusive dont you get? It says the residents are Arab citizens of Israel, and nobody is trying to remove that, so I dont understand why are arguing about them being Arab-Israeli. What I have said is that they are also Palestinian, and that is supported by several sources. Your belief that Palestinian and Israeli cannot both apply is contradicted by several sources. nableezy - 03:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

no, its not just some book, its most books. And yes, self-identity does matter and most Nazarenes identify as Palestinian. Read this for example [12] for an explanation of the historical evolution as regards Nazareth, and for Palestinian Arab citizens in general , see Israel's Palestinians, particularly pp. 26-29. Tiamut^talk 07:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your sources cannot be verified, the Google books page is saying that "content is unavailable". In any case, yes – maybe you can provide sources that back up the historic name "Palestinians", but we are dealing with their current status here, especially in the lede. Like it or not, Nazareth is a part of Israel proper, therefore its residents are holders of Israeli passports and therefore Israelis by definition. Also, your sources call Nazareth a Palestinian city (again, from a historical perspective), but do not deny that Nazarenes are Israeli citizens. Therefore, the term "Israeli Arabs" should be the preferred one, without a doubt. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean, the sources can't be verified by you. I can see them perfectly well. That is the nature of google. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources provided by me are not refering to the city as Palestinian in a historical perspective, and the article already said citizens of Israel. You apparently want to force on to the residents of Nazareth one label but refuse to allow the well-sourced Palestinian to likewise be applied. nableezy - 16:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring the original text and adding two of the sources mentioned here. Absent a consensus to change, the original should remain in the article. This isnt a game where you can edit-war out of the article long standing reliably sourced text without anything resembling a consensus. This line has been in the article for a over a year. A user demanding that we disregard the several sources presented does not trump that. nableezy - 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it is supposed to work. The burden of proof is on those who want controversial material in the article. The editors opposed to inclusion should not be expected to find a source where it is specifically stated that the fringe claim is not true. Kauffner (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but claiming what several reliable sources, among them books published by top-quality academic presses, say is fringe claim is rather silly. You cant throw out several eminently reliable sources and the basis of you disliking their content. If you could produce one that actually disputes those sources you could have a point if say your source were more qualified. But you dont have such a source. Your claim that the identification of Palestinian is controversial is based on your unfounded assertion that Palestinian denotes a citizenship when it does not. We have articles on Palestinian Americans, nobody assumes that those people must be Palestinian citizens. Your premise is faulty, as is everything that has followed. nableezy - 05:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for bumping in on the conversation, but I saw a note this was going on at Nableezy's page. The objections here might have had some substance a few decades ago. But there is now a considerable sociology maining coming from Israeli scholars, on the transformation of the identity of Israeli Arabs (the preferred term in Israel) into Israeli Palestinians.

Kauffner you made an extraordinary statement at the outset.

to paraphrase Metternich on Italy. "Arab" and "Israeli citizen" are factual descriptors. But "Palestinian" is subjective, a claim that the residents of Nazarath have a "real" nationality that is different than the one they are legally assigned.

I caught,as any Italian would, an edge of contempt in your oblique allusion to Metternich's description of Italy as nothing more than a 'geographical expression'. Metternich wrote that 'self-serving denial of Italian statehood' because the power whose interests he served, the Austro-Hungarian empire, controlled most of the north, holding it under military occupation and had therefore a vested interest in denying statehood to Italians. Ignoring Dante, and several centuries, he needed to dismiss Italy as meaningless, as you do Palestinian as meaningless, because denying it serves the political interests of the power occupying that country. Rhetorically, to make that kind of analogy, is called 'shooting oneself in the foot'.

To then assert 'Arab' and 'Israeli citizen' are 'factual descriptors ignores what Israeli and Jewish American scholars of these identitarian issues increasingly accept, namely that Palestinian identity is not more subjective because they live in Israel, than Jewish identity has historically been subjective when Jews lived in the diaspora. How anyone can miss this beats me. A work specifically on this has just been published this June by Waxman and Peleg, summing up a decade's interdisciplinary research.

‘At present, there are approximately 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of Israel about 20 percent of Israel’s total population, and about 12 percent of Palestinians world-wide. This Palestinian population has been almost completely ignored by the international community. For decades, international discussion of what has become known as the “Palestinian problem” or “Palestinian question” has focused almost exclusively on the dire predicament of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Whereas the situation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories has received a great deal of international attention, the situation of the Palestinian minority in Israel has received little, if any, attention.'Ilan Peleg, Dov Waxman, Israel's Palestinians: The Conflict Within, Cambridge University Press, 2011 pp.2-3

They go into the issue precisely of the terminology they have opted to use as the default term here in note 4.

‘We use the term “Palstinian citizens of Israel” to refer to members of Israel’s Arab majority, whom Israeli Jews generally call “Israeli Arabs”. We avoid using the label “Israeli Arabs” in this book because it does not accurately convey the self-identity of Arabs in Israel. In numerous surveys conducted over many years, the majority of Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinian rather than “Israeli Arab”.' note 4, pp.2-3

There are several other academic works that come to mind, one indeed edited by Alexander Bligh, who at the time was chair of the Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies departments at, of all places, at Academic College of Judea and Samaria. I'm thinking of Alexander Bligh (ed) The Israeli Palestinians: an Arab minority in the Jewish state, Routledge, 2003, whose title says it all.

So (a) a scholarly source identifies your term as inexact and characteristic of Israeli Jewish usage. Academic works trump newspapers, which on things like this are mostly uptodate only with regard to the dates they use each day.

