Jump to content

Talk:Negev Bedouin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Recent addition of prehistoric context

I am not disputing the edit per se, but the statements presented seem dubious. Firstly, because this article discusses Negev Bedouins, not Bedouins in general, so I'm not sure some of the references (Golan, etc.) apply. Moreover, I've never seen a connection between Arab Negev Bedouins and Amalek, let alone the Nephilim or Rephidim. The reference is not quite clear either; no details of the book are given, and neither are the pages. A clarification would be helpful, but if possible, I'd also like to see scans of the pages for personal knowledge (unrelated to Wikipedia). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bible references Rephaim in Genesis:14. It references the Amalek as part of the Rephaim in and around Exodus where they fought the people of the Exodus in the plain of Rephidim at Mount Horab at the head of thr Gulf of Aqaba between Edom and Midian.

And in the fourteenth 6240 702 year 8141 came 935 Chedorlaomer 3540, and the kings 4428 that [were] with him, and smote 5221 the Rephaims 7497 in Ashteroth Karnaim 6255, and the Zuzims 2104 in Ham 1990, and the Emims 368 in Shaveh Kiriathaim 7741

It references them in Edom and Moab in association with the Hagarenes who Strongs concordance describes as an Arab people living in the desert beyond the Seir to the east as far as Bahrain with whom the eastern tribes of Israel were at war; the bedouin arabs of the transjordan and the eastern part of the Seir; gebal and Ammon and Amalek up to Sidon and Tyre inland as far as Aram and Kadesh; Orab, Zeeb and Zebah are on the Golan heights in Aram and Bashen.

  • Psa 83:2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
  • Psa 83:3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
  • Psa 83:4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
  • Psa 83:5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
  • Psa 83:6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
  • Psa 83:7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
  • Psa 83:8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.
  • Psa 83:9 Do unto them as [unto] the Midianites; as [to] Sisera, as [to] Jabin, at the brook of Kison:
  • Psa 83:10 [Which] perished at Endor: they became [as] dung for the earth.
  • Psa 83:11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna:

Egyptian texts and the Book of Joshua describe them as giants (7' tall) and the ancient inhabitants of Canaan. These tribes then get mentioned elsewhere in association with the Amalek. They show up in some Egyptian texts (Papyrus Anastasi I, the inscriptians of the Battle of Karnak) as giants described as Shoshu and bedouins. "The Pre and Proto history of the Arabian Penninsula" by Mohammed Nayim gets into the original inhabitants in more detail including some articles on the independent development of their Thaumudic language, which includes glyphs of men riding camels and their archaeological sites with a nice map locating lithics, settlement, pottery, rock art, kites, cairns trasde routes etc; I can't put scans of the pages up because of Wikipedia and copyrights, (I wish I could, especially the rockart that incorporates the language anc clan markings )but I can give you page numbers and quotes.

History

I deleted an alleged quote in the History section, it was conjecture and cited no source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.157.116 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It clearly did cite a source, even though the template didn't work. A few seconds work turned up the quote, I've replaced it with a working reference, page number, and link to Google Books. I don't know why you claim it didn't cite a source. dougweller (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Bedouin identity

This article portrays the Bedouin in the Negev as though they are not Palestinian. This is false. They identify as Palestinian, and are intrinsic part of the Palestinian people. Attempts to split them off from Palestinian are common in Israeli Jewish discourse (per the source linked, not my soapboxing). This article needs an overhaul and the title should be changed to Palestinian Bedouins in Israel, or more broadly Palestinian Bedouins, which could be expanded in scope to discuss the same Bedouin population but those who ended up in the West Bank and Gaza. Tiamuttalk 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Al-Arakib

This may find a place in the article: Israel razes Bedouin village. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tribes?

Where is the list of tribes?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to add it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a Bedouin town

Drijat doesn't seem to be a Bedouin town, according to the source given:

"Situated at the foothills of the Hebron Hills, Drijat is the only Palestinian Arab village in the Negev. The residents traditionally are agricultural laborers as opposed to Bedouin nomads."

Thus, I'm removing it from the article.VR talk 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

paper relevant to this article

This might be useful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Prawer plan

The article lacks any mention of the Prawer Plan, aside from much else.

