Talk:Israelis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Israeli Jews

Shouldn't we have a separate article Israeli Jews (Israeli Jew is now a redirect to Religion in Israel)? --Koryakov Yuri 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographic table

The following table was inserted into the demographics section:

Israeli Jews by country of origin (2005)	5,488,000	100.00%
Israeli-born, born to an Israeli-born father	1,716,900	31.28%
Israeli-born, born to an Israeli-born father	1,716,900	31.28%
Jewish immigrants and first-generation Israeli Jews	3,771,100	68.72%
Former Soviet Union	1,171,300	21.34%
Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia	744,700	13.57%
Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia	520,600	9.48%
Iraq, Lebanon, Syria	277,900	5.06%
UK, North America, Oceania, South Africa	185,800	3.38%
Iran, India, Pakistan	181,100	3.30%
Yemen	143,500	2.61%
Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece	136,500	2.48%
Ethiopia	97,500	1.77%
Austria, Germany	80,100	1.46%
Argentina	62,000	1.13%
Europe, other	61,500	1.12%
France	52,700	0.96%
Latin America, other	39,700	0.72%
Asia, other	18,800	0.34%

I don't understand why it combines people born in Israel with those born elsewhere, and why it only lists origins of fathers. It appears to give a distorted view of Israelis, which concerns me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is taken from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics[1]. As to why they lists only the origin of the father: "Continent/country of origin for persons: born abroad - continent/country of birth; for persons born in Israel - father's continent/country of birth"[2]. The Israeli CBS holds data for Jews who either immigrated to Israel or were born to an immigrant father (together they make up 68.72% of the Jewish population), but not for Jews who were born in Israel to an Israeli-born father (the remaining 31.28%). Finschonnd (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to make more sense to include tables that divide Israelis into native-born and immigrants (with country of origin); the CBS has those numbers too, does it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Layout

The layout of this article was totally wrecked by someone who didn't bother to look at the effect of having a very short intro teamed with a very large box and large photo, resting directly above another photo that was not floating but had a fixed position between a heading, and the text that it pertained to. The effect, which anyone with eyes could see, was to orphan the heading and create a great gap in the substance of the article.

If you put the pics back, it won't work. Look before leaving. Amandajm (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The images of prominant Israelis in the infobox is missing an Israeli Arab

The Israeli society needs to be represented more accurately in the infobox (Nowadays the Israeli-Arab population is around 24.3 % of all Israelis). which figure should be chosen? maybe Mohammad Bakri ? (unfortunatly there is no free image of him in wikicommons). any other ideas? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) the arabs israelis are more like 18% of all israelis.. 24% is the precent on all non-jews israel.. but not all of them are arabs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadave (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arabs, including East-Jerusalem, are 20% but the Arabs of East-Jerusalem are "permanent residents" not Israeli citizens. So the Arabs are closer to 17% and all non-Jews around 20% in Israel. Among Israelis abroad, 80% are Jews, 20% non-Jews mostly former USSR immigrants - according to the ICBS. Anyway, yes, we have to include some pics of Israeli Arabs. Benjil (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The changing of the info box to 100% Ashkenazi Jewish must stop, seeing that Ashkenazim are only 33% of Israelis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.230.141 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, putting pictures of stupid pop singers is not exactly better. Benjil (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the percentage of Ashkenazi/Mizrahi Jews in Israel is unknown (The "Data" we have is unsourced and is probably fabricated). But it's reasonable to believe Ashkenazis make up at least 40% of the population, if not more.

Let's see:

• Boaz Mauda, Shiri Maimon, Liel Collette and Eyal Golan all together don't share the level of popularity Shlomo Artzi does.

• Tzipi Livni and Szaul Mofaz over the founding father Ben Gurion, or even Rabin? ridiculous.

• Omri Caspi? If we're talking sports, Shahar Peer, Dudi Sela, Erlich/Ram and Berkovic are internationally known. Casspi is too, but to a much lesser extent.