This is a no-brainer, and we shouldn't be wasting time on it.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your own source admits that it's usage conflicts with the usual practice. In fact, it conflicts so strongly that the author feels the need to give a lengthy explanation justifying it. Yet your conclusion is that Wiki should follow this openly revisionist usage. Am I missing something? Kauffner (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Jews dont decide the usual practice. The source says that Israeli Jews generally call them Israeli Arabs, but that this label does not accurately convey the self-identity of Arabs in Israel and further that the majority of Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinian rather than “Israeli Arab”. Can you explain why we should apply to them what an external group calls them rather than what the source says that they largely call themselves? nableezy - 05:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a very unclear definition by veriety of sources of who is Palestinian, but in principle while the solution is simple, there is no solution today. Until 1948, Palestinian was any resident of the British Mandate for Palestine (Jewish, Arab, Druze or Circassian etc.). Later the term was applied to those Arabs, who fled/evacuated/were expelled from Mandatory Palestine and hence were related as (former) Palestinian Arabs. After Israel was made, its citizens "turned" from Palestinian into Israeli (Jews, Arabs, Circassians, Druze etc.). But since the Arab state of Palestine didn't succeed in its birth (i don't include the fragile All-Palestine Government), their former Palestinian nationality was "sticked" to them for life - under Jordanian, Egyptian, Israeli occupation. With time, this former nationality of "Mandate Palestine" even passed on by heritage in a very unprecedented way, as most Arab governments withheld nationality from those refugees, while "present absentees" were naturalilized within Israel and Jordan (incl. West Bank). Yet, in the 1990s PA provided new Palestinian natinality cards for Arabs in West Bank and Gaza - so the nationality was revived in a way, but it also creates definition problem: is this really just natioanlity or ethnicity or heritage? It seems to me Palestinian is a sort of equivalent to Israeli/Jordanian /Syrian in many ways, but it will take time, until it will become a normal nationality, unlike the past "phantom"-identity, which passes from generation to generation. I don't see "Palestinian" becoming ethnicity, as practically most of PA residents are Arabs, who are an integral part of the Arab World and Arab League, and have even a lesser distinct identity than Syrians and Lebanese. The PA flag is a flag of the Arab Revolt, with Islamic colors, so historically PA sees itself as a continuation of the Arab Muslim heritage (even though some Christians take part in its governing). In the end, Nazareth Arabs are technically Israelis by nationality, but since some of them deny the authority of the state of Israel, they stick to the "phantom"-Palestinian national self-identity, which meanwhile became a real nationality in the PA. Such duality will not go on for long in my opinion, but lets live and see.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a private blog. These are your personal opinions. I cited sources that reflect current academic takes specifically on the question at hand. If you have academic sources that challenge them, by all means, produce them. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with your above statement. First, in the Arab citizens of Israel article we see that 43% of them prefer the term Palestinian. That's not a majority, so your source is mistaken. Second, while your source says that the term Israeli Arab is generally used by Israeli Jews, we see it is also used by others, such as the BBC and Jordan Times and quite a few other non-"Israeli Jew" sources. So trying to paint this as a Jews vs Arabs thing is also incorrect.

Anyway, it was explained to me at length that the neutral term is Arab citizens of Israel, and that's what should be used. A reader can go read the link and see how they prefer to self-identify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me a viable solution.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, your own source says that Arab citizens of Israel belong to the larger Arab-Palestinian nation. That source does the exact opposite of contradicting my position that the residents of Nazareth are Israeli citizens and are Palestinians. Do you have any response to that? nableezy - 22:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Following that reasoning, the Arab-Palestinian nation is part of the larger Arab nation, so let's use that. One more time - Arab citizens of Israel is (according to you in a previous discussion, I can find a diff if you don't remember) the neutral term for this group of people. A reader can click on the link and find out all they need to know about self-identification issues regarding the group. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We say they are Arabs, we also say that they are Arab citizens of Israel. But that doesnt mean that we cant also say that they are Palestinians, as even your own source says. I dont see why those terms should be treated as though they were mutually exclusive. Several sources obviously dont think so, and two sources devoted to the topic of the remaining Arab population in Israel specifically say that they are Palestinians. The label you want to include is already included, why should no other label be applied? But I am not asking you to follow a line of reasoning, I am asking that you respond to what the source that you brought here, a source that was supposedly contradicting [my] sources on the population being, in addition to Israeli citizens, also Palestinian. Why did you bring the source if you dont agree with its reasoning? nableezy - 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say they don't belong to a larger group, so I don't exactly follow your argument. What I said, and if you could please address my actual argument and not make one up for me yourself, is that a. not all sources (or even most as far as we've seen) call it a Palestinian town, and that Arab citizens of Israel already covers all the issues of identity anyway. So to put it in terms of policy, a. per NPOV you can't just pick a non-neutral descriptor you like and put it in the lead and b. per WP:UNDUE you can't over-emphasize one aspect of the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do my utmost to address your actual argument. But you have to in turn do the same for me. Why is it necessary that all sources, or even most, call it a Palestinian town for us to call it, among other things, a Palestinian town? And Palestinian people covers issues like a large number of Palestinians live in Israel proper. For the policy argument, a. something is not a non-neutral descriptor simply because you say it is, or even because many Wikipedians say it is. A non-neutral descriptor would be one in which reliable sources say does not apply. B. I am not over-emphasizing one aspect, I think it is as important that they are members of the Palestinian people as it is that they are members of the Israeli citizenry. Now, I think you will agree that I have addressed your actual argument, so please do the same for mine; if there are reliable sources supporting a statement, and none opposing it, that statement is by definition a "neutral statement". There have been reliable sources saying that both that Nazareth is a Palestinian town, and about Arabs in Israel as Palestinians. No source has actually said that the residents are not Palestinian. Why should we treat Palestinian and Israeli as being mutually exclusive? I dont understand that. Israeli, as has been repeatedly pointed out by the supporters of the expunging of the word Palestinian, is in reference to the citizenship of the residents. Palestinian is not, and Palestinian people does not claim a dependence on citizenship. Why are the terms mutually exclusive? nableezy - 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that does address my argument. It might have, if I were suggesting the article only say that they are Israeli citizens, but that's not the case. I said it should say they are Arab citizens of Israel, which wikilinkis to an article that explains all the issues of self identification at length, including the fact that they are members of the Palestinian people. That's what we have wikilinks for. Saying it twice is indeed over-emphasizing it.

As for your argument, we don't only have reliable sources saying it's a Palestinian town, we also have reliable sources saying it's an Israeli-Arab town. Again, using Arab citizens of Israel covers both nicely in an NPOV way. By the way, are you seriously arguing that "a non-neutral descriptor would be one in which reliable sources say does not apply"? How about if reliable sources use two different descriptors pretty much equally and you chose just one? Is that neutral? NPOV compliant? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, that didnt address your argument? You want it to say Arab citizen of Israel, and it does say Arab citizen of Israel. As for your later argument about sources using multiple labels, we can use them all for all I care. Im not the one trying to remove a well sourced label, you are. If you want to use something other than Arab citizen of Israel to denote their being Israeli citizens then by all means propose that. I cant say that I would oppose it saying Palestinian Arab-Israelis if that is what you are getting at. nableezy - 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me try one last time. This is an article about a city. This city's residents belong mainly to a certain group. This group has an article. This article describes all relevant issues concerning this group, including issues of identification and which larger groups they belong to. The aforementioned article is already linked to in the first sentence of the lead giving a reader all the information s/he might need on the subject. Sources do not exclusively or even mainly describe this city with a certain descriptor that would require us to include it in the first sentence of the lead, repeating what the wikilinked article already explains at length.