See Jillian Kestler-D'Amours, The End of the Bedouin, at Le Monde diplomatique, 2 August 2012. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation

While the situation for Bedouin is alarming due to systematic destruction of homes, eviction and deportation (see the reference: UN Human Rights Council, 25 August 2011, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Annex VI, pp.24-31, removed on 19 August "for the sake of objectivity"), the ethnic cleansing is hidden in the article.

One simple example may be the Black Goat Law of 1950, mentioned in one single sentence. It was used to evict the Bedouin from most of the Negev and said to be adopted to prevent land erosion. Yet, the Bedouin have been there for many centuries and after 1948 there was a fraction of the people left. If the Bedouin were harming the environment, which is not obvious, it was due to the fact that they were forced to remain in restricted area's.

Another one of the many hidden POV's is denying of their status as indigenous people (see the same ref) and thus justifying deportation and ethnic cleansing.--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is an exercise in euphemism, and looks like a print-out from some official government brochure. It has no point of contact with the historic realities of Negev bedouin, or WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Raiding, denigrating Bedouin, and the source cited

Regarding this edit: The source that the sentence about raiding is cited to says:

As late as the mid-eighteenth century they were fairly prosperous, engaging in some desultory agriculture and fishing but living primarily by raiding large caravans and selling the booty in Gaza or in smaller centers. Their decline began with the rise to power of the puritanical Wahhabis in Arabia in the late eighteenth century and with the French invasion of Egypt in 1798. The Bedouin were forced to reduce, though not cease, their raiding, and they acquired a monopoly on guiding, handling the camels for, and provisioning the caravans that crossed the peninsula. But the decline in pilgrimages to Mecca following the defeat of the Wahhabis and the accession to power in Egypt of Mohammed Ali curtailed even this legitimate source of income.

So the material was in there because it's in the source. Whatever the intention of whomever put it in, it is in the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of "private houses"

I have come to this article for the first time out of curiosity relating to current (29 November 2013) headlines about rioting in Israel over implementation of what is called (by Haaretz) the "Begin-Prawer plan". I know nothing about the Negev, or about its Bedouin occupants, other than what I have read here in this article, or to a lesser extent in some news articles.

I am trying to understand the relevance of a number of images posted throughout the article, of "private houses" that can only be described as enormous:

  • Section Today: A private house being built in South Rahat (File:Rahat private.jpg)
  • Section Poverty: Private home in al-Sayyid (File:AlSayyid private2.jpg)
  • and in the photo gallery under the heading See also:
  • A private house in Tirabin al-Sana, a settlement of the Tarabin bedouin (File:Private house in Tirabin.jpg)
  • Private home in Segev Shalom (File:PikiWiki Israel 4555 Segev Shalom in the Negev.JPG)
  • Private house in al-Sayyid (File:AlSayyid private1.jpg)

None of these are specifically identified as being built and owned by Bedouin (nor alternately, by Jewish settlers); but to a naive reader they give an impression of fantastic wealth on display. There's definitely an unstated message intended in their incorporation in an article discussing the poverty, but also polygamy and the burgeoning birthrate, of the Bedouin. What is the message supposed to be? That the Bedouin are happily settled in cities? To contradict the idea of poverty? To illustrate the need for huge castles to quarter multiple wives and countless children?

Actually, another question arises concerning ownership of the land occupied by these "private houses", which seems to be the underlying issue in the entire Negev Bedouin problem. Surely these massive houses are not built on land that doesn't have a clear title of ownership.

I suggest that all of these images are inappropriate for the article; or at minimum, require contextual discussion if they are to be retained. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Milkunderwood's concerns regarding the use of these images. The WikiCommons information is of no help as it carries no information other than its being the photographer's own work. I take a conservative approach to the use of images in articles, full stop: if they don't relate to the material, they don't belong in the article.
In fact, I find myself wondering about quite a number of the images being used which look more like PR stock photos, i.e., PikiWiki Israel 11385 Education in Israel.jpg captioned, "Literacy classes for Bedouin women, Lehavim" whereas the information provided for the image simply states that it is 'the elderly learning to read and write' with no mention of Lehavim. What is to be made of 'Rahat Park' displayed in the 'Environmental issues' section? I would go as far as to say that the majority of the images used are gratuitous travelogue photos belying the gravity of the issues the article is be grappling with.
Unless some solid justification and contextual relevance is brought to the table, the majority of the images need to go. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedic resource and doesn't require being jollied up with pretty pictures to keep the reader interested. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree: if they don't refer directly to the article text, they don't belong in the article.
The hidden message is indeed: Everything is fine. Israel excellently cares for the Bedouin. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
In fact the images violate WP rules: WP:UNDUE. There should be at least a proportional number of images reflecting the bad side, if not more, to reflect the reality. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