• Ovadia Yosef over Yisrael Meir Lau? Again, makes no sense.

• Why is there a photo of an unknown Ethiopian soldier? People are already aware there are Blacks in Israel, so I really don't see the point.

• Dalia Itzik shouldn't be there either, but I can let this one go.

I think the old infobox was perfectly fine. It offers a politician, a Zionist leader, a musician, a national poet, a contemporary writer, a Rabbi (and the chairman of Yad VaSzem), an actress, an astronaut, a model and a well respected singer. But I guess they're not nearly as important as Mr. Mauda, after all. Too bad they're of the wrong race.

Now, what you're suggesting here is what *I* call racism. We should choose people who are well known and influential, regardless of their ethnic heritage. But if you insist on including other ethnicities there in the name of political correctness, make sure you choose people who actually mean something for the country and its people, and not some unknown silly pop stars.Rstin18 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Infoboxes must be demographically representative you

No, we must people who ethnically represent the stae, YOU ARE WITH YOU INFOBOX PROPAGATING MYTHS SUGGESTING THAT ALL ISRAELS ARE EUROPEAN JEWS, WHY DONT YOU GO TO THE FORGOTTEN REFUGEES WEBSITE WH

iF YOU WONT LISTEN TO ME SCROLL UP THE PAGE AND SEE THAT IM NOT THE ONLY ONE OUTRAGED BY YOUR DOWNLPLAYING OF THE IMPACT OF mIZRAHIM ON iSRAELI SOCETY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielBarzelay (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re.Let's see:

• Boaz Mauda, Shiri Maimon, Liel Collette and Eyal Golan all together don't share the level of popularity Shlomo Artzi does.

- No In Israel today Shlomo Artzis influence as a singer is certainly much less than someone like Eyal Golan who is probably Israel’s most popular singer, Ofra Haza certainly was bigger than Artzi ever was, even Zohar Azgov

• Tzipi Livni and Szaul Mofaz over the founding father Ben Gurion, or even Rabin? ridiculous.

-I actually agree with you here,

• Omri Caspi? If we're talking sports, Shahar Peer, Dudi Sela, Erlich/Ram and Berkovic are internationally known. Casspi is too, but to a much lesser extent.

-This is a matter of opinion and it is really of no consequence, but Casspi is in the NBA so…….

• Ovadia Yosef over Yisrael Meir Lau? Again, makes no sense.

- This a matter of opinion and of no significance, your Ashkenazi, im Mizrahi that’s why we disagree here

• Why is there a photo of an unknown Ethiopian soldier? People are already aware there are Blacks in Israel, so I really don't see the point.

- This is needed, as is the Arab priest, infact more arabs should be included in the infobox, (instead of people like Liel, and so on….

• Dalia Itzik shouldn't be there either, but I can let this one go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielBarzelay (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When people come to this page they must see a representative image of Israeli society, not of who is more influential, save that for the greatest Israelis page not Israelis, think page should disprove, not incurage stereotypes about the demographics of Israel, and to the data being false,it certainly is not (although I think it should be deleted anyways because there's no source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielBarzelay (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The old infobox was here for a good a couple of months before you came along. How about showing some respect? When we'll get to an agreement, then feel free to change things. Until then, have a little patience.

• How can you be so sure it's not false, if there's no source? The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics doesn't public ethic data regarding third-generation Israeli Jews.
• It is a matter of influence and importance. This is true for any other Wikipedia article discussing ethnic/national group.
• According to your logic, out of the 12 people there, 4-5 should be of Ashkenazi descent. But the only one I see are Ramon and Livni. Why is that? And why stop there, anyway... Why don't you put a South American Jew? They do make up 2% of the population, same as Ethiopian Jews. And what about an American Jew? Lithuanian Jew? and let's not forget, there are no Sephardic Jews here. See how idiotic that is?
• Again, if you insist on Mizrahi Jews, at least pick someone worth mentioning. The current choices are an insult to Mizrahi Jews and Israel, especially if it's over the ones who were there before. Golan doesn't belong here. Einstein, Alberstein, Artzi, Hanoch and even the Yemeni Damari are all considered to be musical legeneds in Israel. Golan is not, and never was. It's not even a matter of opinion. Same is true for Maimon and Collette.