I'm certainly not trying to say it should say "Palestinian Arab-Israelis". I think "Arab citizens of Israel" by itself is precise, NPOV, and gives a reader all the information they need via a wikilink. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. What label should be more prominent can be solved by determining which is more predominantly used. But NPOV requires that all significant views be included. There is no requirement that a label used in the article be one that is exclusively or even predominantly used in sources, the requirement is that it is used in sources. For this reason Israel's colonies in the occupied territories are called towns or villages alongside the the precise, NPOV term Israeli settlement. I seem to recall that then you even wanted what was the less common town or village to have even greater weight than the term that is predominantly, and almost exclusively, used in sources. Im not even asking for that, all I want is to include the well sourced fact that the residents, in addition to being Arab citizens of Israel, are also Palestinian. nableezy - 06:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that comparison very convincing. Saying a place is an Israeli settlement tells us nothing about the type and size of the specific community. Town, village, or whatever adds information about the topic of the article that can't be found in Israeli settlement. Saying residents of Nazareth are Arab citizens of Israel with a wikilink to that article tells us everything about their self identification. Unless of course you have a source specifically discussing the self identification of the residents of Nazareth? So far your sources are not discussing the self-identification of the residents of Nazareth, they're just using "Palestinian" instead of "Arab" as part of their preferred terminology used throughout the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The response is WP:SYNTH. The term Israeli Arabs is there to acknowledge their citizenship, and this is exactly what it is here. Therefore, calling them Palestinian is POV and does not belong here as such. Bring a few sources that disputes their being Israeli and we have something to talk about. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If your concern is that they be identified as citizens of Israel, the longstanding wording in place "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" conveys that point more clearly. Tiamut^talk 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The response is WP:SYNTH? Do you know what SYNTH means? Because a source, by itself, says that Nazareth is a Palestinian city. It cannot be SYNTH to call Nazareth a Palestinian city by the definition of SYNTH. NPOV requires that all notable views be included, to demand that the notable view that Nazareth is a Palestinian city not be included is what is not acceptable according to NPOV. Nobody claimed that the residents of Nazareth are not Israeli citizens, and the article says they are, so now that this straw man has been slapped aside, do you have any other policy you have not read that you would like us to address? nableezy - 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to not include any contentious national identifiers for the Arab population in this article. For one, it does not appear to be the case that all Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinian. A sizable portion, even among Muslim Arabs, identify as Israeli. Referring to them simply as "Arab citizens of Israel", or "Arabs" when you want something shorter, could be the best route.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It already says that they are Arab citizens of Israel. Why should it not also say that they are additionally Palestinian? This isnt a contentious national identifier except for those who like to push the idea that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. This isnt about citizenship, the text makes it very clear that they are citizens of Israel, and the link Palestinian people does not anywhere claim that it is conditional on being a citizen of some state or quasi-state. nableezy - 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, not every Arab citizen of Israel describe themselves as Palestinian. In fact, a sizable number describe themselves as Israeli. There are a lot of reasons for that, one of them being religious considerations and their relative status in Israeli society. Druze Arabs generally do not strongly identify with Palestine at all, for instance, and they are the Arab group with the most elevated status in the country. One should consider that the identifier may not be accepted even among members of the Arab population.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth isnt a Druze town. Here is a source discussing specifically the views of Nazareth's Arabs. Please read that and tell me you think that most Nazarenes dont identify as Palestinians. See for example the sentence A common Palestinian heritage, Israeli citizenship, and Arab culture serve to unite the citizens of Nazareth as a community seeking to better their city, improve their status as second-class citizen in Israel, support Palestinian nationalism in the West Bank and Gaza, or enjoy a common Arab culture. nableezy - 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly – Palestinian heritage and Israeli citizenship. The footnote in your source makes the distinction between Israeli Arabs (the ones who live in Nazareth) and Palestinians (the relevant example is Bethlehem). Therefore, even according to your book, they are Israeli Arabs by definition. (Your other source opines that it is a Palestinian city, but no one disputes its citizens being Israeli. This is the SYNTH I was referring to.) What they support is irrelevant, and unless other sources directly tie that to them not being Israeli Arabs but distinctly Palestinian, the consensus sems to be Israeli Arabs. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you say the word again, please go read WP:SYNTH. Also, the footnote isnt making the distinction you are claiming, and the text of the book is clear. Nobody said they are not Israeli citizens, so continuing with the straw man that saying Palestinian means that we are denying an Israeli citizenship is a fallacious argument. nableezy - 05:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling them Palestinian in the introductory paragraph of the lede is both POV and misleading. It looks like everyone but you have settled on Israeli Arabs. And yes, the footnote makes that distinction. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion after another. And directly contradicted by several eminently reliable sources that calls them Palestinian. And then a completely untrue claim. Just at a quick glance, Zero, Tiamut, and Nishidani all support including Palestinian. I cant make out what Sean thinks, but hes a big boy and will tell us if he feels like it. nableezy - 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That same quick glance produces the voices of Greyshark09, Kauffner and NMMNG who oppose including Palestinian. Wow, even after pointing out that your own source makes the distinguishment between Israeli Arabs of Nazareth and Palestinians of Bethlehem you are still acting like it never happened. Gotta go now, will continue tomorrow. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I the one who claimed that nobody besides you wanted to remove the term? No, I am not, as unlike you I am not in the habit of making false claims. Wow, even after pointing out that several eminently reliable sources call Nazareth a Palestinian city you are still acting like it never happened. And Im guessing you still havent read WP:SYNTH. Toodles, nableezy - 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner

The source says no such thing. The source, academic, annotates the usage several of you prefer as a partisan ethnic label. By the way, 'it's' should be its. I'll repeat the key term because it has been swamped out by the usual intensive blogging by editors who talk past what a specific RS says whenever it doesn't support their opinions.

(Israels Palestinians) whom Israeli Jews generally call “Israeli Arabs”. We avoid using the label “Israeli Arabs” in this book because it does not accurately convey the self-identity of Arabs in Israel,

This is an academic POV that identifies the usage you guys are pushing as a partisan term by Israeli Jews. In wikipedia, we do not endorse usage that violates WP:NPOV by passing itself off as neutral, when it represents merely the default term of one ethnic group for another ethnic group. The phrase you are all pushing, in this view, is partisan, reflecting the preference of an ethnic majority, in the face of the term preferred as 'self-descriptor' by the majority of Palestinians who live in Israel. The question you must all address, given what these academics who specialize in the issue write, is: 'In wikipedia, when a term identified as the one used by one ethnic group to denominate another ethnic minority in their midst exists, do we stick to the majority partisan usage, (WP:NPOV) or do we use the self-descriptor?' All the rest is blah, blah.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times, Boston Globe, Jordan Times, BBC.... Moses on a moped, those Israeli Jews are everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring the request. This is a specific work on the issue, analysing the POV of terminology. Instances of frequent use of that term in newspapers are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether that usage is POV or not, which is a crucial concern for this encyclopedia. If the NYT, BBC, etc., have an article which analyses the terms they use, as is sometimes the case, and that article contradicts what recent academic scholarship asserts, fine. Otherwise, please address the logical and policy issue of WP:NPOV I raised in my last sentence.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you address the issue of not only Israeli Jews using this term? It's quite relevant to whether the usage is POV or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't address problems. I see a problem of editorial voice or in article data, go to the available academic sources on it, and present that material. But I did actually address the point you correctly raise, for in the citation, you may read:

This Palestinian population has been almost completely ignored by the international community. For decades, international discussion of what has become known as the “Palestinian problem” or “Palestinian question” has focused almost exclusively on the dire predicament of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

I.e. the academic source says that the international press ignores the issue of Israeli Palestinians, identifying that group only with those Palestinians who live under occupation or in the diaspora. If this is true, then what international newspapers report is not relevant, for it reflects a bias of negligance towards a shift that has been well-documented in Israeli sources (esp. good work is coming out of Haifa university).