English source required

This source needs an English version or the text will be removed. http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2810919,00.html 109.157.215.52 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, non-English sources are allowed (see WP:NONENG). If the citation is not relevant to the article (particularly when dealing with politically sensitive articles), the correct protocol is to to insert a request for translation as per this template. Once you have done so, you are welcome to point it out on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, 109.157.215.52, you don't own this article, so it is actually not you who gets to decide what will be removed and what not. That is what consensus is for. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ben Gurion statement removed

This edit removed a statement by Ben Gurion regarding Negev Bedouin from the "Education" section with the claim that it was "irrelevant" material. I think this statement was relevant, setting the background for the Israeli approach towards about Negev Bedouin education. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The same IP user has also blanked other cited sections using "not in RS" as a coverall. Please be more cautious about editing politically sensitive articles. As you can see, rather than simply reverting, Debresser has brought the issue to the attention of other contributors editing this article for discussion. It is encouraged that you use the talk page constructively to discuss issues and reach consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Especially since I found at least one statement in a source that this IP editor had removed and restored the text. Debresser (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
A huuffington post blog certainly does not meet the standards for RS for historical material. I can't find any other source for the purported Ben-Gurion quote. I don't think it should be restored without RS supporting it's accuracy and significance for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article on the topic of the Negev Bedouin. Dlv999 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That being the case, Dlv999, neither does New Internationalist ezine, yet comprehensive figures are cited from it in the lead. Given that it's an op ed piece with no indications as to where any of the facts have been sourced, I would suggest that it, and any material taken from it, should also be removed. I haven't investigated the references from this article properly as yet. It may be useful for me to go through it thoroughly and tag anything dubious as I'm a genuinely neutral party. Would anyone have any objections? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I found some more sources for the New Int. figures. I think a thorough investigation of sources in the article would be a very good idea. I don't have time to go through them all right now myself, but I will try to improve the sources if you find any problems. Dlv999 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Dlv999. I'll make some time to do so ASAP as I'm currently caught up in trying to mediate on new outbreaks of edit warring on few Eastern European articles. I'm not one for plaguing articles with tags where it can be avoided, so will leave any questions on the talk page (as well as look for alternative sources myself). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A quote from one Israeli leader can hardly be called setting the background for the Israeli approach to education. The quote is not relevant to the situation today. An aspiration is not evidence of action. I do not think that it should be there. This article needs a lot of work, particularly as the English is so bad. Iryna whilst you are looking at the sources coudl you look at the wording as well? 109.157.215.52 (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to copy-edit the article. Unfortunately, high profile articles do end up attracting so many hit-and-run edits that they fall into a state of disrepair with remnants of weasel words and POV slants.
I would also have to agree that, given the amount of sourced material to be covered, quotes from individuals regarding ideals and intents are redundant.
As I noted to Div999 already, I would prefer not to litter the article with tags. Dependent on my interpretation of the reading, I would prefer to make some notes here and consult with editors actively engaged with the article as to whether my assessments are deemed fair or not. Debate is always preferable to edit warring. I've moved this article to high priority on my 'to do' list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Economust is making POV edits

Economust is POV pushing in this article (Negev Bedouin) and the Negev. He is removing relevant and acceptable material and inserting biased material, like removing "rather than promoting an influx of new immigrants and creating jobs for them". Here he removes criticism because "Opinion columns and Advocacy organizations cannot be used to support such claims". Here he removes the part about destruction and displacement and inserts sweet words. Regarding the demographic factors, he removes that here and here. This must be addressed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, many of the links you were referring to were op ed pieces and Economust had full justification for removing them. They did not pass the verifiability test as reliable sources.
I do agree that there are some spurious editing practices (read as POV pushes) beleaguering this article and I've been trying to find some time to do a bit of a clean-up (including the use of an abundance of redundant images), but am stuck in a new outbreak of edit-warring in Eastern European articles.
If you have WP:V and WP:RS to counterbalance what you perceive to be POV pushes, please do so. If you wish to reintroduce verifiable cited material removed I would suggest that you do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the article was balanced before so much material was removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
This edit seems to be clearly in breach of our neutrality policy. Two reliable sources and the related sourced statement were removed ("while the majority are slated for destruction with the population facing forced displacement"). Meanwhile the first half of the sentence, which is unsourced, remains in place ("The Israeli government has gradually recognized some of them and taken measures to improve infrastructure and basic services"). The result of the edit is to skew the article away from WP:NPOV and give a misleading, biased coverage of the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to restore text.
I do think reactions and statements from "Opinion columns and Advocacy organizations" such as this are acceptable, of course as long as they meet the required criteras. Critism from newspapers and organizations is relevant but should of course not be used to be presented as a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Actually, opinion pieces may be used in some cases. WP:NEWSORG They may contain quotations or other facts. The reliability of such sources is subject to general considerations and whether or not used as opinion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Thank you for qualifying my broad statement. Again, it is the context which assists in determining whether they can be deemed to be WP:V & WP:RS. More to the point, when tackling sensitive subject matter, the first port of call should be the talk page and consensus on introducing potentially contentious material. Personally, my experience of working on many controversial articles is that the Bold → Revert → Discuss cycle is one that should be 'ignored' in favour of WP:COMMON. The 'discuss' aspect is the best method of avoiding POV edit-warring which only ends up in grief, blocks and (most importantly) a messy article for the readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Planned new article

I am planning on writing a new article about the status of Negev Bedouin women, which will cover these topics: access to education, employment/participation in the labor force, the changing status and roles of women (as a result of outside changes), ability to access healthcare, and the role of cultural norms in women's status. Any feedback on sources/other topics to include?NogaArdon (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done, NogaArdon. I've only had a cursory look at your new article, but it's certainly looking good so far! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahem

During the war, Negev Bedouin favoured marginally both sides of the conflict;[32] most of them fled or were expelled to Jordan, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank. In March 1948 Bedouin and semi-Bedouin communities begun to leave their homes and encampments in response to Palmach retaliation raids following attacks on water-pipelines to Jewish cities.[33] On 16 August 1948 the Negev Brigade launched a full-scale clearing operation in the Kaufakha-Al Muharraqa area displacing villagers and Bedouin for military reasons.[34] At the end of September the Yiftach Brigade launched an operation west of Mishmar Hanegev expelling Arabs and confiscating their livestock.[35] In early 1949 the Israeli army moved thousands of Bedouin from south and west of Beersheba to a concentration zone east of the town. In November 1949, 500 families were expelled across the border into Jordan and on September 2, 1950 some 4,000 Bedouin were forced across the border with Egypt.,[36] Only around 11,000 of the 110,000 Bedouin population remained in the Negev.

A third possible explanation for hiding the file concerns previously unpublished historical testimony about the expulsion of Bedouin. On the eve of Israel’s establishment, nearly 100,000 Bedouin lived in the Negev. Three years later, their number was down to 13,000. In the years during and after the independence war, a number of expulsion operations were carried out in the country’s south. In one case, United Nations observers reported that Israel had expelled 400 Bedouin from the Azazma tribe and cited testimonies of tents being burned. The letter that appears in the classified file describes a similar expulsion carried out as late as 1956, as related by geologist Avraham Parnes:

"A month ago we toured Ramon [crater]. The Bedouin in the Mohila area came to us with their flocks and their families and asked us to break bread with them. I replied that we had a great deal of work to do and didn’t have time. In our visit this week, we headed toward Mohila again. Instead of the Bedouin and their flocks, there was deathly silence. Scores of camel carcasses were scattered in the area. We learned that three days earlier the IDF had ‘screwed’ the Bedouin, and their flocks were destroyed – the camels by shooting, the sheep with grenades. One of the Bedouin, who started to complain, was killed, the rest fled.”Hagar Shezaf,  Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs Haaretz 5 July, 2019 Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

2021 Politics

There are interesting developments going on in 2021 politics related to the Negev Bedouins. Israel formed a new government in June 2021 incorporating the Islamic Ra'am party into the governing coalition -- Negev Bedouins are a major voting bloc for Ra'am and Ra'am negotiated the recognition of three Bedouin villages as well as budgets for services. It's the first time that an Arab party has been officially part of an Israeli government. Ra’am’s Saeed al-Harumi, abstained from the confidence vote effectively protesting the demolition of Bedouin homes in the Negev without preventing the new government from being formed -- the approval passed by one vote. Al-Harumi was born in Shaqib al-Salam in southern Israel to a Muslim Negev Bedouin family.