In any case, while I am happy to reply to everything, I would appreciate input on my request, since it touches on a key policy issue WP:NPOV. Do we use 'self-descriptors' for ethnic minorities, or do we use the majority's default term? I'm thinking of exonyms versus autonyms or endonyms. In Italy it was standard to speak of Gypsies (zingari) for a long time, descriptive but prejudicial, even of who have been resident here since the 15th century. They are now referred to as Rom or Romani, which alligns with their endonymic terminology. See also here and, just on how troubled by POV conflicts any naming is in Israel see Barak Ravid's In Arabic and in Hebrew, a name is more than just a name,’ Haaretz 15/12/2011 Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So... let me get this straight, are you suggesting to deprecate the use of the term Israeli Arabs altogether? Also, just because one academic opinion says something about international press, doesn't mean that all international press is void as reliable sources... am I the only one who sees the gigantic fallacy here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

the verb 'suggest' doesn't take an infinite. 'fallacy' is dimensionless, though you may qualify it as Medusan by attaching a verbal adjective like 'glaring' to it to obtain a certain rhetorical effect. The inference you make about my statement, that it 'voids' the international press as RS, constitutes a misreading. I am asking, not for googled instances of 'Israeli Arabs' (which not being either Israeli or Arab I hear as innocuous) in the international press, but for sources that discuss the connotative valancy of these phrases. Now, instead of engendering a distractive thread on my response, I hope my interlocutors will refrain from answering my specific, germane query with further questions, and simply address the issue I raise, which goes to the heart of the problem. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nish, see MOS:IDENTITY. From my understanding, the guidance there is to prefer specific terms over general ones and respect how groups define themselves. Tiamut^talk 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well that makes my point better than my own sources did.

When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

Oddly enough, I can never bear to use the word 'Jew', and always say 'this Jewish chap,' or 'Jewish people' etc. I can't help hearing an undertone of antisemitism whenever non-Jews use the word 'Jew', even when there is none. Thanks for the policy. I never read that stuff unless directed to it:) Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I like how the source says "international community" but Nish pretends it says "international press" and that it "identif[ies] that group only with those Palestinians who live under occupation or in the diaspora" when the quote provided says no such thing. Smooth.

MOS:IDENTITY quite clearly says "when there is no dispute". Considering less than half this population uses any one specific descriptor, there does seem to be a dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not true that less than half the population uses any one descriptor. You keep using the one survey cited in the self-identification section of Arab citizens of Israel, while ignoring what multiple RRs have o say nd the rsults of other surveys. For example, this book on page 29 refers to a survey undertaken in 2000 where the choice was between Palestinian and Israeli : 70% identified as Palestinian and only 15% as Israeli. There are other surveys that uphold this result too. i will gather them together and add them to the self-identification section in the coming days. Tiamut^talk 22:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See also p. 155 here which mentions. 2002 study by Ben Meir that shows that in 1996, 46.4% of Arab citizens of Israel identified as Palestinian while by 2000 that number had risen to 74%. Conversely only 11% identified as Israeli in 2000, according to that source. Tiamut^talk 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This Palestinian population has been almost completely ignored by the international community. For decades, international discussion of what has become known as the “Palestinian problem” or “Palestinian question” has focused almost exclusively on the dire predicament of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem

Ok,NMMGG. Back to basic English

The Palestinian population of Israel has been almost completely ignored by the international community.

International discussion (NYTs, Thomas Friedman,etc.etc. whatever politicians say, which is invariably reported in the press, or what think tanks put out in their in house publications, which often form the basis of press analyses) focuses overwhelmingly on those Palestinians who live in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

I added ' in the diaspora'. That alone was smooth, or a lazy lapse from an ageing memory. Ignored by the 'international community' does not refer to the idea that an 'international community' out there snubs a Palestinian community in Israel by turning its back, pretending they are not in front of you on social occasions, etc. That would be ridiculous. Your argument from another wiki page does not hold, since no wiki page is ever complete, and that one, on this, seriously a decade or more behind the scholarship. Tiamut, I see, will remedy that.

I see. So "international community" is now "international discussion" including Thomas Friedman. Even smoother. I agree that your example is ridiculous. Good thing it doesn't resemble anything I said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Tiamut suffers from the same problem you do, which is always providing only sources that support your preconceived positions, while deliberately ignoring others. Check out the first page of a simple google search for "israeli arab" palestinian survey. Way to NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not 2000 anymore. The 2010 Zogby survey found that 22 percent of Arab Israelis identified as "Palestinian". So much for the self-identity nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt exactly an honest portrayal of that poll. The question posed was what is the most important identity. 36% said Arab, 22% said Palestinian, 17% said Muslim, and 12% Israeli. What that poll supports is that 22% of Arab citizens said that the most important identity to them is Palestinian, while 12% said Israeli. That doesnt say anything about how many self-identify as Palestinian, except that it says that many more feel that their Palestinian identity is the most important to them over an Israeli one. nableezy - 04:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It says that less than 1/4th of them identify primarily as Palestinian. Many more identify primarily as Arab. Back to Arab citizens of Israel then or do you have a more recent poll? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It already says Arab citizens of Israel, and additionally includes a descriptive that nearly 25% feel more important than any other, with an untold number also ascribing to that identity but holding another as more important. nableezy - 05:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the difference between "Palestinian" and "Muslim" is within the margin of error of the poll, why don't we add that as well? It's about as accurate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My head's spinning. I thought Nableezy was cool with idea that they could be both Palestinian and Israeli. Isn't the issue here whether Israeli Arabs should be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well let me try to put the brakes on for you. The choice is not simply "Palestinian" or "Arab", there is another option, the one currently employed, both. nableezy - 05:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's do Arab Palestinian Muslim Homo Sapiens People who are citizens of Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not bad as humour by hyperbolic extension. But 'Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel' is a fair compromise that satisfies both POVs and the evidence from both newspapers (usage) and academic works on the sociology. The combination is fairly normal. See Roma in Hungary, which provides the exonym and the self-descriptor. As to my prejudices, I dislike exceptionalism, i.e., always making out these articles have special protocols that must delete anything perceived to be injurious to a national majority. There are two sides whose POVs must be balanced out.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Explain to me what 'international community' means in that context (a bunch of folks who never write the basic books or articles which inform public awareness, or who never discuss the subject, whose discussions are never reported?) and I'll perhaps accept that my choice of sources is motivated by preconceived ideas (unlike yours or anyone else on the other side of the argument, of course). I'm still waiting for an explanation of why WP:MOS should not be followed here, and why newspaper examples of usage must prevail over academic meta-analyses of the POV of established usage. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This "two sides" gambit is certainly clever. I'll have to remember it. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs both prefer "Arab" to "Palestinian". So who's the two sides? You are putting yourself on the same level as mainstream usage. Kauffner (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't chat. Read sources, and by the way, explain why (2011) Jewish scholars of the question can write in a specific study of this issue of self-identity:

Israels Palestinians) whom Israeli Jews generally call “Israeli Arabs”. We avoid using the label “Israeli Arabs” in this book because it does not accurately convey the self-identity of Arabs in Israel,

Threads bury the gist of issues in sheer blague. Try to keep to the technical issues. The terminology you endorse is said by the source to be the usage generally employed by Israeli Jews. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We are running around this dog track again? Peleg's next sentence says, "In numerous surveys conducted over many years, the majority of Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinian rather than “Israeli Arab”" This claim been thoroughly debunked. You must know all this already. Either that or you don't read what anyone else writes. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Debunked where? In the Hassan data from 2008, which you commented on, we read:

43% of Israel's Muslims defined themselves as "Palestinian-Arabs", 15% as "Arab-Israelis"

Are you familiar with how to interpret statistics, i.e., that only 15% of Israeli Muslims identify with the term 'Arab-Israeli', while triple that percentage prefer 'Palestinian Arabs', and this is precisely what Peleg says. It's been a funny week. I've had to construe simple sentences in English three times in these articles, and now do math twice to throw the dazzlingly obvious into relief.

Not to mention the fact that Peleg and Waxman's book dates 2011, the Hassan survey 2008, and as you will appreciate if you ever trouble yourself to read deeper into the source I quoted (introduction), the data change according to the impact of events, like for example Lieberman's suggestion that Israeli Arabs be shifted to Palestine, the Gaza war. My source is uptodate, you wiki page has data that confirm that of several identities, (Druze excepted) Israel's Arabs privilege by a significant proportion a Palestinian one etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Majority..."a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total" (Merriam-Webster), or "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total" (American Heritage). Except in this case, where it is less than half. Their Israeli citizenship is a matter of law. There is no need for survey data on that issue. Kauffner (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you may not have noticed in your time on wikipedia. But a POV warrior, as opposed to an empirical editor, only addresses points that interest them, ignores all difficulties, and keeps returning to whatever information or idea backs the edit he wishes to make.

(a) You disinvalidate a statement made in 2011 by referring to one poll result publsihed 3 years earlier. I raised this. It's not to your advantage, therefore you ignore it. Answering that datum, one assumes, is perceived as being of no tactical value.

(b) Hassan's survey is confessional, not ethnic. Peleg and Waxman's research result does not speak here of the confessional breakdown of identity, but of the overall non-confessional identity. The results therefore are not commensurable. You ignore this.

(c) 43% percent of Israeli Muslims identify as 'Palestinian Arabs'. 15% identify as Israeli Muslims is one datum, restricted to confessional identity, from one survey in 2008. In Peleg and Waxman's 'numerous surveys conducted over many years, the majority of Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinian rather than “Israeli Arab”, " reference is made to a great number of survey over several years, from which they deduce that a 'majority' identify themselves as Palestinian rather than Israeli Arab.

(d) The slipshod premise here is that Muslim is coterminous with Arab. It's a commonplace misprision, and accounts for your confusion.

(e) In addition you have exploited one confessional survey's figures to try to invalidate a general figure, more up to date, which determined that a majority of that population prefers 'Palestinian' to 'Israeli Arab'. This is WP:OR. We report sources, we do not play them off against one another for POV leverage as you have tried to do here by the sleight-of-hand of statistical confusion.

Is it clear that even in Yusuf Hassan's survey, the voice you wish to insert constitutes a mere 15% of the population, and therefore cannot be said to be a majoritarian self-descriptor, as policy requires for NPOV. Is that clear, now? Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the detail that 43 percent or 22 percent or whatever is not a majority, what percentage identify as Israeli is irrelevant. Israeli citizens are obviously Israeli regardless of how they might answer survey questions. So there is no point in comparing in the number of Arabs who identify as Palestinian with the number who identify as Israeli. Kauffner (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The polls you raise are, again, irrelevant, because they ask what do you people most identify with. Arab and Palestinian, much like Palestinian and Israeli, are not mutually exclusive. If a pollster asked me how I identify, in order of most important, I would answer "Arab, African, Egyptian". That I identify as an Arab first doesnt mean that I do not also identify as Egyptian. You keep ignoring the point, as if you were attempting to prove Nish's point about only address[ing] points that interest them nableezy - 17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called 'shifting the goalposts', with the outrider of a non-sequitur that is tautological.We are not discussing whether Israeli Arabs are Israelis (goodgrief!). We are discussing evidence for the self-descriptor to be applied as per WP:MOS. Please address the issues rather walking past, or talking round them. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

by the way, the 2008 hassan survey we had in our article on arab citizens has no source. I asked for one about six months ago and there was nothing rs to be found to cover it all and the charts made based on it. When I was talking about the 2008 survey above, I was referring to one discussed in The Peleg/Waxman book without realizing it. Anyway, I've taken it out and replaced that paragraph with what Peleg/Waxman write on the subject (very brief though so if anyone wants to expand it they can). Help cleaning up that section further wouldbe appreciated. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've had that on my mind for two days, and have checked and failed to find a source. Didn't want to raise the issue here though, until we've ironed out our disagreements on self-descriptors. In any case, it was inappropriate to argue at such length on the basis of charts provided by another wiki page, which in turn lacked a citational base. Perhaps this will be clarified, but formally, until they are, objections from an unsourced wiki chart on another page, are not valid.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, because nobody posted another more recent poll in this thread. You were saying about POV warriors? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes a more recent poll was posted. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the question of the poll is what identity do the respondents feel is the most important. So repeatedly claiming that because 22% said Palestinian that means that a majority do not identify as Palestinian is simply dishonest. Again, a person can identify as both Arab and Palestinian, and there has been no evidence that shows that Arabs in Israel do not identify as Palestinian, while there has been evidence presented that a majority do in fact identify as Palestinian. Does anybody care to address that? Or should I hold my breath waiting for a response while we are treated to yet another sarcastic reply that intentionally avoids that basic point? nableezy - 19:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The polls are primary sources and their results are open to interpretation. As Nableezy pointed out above, a poll asking what the most important identity is to a given person that includes confessional and national identities doesn't preclude people subscribing to other identities. The most reliable and up to date secondary sources we have indicate that based on multiple surveys over the last decade, a majority of the population under discussion identify as Palestinian. There is no secondary source presented to date that disputes that finding. Tiamut^talk 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that's also an interpretation of the source. It says the majority identify as Palestinian rather than Arab Israeli. That doesn't mean more don't identify as Arab, which would be quite consistent with the other poll posted here. He is making a specific point. Out of the group that identified as either Arab Israeli or Palestinian, most identified as Palestinian. This doesn't mean most identify as Palestinian in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is arguing that they do not identify as Arabs, and nobody, and I mean nobody, is arguing that we should remove the word Arab. Again, you want to make this a binary question, that it is either Palestinian or Arab. It can be both, and I dont know why you and Kauffner keep ignoring that. nableezy - 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read. I'm saying that source doesn't say the majority identify as Palestinian, it only says that more identify as Palestinian than Arab Israeli. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that even begin to address my point? Im reading, but I dont see a response to Again, you want to make this a binary question, that it is either Palestinian or Arab. It can be both, and I dont know why you and Kauffner keep ignoring that. nableezy - 20:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read. A majority identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli Arab does not mean a majority identifies as Palestinian over any other term. In other words, the claim that this source proves that their preferred identification is Palestinian is false. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, how does that even begin to address my point? Can you acknowledge that people can identify as both Arab and Palestinian? And that we can also say that people are both Arab and Palestinian? nableezy - 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you acknowledge that you don't have a source that would justify this entire line of reasoning? That a long list of descriptors can be justified by arguments of this type? That this is in fact meaningless speculation? Kauffner (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is patently false. But thank you for once again, in your typically condescending and sarcastic manner, ignoring the point. In addition to the sources describing Arabs in Israel as Palestinian, there have been several sources that specifically describe Nazareth as Palestinian. That alone is justification for including the description, a description that at present has no source disputing. nableezy - 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you acknowledge that you don't read the sources we are indicating that justify this entire line of reasoning?

How one chooses to identify the Arab minority in Israel is often indicative of one’s politics. Supporters of Israel generally refer to the Arab community in Israel as “Israeli Arabs” or “Arab Israelis” – using the terms commonly used by Israeli governments, the Hebrew language media in Israel, and most Israeli Jews. Critics of Israel, by contrast, tend to describe Israel’s Arab citizens simply as Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs. In doing so, the emphasize the Palestinian national identity of the Arab population in Israel and clearly reject the Israeli state’s longstanding avoidance of that label. Which, if any, of these names is correct? Are Arabs in Israel “Israeli Arabs” or “Palestinian Arabs”? . .we will argue that the answer is that they are both, and neither.p.26, for starters.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

nmmng, if you read the whole chapter, you would not be saying what you are saying. Peleg and Waxman note that the prevalent identity among this population has shifted from Israeli-Arab to Palestinian. Fo goodness sake, their book is entitled Israel's Palestinians: The Conflict Within". Its clear that Palestinian, or "Palestinians in Israel", is the label they concluded is most appropriate to define this group and they base this on their review of polls and scholarship and other things pertaining to this group. I cannot believe you are denying ths truth by hanging onto one sentence and what it doesn't say, which is said elsewhere in heir text, multiplttimes, very clearly. Tiamut^talk 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we all slowly read Peleg and Waxman? The question is complex, both 'sides' would find some comfort in isolated phrases (like isolating the Zogby data from its heading, which assumes, but does not provide any intelligible analysis of, the notable hybrid identities of Israeli Arabs/Palestinian Arabs of Israel. (When you think about yourself, which of the following is your most important identity?) Read the Zogby poll against the somewhat bewildering data of many polls over the years in Israel and there's small comfort for anyone who would like to think this is a simple either/or judgement. It is extremely difficult to make a call while avoiding falling into a POV hole. Agreed? Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again with "both sides"? I point out your mistakes to help you learn from them. Kauffner (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you sound very satisfied with your blunt observation, which manages to attribute as a mistake on my part what is actually a distinction made by Waxman and Peleg, which, despite my copying it out here, you apparently do not care to read, or if you did, did not spell out the meaning. Being elliptic can evince a gift for acuity, but at this level, rather impresses for the volume it speaks of an otiose insouciance to the substance of an argument and its details. So read Waxman and Peleg, for the nth. time, and try to perceive that most readers will take them to be saying that our preferences for one or other of the two terms reflect political bias, the point you wish to ignore.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've said that both terms are POV multiple times in this discussion, and that we should use the neutral term Arab citizens of Israel.

Let's step and look at the issue here. We do not have any information specifically on how the residents of Nazareth self-identify. So the wording in the article right now is not supported by any sources. If some editors want to make every instance of Arab citizens of Israel be preceded by Palestinian, that's an issue that needs centralized discussion.

We do have some sources that call it a "Palestinian city". If you look at those sources you see that they use Palestinian to describe Arab citizens of Israel throughout the source because this is the authors preferred term (see "political bias" above), not because they are making a specific statement about the self-identification of the residents of Nazareth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we have RS that call it a Palestinian city, we can' metacritique these sources and interpret their bias. Everyday I observe in articles or have to add things from authors whose general bias strikes me as self-evident, but which I have no business to challenge.

Rather than underplay the POV issue, I've highlighted it, and I have no problem admitting this is difficult. It is however fairly commonly observed that the Israeli government is highly allergic to the word 'Palestinian', and avoids it like the plague of its own Arab citizens, preferring the default generic 'Arab', which however has the problem that it feeds into a very strong discursive bias according to which the indigenous Palestinians are just 'Arabs', Arabs are everywhere, and therefore have no native claim. It was put well in Waxman and Peleg:-

The category of Palestinian citizens is absent from the discourse of the Israeli state. Kanaaneh claims that the reason “the state of Israel has historically avoided the term “Palestinian” (is) because of the implied recognition of the existence of such a national group and its rights.'n.33

Arabs if Druze can have a separate identity, if Bedouin they can have a separate identity, if Palestinain, they're just Arabs. That is why both 'Arab' and 'Palestinian' seem to be required,(including both POVs in phrasing) rather than privileging one.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we drop the pretense that Israeli Arab is used only by the Israeli government? It's common all over the international English speaking media, as proven multiple times above.