Merge

Palestinian Bedouin appears to be a POV fork of Negev Bedouin, to push the POV that these Bedouins are an organic part of the Palestinian people. Virtually all the contents there appears here, with less POV terminology.Inf-in MD (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected that article here. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Ive reverted, if youd like to redirect that article then feel free to take it to AFD. nableezy - 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks like a partial POV fork. Nothing there that is not already covered at Negev Bedouin. Nableezy, no need to demand AfD, this is what merge discussions are for, and Inf-in MD was justified in boldly attempting a redirect after not getting input for a week. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Nableezy has argued that West Bank Bedouin are sufficiently different from Bedouin inside Israel to merit their own article. Its not an unreasonable argument. But even if we did decide on a merger, it has to be way more than simply blanking the content at Palestinian Bedouin. An actual effort has to be made to integrate that content here.VR talk 20:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
What is there is not what could be there, the topic Palestinian Bedouin meets our notability requirements and as such should have its own article. I was justified in reverting that bold redirect as well. nableezy - 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. Any merge would require a name change, which the promoters don't appear to grasp. Bedouin refers to a very complex set of historical groups right across the IP area, from Israel, Israel's Negev, the West Bank and Gaza. In Emmanuel Marx's terminology, Bedouins are amalgamations of individuals in a bounded territory, not some unified tribe with a distinct origin in the Negev, which the merge would imply. The co-called Ghawarna erstwhile of the Hula Valley were widely called 'Bedouins' though their origins are extremely complex - their oral histories speak of origins in Syria, Arabia, while many perhaps came from sutlers attending Ibrahim Pasha's 1830 conquest.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Palestinian Bedouin does not discuss any of these groups (Bedouins from the West Bank and Gaza, Ghawarna). If you want to change that article content to discuss them, do so, but right now it is a duplicate, POV fork of Negev Bedouins. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It in fact does discuss Gazan Bedouin. nableezy - 18:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Transcluded discussion at Palestinian Bedouin
This article appears to be a POV fork of Negev Bedouin, to push the POV that these Bedouins are an organic part of the Palestinian people. Virtually all the contents there appears in the original article, with less POV terminology. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
as no one seems to object, I'll redo the redirect. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont think thats accurate, this covers more than just the Negev. nableezy - 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. There may be single mention of non-Negev Bedouins ("predominantly concentrated in the South (al-Naqab/Negev and Gaza), the North (al-Jalil/Galilee) and in the Jerusalem area"), but the rest is essentially a content fork. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This page is somewhat lacking, but definitely does not only cover Negev Bedouin. There are bedouin in the West Bank (see here for example). That would very much not be covered by Negev Bedouin, but would here. nableezy - 23:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This page does not discuss those West Bank Bedouins (other that in that single mention I called out above). It is simply a POV fork of Negev Bedouins if one looks at the content. If you want to create a new page about West Bank Bedouins, be my guest, but there's no reason to have another article that is 99% the same as Negev Bedouins, which is what this is. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