And yes, when we have sources saying it's an Israeli Arab city, and other sources saying it's a Palestinian city, we need to see where the difference comes from. Unless you want to attribute it in the lead. We can't use such POV in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No pretence, since I never said the term was used by the Israeli government. It's their official term apparently, and picked up by foreign sources, yes. But WP:MOS is being discregarded here, and a self-descriptor is required. You have allowed that both 'Israeli Arabs' and 'Israeli Palestinians' are POV, but in the same breath now say 'We can't use such POV in the encyclopedia's neutral voice,' of the latter, not the former - a patent contradiction in approach, since it means your position is. Of two POV terms, only the official Israeli one is valid.Nishidani (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading what I've been writing? I said we should use neither of the POV terms. A neutral descriptor like the one we use elsewhere in this encyclopedia is what should be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You favour 'Arab(citizen)s of Israel' instead of 'Israeli Arabs', and call the former neutral and the latter POV. You think qualifying them as citizens, and transforming the nationality-adjective into a noun in the genitive case fixes the POV. I don't agree.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that our current article title is not neutral ... it reflects an Israeli government POV, as indicated by the sources cited in the terminology section, primarily because it omits mention of this population's nationality and history which is deeply connected to Palestine and other Palestinians. Furthermore, you are ignoring what the reliable sources sources have to say about how Nazareth should be described: its a Palestinan or Palestinian Arab city. Tiamut^talk 09:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Way more sources say "Arab city". Britannica describes it as, "the largest Arab city of the country." Only part of this article is online, but the full article doesn't have any reference to the city being Palestinian in modern times either. If you admit that this is a POV/style issue rather than a factual question, then it is hardly reasonable to base the decision on a few scholarly works with small readership and obvious POV issues. The New York Times, AP, and BBC are the style gurus. Kauffner (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

'Small readership'? Encyclopedias, human knowledge, is 99% the work of a few for a small readership, By your antic distinction, Haaretz shouldn't be cited because Arutz Sheva and Ynwet have much larger readership. The books you dismiss are meta-discussions of POV problems in our usage. Till your handful of newspapers actually analyse usage, they only evince a stylistic convention. Biosketch today asked at Golan Heights for a source that was explicit about UN usage Syrian Golan and was within his lights and rights to delete a claim to that effect, merely based on citations of papers which used that expression. Zero found a source which explicitly said this is the term the UN uses. I.e. Biosketch wanted a meta-document on usage, and got it. Here, people are claiming any meta-documentation on usage is useless as tits on a bull. Coherence over articles, and in methods, is required here.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WAW! As I am having a sleepless night, let me add my bit to this mammouth exercise in hair splitting. The question, posed in AGF terms would be like this: should we describe the majority of Nazarethians using the most commonly used term (google, international mass media), or using the term by which they most commonly self-identify (if, as it appears to be, such self-identification can be established). My understanding of Wikipedia is that it likes to use terms most commonly used by reliable sources, but there may be an exception for self-identification of ethnic groups. I don't know. However I strongly desagree with the notion that 'Arab citizens of Israel' is biased in any way (as if similar to Gypsies; btw the the term 'Roma' is most commonly used by the media, so it is naturally used by Wikipedia. This is not the case for Palestinian citizens of Israel. In fact this can cause quite some confusion if used without clarification). The fact that these people are Arabs and citizens of Israel is uncontroversial and its use by the world media testifies that it is unbiased. I do not think we need a source for this. Indeed, if the article said: a significant population of Nazareth self-identifies as Arab citizens of Israel, that would have indeed required sources. But the article says no such thing. It merely uses a term conventionally used by reliable (though not academic) sources. A suggestion: use 'Arab citizens of Israel' in the lede, but explain in the article how the majority of the population self-identifies. BTW an additional advantage of using 'Arab citizens of Israel' is that it appplies to all Arabs in Nazareth, while 'Palestinian' will apply to many but not all of them (based on self-identification). I am not so naive as to think that my compromise suggestion will be accepted but it is nevertheless tempting to join in the hair-splitting ritual. Good night. - BorisG (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We do use the term Arab citizens of Israel. I dont understand why people keep missing this basic point. It is right there in the article. nableezy - 17:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When people say we should use that term, they mean we should use only that term, and not add another POV term. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To repeat, this is dated.

a new collective identity has emerged among Arab citizens in Israel, distinct from that of Palestinians elsewhere, This identity is that of “Palestinians in Israel”. As Smooha writes:”The hybrid identity that is slowly emerging and spreading among them (Arabs) is the self-identification as ‘Palestinians in Israel”. It properly conveys the primacy of Palestinian affiliation and orientation without renouncing Israeli connections. This is supported by Rouhana’s extensive socialpsychological study of the collective identity of Arabs in Israel based on his survey data and primary interviews with Arab politicl leaders. Thus, according to Oren Yiftachel:“(…) with the possible exception of the Druze, the Arabs in Israel are carving a separate but increasingly unified political identity, which occupies the space between their Palestinian nation and the Israeli state. ”

In sum, what has taken place since 1967 is the gradual emergence of a self-identified and distinct Palestinian national minority in Israel. The Arab community in Israel now perceives itself as a national minority and increasingly demands to be recognized as such. The Israeli state, however, refuses to define its Palestinian Arab citizens as a national minority and continues to treat them instead as a “fractured collection of ethnic/and religious groups” pp-31-32 and note 56 'The most popular identity selected by Arabs in the survey conducted by Smooha in 2003 was “Palestinian Arab in Israel.”Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep repeating that but are failing to address what I'm actually saying.

For the last time, we have no information specifically about the self-identification of the residents of Nazareth. Even if surveys show that 80% of the Arabs in Israel self-identify as Palestinian, that does not mean most in Nazareth do. If you want to put Palestinian, which you admit is POV, before every instance of Arab citizen of Israel, which is a neutral and factual descriptor, that is going to need centralized discussion and can't be decided here. The current sentence in the lead is not supported by any sources and should be corrected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe, absent some sourcing that specifically backs up a claim that the Arabs of Nazareth primarily identify as Palestinian, we should leave it as "Arab citizens of Israel" without adding "Palestinian" to the wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Without having read the discussion above (tl;dr), my feeling is that the word "Arab" should be used in lieu of "Palestinian" as being more neutral. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Israeli official usage prefers 'Arab' not because it is neutral, but because it is so generic it is detached from any historical relation to the lands that are Palestine/Israel. It excludes an identity of local Arabs specific to that territory. Even blind Freddy and his dog know that. 'Palestinian' is the other POV, majoritarian in Israel, as it is a factual descriptor of their kin and relatives over the Green Line. Those who oppose the use of Palestinian by expressing satisfaction with the Israeli official term are no more neutral. The problem with Nazareth is complex. But it would be extremely odd were Nazareth, one of the most 'Arab' towns in Israel, to emerge as the great anomaly to the general, established statistical fact that the majority of Israeli Arabs identify more as Palestinians than Israelis. NPOV would require a term that balances both perspectives, which Israeli Arabs or Arabs of Israel doesn't, since it is an Israeli descriptor of a minority whose identity, which the majority of the minority affirms, is denied or repressed.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Israeli Arabs" was already established Israeli terminology in the 1950s. In those days, Arab nationalism trumped everything else and "Palestinian identity" hardly existed even as an issue. Participants in this RfC should be aware of the RM at Arab citizens of Israel. As long as that title doesn't have the word "Palestinian" in it, I think it is hard to justify using it here. After all, no one has presented self-identity data specific to Nazareth. Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this is being so heavily debated calls into question the coherent existence of a group "palestinians". They seem to just use the term to hijack and usurp history whenever they can and not forge any actual identity. Theyre Israeli Arabs when they want things from Israel and "palestinians" when they dont want Israeli involvement. -- The city is in internationally-recognized Israel. Its an Arab Israeli city. Is Atlanta an "African" town in America? This would be like calling a city made up mostly of Chinese people, a Chinese city. Its absurd, and as usual with this conflict, is the one exception.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• This issue needs to be discussed in a wider context of what terminology WP is going to use for the Arab citizens of Israel. REcetn CFD discussion which I have seen seem to be settling on the description "Arab Israelis", after all they do have Israeli citizenship, unlike the Arabs of the West bank. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposer of this RFC. The terminology should be consistent and match Arab citizens of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move forward

I don't think there is a clear consensus above on how to proceed. While a majority seem o favour addressing this population simply as Arab citizens of Israel, the ources indicate that Nazareth is eegularly referred to as a Palestinian city. I propose we alter the text as follows:

A Palestinian city, it is known as "the Arab capital of Israel", its population made up almost exclusively of Arab citizens of Israel.

This wording is supported by the refs and doesn't make assumptions about how the population self-identifies, as the city is accorded the descriptor Palestinian, instead of the pople themselves directly. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I think there's consensus to remove the term "Palestinian" where addressing the population, not to mention that it's completely unsourced. Not sure why you reverted the IP (except maybe on technical grounds).

Second, we've seen there are sources both describing it as a Palestinian town, and as an Arab-Israeli town. It's quite clear that in those sources authors use their preferred POV terminology for Arab citizens of Israel throughout the sources. We are supposed to use a NPOV neutral term according to wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry No More Mr Nice Guy, but the wording was actually well sourced, as you can see from the refs provided below. One of them, from Laurie King-Irani specifically used the terminology "Palestinian Arab" to describe the population. Its no longer available online, but as I saw it at the time I added it, I can vouch for that.

Furthermore, Nazareth as a "Palestinian city" is a significant POV expressed in multiple sources. The label "Israeli Arab" or "Arab Israeli" is problematic and rejected by most Arab citizens of Israel, while Palestinian is embraced by a majority. The text already includes the idea that Nazareth is the "Arab capital of Israel" which explains the place's location in Israel. What is missing is any mention of the city's historical and present day identification as "Palestinian" (after your and Biosketch's removal of "Palestinian" without considering alternatives). That makes the text fail NPOV which is about expressing all significant viewpoints. Tiamut^talk 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy requirement (nor it is feasible) to express all significant POVs in the lead. All POVs can be explained in the article body. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What I removed was completely unsourced and was removed per wikipedia policy. I think you know that. I have not read Laurie King-Irani's book review, but considering she's a co-founder of electronic intifada, I would not be surprised that her POV is that Arab Citizens of Israel should be called Palestinians, which is exactly the point I was making above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an untrue statement. It was sourced to multiple sources which support the wording "Palestinian Arab" and "Palestinian" to refer to the population and the city. NPOV requires that we include mention of Nazareth's identity as a Palestinian city. Its a significant POV represented in multiple sources. If you think the way it was phrased can be improved by all means make suggestions. The first sentence of the article for example, which is completely unsourced, could be changed to read: "Nazareth is the largest Palestinian city in Israel." This is supported by two sources already cited here. Shall I go ahead and make that change? Or is there is a reason to ignore what the sources say in favor of what wiki editors deem to be important without citing RS? Tiamut^talk 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that sources saying it's a "Palestinian city" are more than a tiny minority compared to those saying it's an Israeli city, but we can start a list and see. So far, if I remember correctly, you have one source from a book about birthing, and one from a co-founder of Electronic Intifada. I'm also pretty sure you'll find substantially more sources describe it as an Arab city rather than a Palestinian one. We can have a list for that as well if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You think there's a source that say "Nazareth is the largest Israeli city in Israel"? That's ridiculous.

As you can see from this google book search, there are more than five that say "largest Palestinian city in Israel" or "Israel's largest Palestinian city". True, there are many more who say "largest Arab city" [13] but we already include information on Nazareth's Arab identity in the second sentence. I'm looking for a way to reflect the significant POV that Nazareth is a Palestinian city in the lead. Are you saying you are dead set against that? Do you think this POV should be excluded from our article altogether? Or would including some of this information in the body of the article, as BorisG suggested, be acceptable to you? Tiamut^talk 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are more than five sources that say Nazareth is the "largest Palestinian city". There are nine [14] that say that. As opposed to over a thousand [15] that say it's the largest Arab city. How do you figure that less than 1% is a "significant POV" that belongs in the lead?

What would you suggest putting in the body of the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Nassiriya (talk · contribs) for violating 1RR. He was informed on his Talk page of ARBPIA sanctions by User:Jeff Song but chose to disregard the notice.—Biosketch (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nazareth is routinely described as a "Palestinian city" historically. But when you put an Israeli vs Palestinian spin on it, the meaning is quite different. Pro-Arab writers and newspapers make the "Israeli Arab" vs. "Palestinian" distinction all the time. That we keep coming back to same five or six authors shows how fringe this issue is. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not at all fringe. Tiamut is right. Self identification of the Arabic speaking community is the most important issue here. The sources provided on the other side of the argument are no more reputable than the 6 you mention. Perhaps we should look at some Arabic sources - do you agree that would be relevant? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but I think English sources are lear enough on this issue. Take ths recent article in the Economist for example, discussing the twinning of Ramallah with Nazareth. The mayor of Nazareth, Ramez Jaraysi said about this that, “The two cities are Palestinian cities divided by geopolitics. We’ll continue being citizens of Israel, but our nationality is Arab-Palestinian.” Its obvious that Nazareth's. identity as a Palestinian city is a significant POV widely held by its inhabitants. It needs to be expressed in this article. I've made. suggestion about how to include it in the lead above. Are there alt suggestions? Or shall I just be bold? Tiamut^talk 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that someone provide a reliable source or two that say it's a POV widely held by the city's inhabitants rather than cherry picking the words of one politician over the terminology your own source uses. The Economist article you provided above starts with "NAZARETH, the largest Arab city in Israel..." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to satisfy your suggestion. I did not cherry pick though. "The largest Arab city in Israel" does not exclude its being a Palestinian city as well. These are two complimentry POVs on how to describe the city. I don't see why our article csnnot accomodate both. Tiamut^talk 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)