nableezy do you think the West Bank Bedouin are similar enough to the Negev Bedouin to be covered in the same article? FYI, I'm the one who created the Negev Bedouin page.VR talk 04:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Also if this article is to remain, it might need a disambiguator. "Palestinian Bedouin" typically refers to the Bedouin of the Negev desert (inside the Green line)[1].VR talk 04:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not really honestly, the Bedouin in Israel proper face their own challenges with the unrecognized villages and being denied equal rights as Israeli citizens. nableezy - 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No, a merge would be premature in the present state of articles. The Palestinian Bedouin article is undeveloped, a stub, but explores a distinct modern historical reality which the Negev Bedouin article openly admits in the final section. The Negev Bedouin article in turn looks like an official government whitewash of the history of the Bedouin in that region. Everytime I look at it I shake my head and the amount of material about their modern history not included in the article, which is massive. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"a merge would be premature in the present state of articles" - this has it exactly backwards. Right now the article (which is not a stub) has more than 95% overlap with Negev Bedouin. In fact, save for the single sentence I quoted above, it doesn't even mention the West Bank Bedouins. As such, we should either delete it as a POV fork, or redirect it to Negev Bedouin, as a plausible search term. And if the Negev Bedouin article needs improvement - stop cringing and shaking your head and go fix it. If someday a meaningful article is written about the West Bank Bedouin, we can then remove the redirect, but we should not keep this POV fork in its current state in the hope that maybe, someday, someone will create that different article.Inf-in MD (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The following is a bit tongue in cheek with overtones of seriousness so in that spirit. If "Arab citizens of Israel" is a catch all title, then we could have " X citizens of Israel" as components, where X = Palestinian, Druze, Bedouin. Do some Druze, Bedouin CoI identify as Palestinian, sure, does it matter, nope. There is some crossover but it doesn't mean the article(s) should not exist. Probably we should have an article for the Jewish citizens of Israel as well, oh wait, we do, Israeli Jews (so should be Israeli Bedouin? Shome mishtake, shorely). I realize that some would just like to have an article Non Jewish citizens of Israel, oh well. So yes, I would merge the two articles under the name Bedouin (citizens) of Israel and then identify in that article, sub categories of that. Palestinian, Negev, tribe, whatever. Then what to do with residents who are not citizens and those in East Jerusalem and the Golan, tsk. Or perhaps wait till we sort out the biggest slice first Palestinian citizens of Israel or maybe Israeli Palestinians and then sort out the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The above has little to do with the merge discussion. We have an article for that sub-component- it is called Negev Bedouin, and we shouldn't have POV fork of it called Palestinian Bedouin. If you want to have the Negev Bedouin article renamed to Bedouin (citizens) of Israel - make a move request. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It could equally go the other way around, couldn't it? There are plenty of sources for "Palestinian Bedouin". And anyway, I disagree in general, this is clearly linked with the other matters I raised, there needs to be consistency across articles.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It might, but again, that's a rename discussion, not a merge discussion. This article's content is entirely covered by Negev Bedouin one except for one sentence, with the latter one older, more developed and less POV, so it is the more natural one to be merged into. If you want to suggest a rename, post merger, you could do that Inf-in MD (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Redirect is usually result of an AfD, so what? You asked for a discussion and I have given my opinion. Atm , you don't have enough support for what you want to do unofficially, so maybe you better try something formal, don't you think? Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It can be, but there's no reason it must go to AfD if editors agree to redirect. There's a formal discussion taking place here - where there are currently 3 support for the redirect.Inf-in MD (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock
And now 4 against.Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In fact, it does not. It has a single line, in the lead, that says "The Bedouin community has lived in the Bi’r as-Saba’/Naqab region, stretching from Gaza to the Dead Sea, since at least the fifth century". That's it, and even that line places Gaza in the Negev region.. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You see the word Gaza there? nableezy - 20:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a single word, placing it the context of the Negev. A better case for a merge could not be made, thanks. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Again, Palestinian Bedouin clearly covers more than Negev Bedouin. As there is fairly obvious no consensus for the merge Ill be removing the tag now. nableezy - 20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The topic of Palestinian Bedouin may or may not be broader than Negev Bedouin, but this article does not show that. In its current form, it is a POV fork that should be deleted or redirected. If you want to write a new article that does covers the subject in a way not already done at Negev Bedouin, go ahead, but we should not keep a POV fork in the hope that someone, someday, might make it an acceptable article. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
And now it includes material on West Bank Bedouin. Anything else? nableezy - 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty. And once we remove the WP:COATRACK which duplicates what is in Negev Bedouin , i.e all of the "Land Struggle" section , and much of the "overview" section (which I will do), it will be ok to keep it. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That material has consensus, given it has stood for five years, according to you. You'll need an RFC to see if there is no longer consensus, again according to you. nableezy - 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Shocking development, does not practice what he preaches. Huh. nableezy - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If there's opposition to my bold changes, we'll take it through an RfC, of course. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe there has already been stated opposition. nableezy - 21:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
to the merge, yes. To my article content changes, not that I have seen. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Negev_Bedouin/Archive_2&oldid=1263575338"