How about David Ben Gurion, H.N. Bialik, Dalia Itzik, Natalie Portman, Amos Oz and Ilan Ramon for a start?Rstin18 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Sefaradi Jew, allow me just to say that I don't give a shit (sorry) about the percentage of Ashkenazim or Sefaradim or Mizrahim (this last group being an Ashkenazi invention by the way, that never existed before, there was Edot Hamizrah for the non-Sefaradi Eastern Jews but that's another subject). Anyway, if you want to reflect this issue on the pictures: take down Dalia Itzik, she is an insult to anything Israeli ; Add Shoshana Damari ; Add Ovadia Yosef. And that should be ok. Benjil (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How about David Ben Gurion, H.N. Bialik, Dalia Itzik, Boaz Mauda, Ovadia Yosef, Amos Oz and Ilan Ramon for a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.233.190 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Israelites

Why does this article mention that 'Israeli' should not be confused with 'Israelite'. True, the terms are not identical, but Israelis are, by and large, descended from Israelites. In fact, the Hebrew words for 'Israeli' and 'Israelite' are identical. Maybe this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.163.3 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Aumann

With all due respect to Mr. Aumann and his achievements, I think we might be able to pick someone more notable than him. Any suggestions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If a Nobel-prize winner is not notable, then who is? How about a picture of yourself? Joking aside, the trouble is that many notable Israelis have no photo on Wikipedia. Haim Yavin comes to mind.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is not simple to choose the most prominent, notable and influential Israelis:

• On the one hand, we should try to represent the different population groups in the Israeli society as best as we can (Ashkenazi / Mizrahi / Arab / etc…) according to their relative share (I do agree with the users whom have pointed out before that we should refrain from selecting mostly Ashkenazim to prevent the readers from thinking that the majority Israelis are Ashkenazim).
• On the other hand we need to present the most prominent figures in as many fields as possible.

Therefore I believe that:

1. We currently have too many singers – it might be better to replace Shlomo Artzi with a notable prominant person from a different field (I choose Shlomo Artzi because Ofra Haza and Dana International have gained bigger success worldwide than him and because Ofra Haza and Dana International together with Ovadia Yosef help us represent the share of the Sephardim and Mizrahim in the Israeli society much better.)
2. Don’t get me wrong, I do not underestimate Robert Aumann’s achievements. Nevertheless, in your opnion, is he really the most prominent, notable and influential Israeli scientist / Nobel laureate?
3. I could always try getting permission to use photos of prominent people whom do not have their image on wikicommons yet. Please do not let that fact prevent you from bringing up the suggestions.

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The selection of notable Israelis in the montage

I created the montage based on the selection of images which has been on this page for quite a while as well as the consensus reached in the article Israeli Jews (see discussion page). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dom people

I've never heard of this group in my life. That is why I am suspicious of the data presented here. Please supply more relaible sources which would back up this data or else it would be removed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounded bizarre to me, too, so I googled a bit and found this article (http://imeu.net/news/article004439.shtml), which states there were 200 Dom (gypsy) families living in the Old City in 1967. In the 1990s, the number dropped to 70, and who knows how many are left today. Does that qualify as a notable Israeli minority group? Good question.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that it is also stated here that their population in Israel/Palestinian Authority is 7,200. I still couldn't find any relaible sources to back this claim up. If there is no objection I will go ahead and remove this section tommorow. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli British. Badagnani (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the references (and the sentence) that read that "Los Angeles is home to the largest population of Israelis outside of Israel." The references (in the LATimes and on Market Watch) mentioned celebrations put on by the Israeli Consulate General in Los Angeles, with no mention at all that Los Angeles constituted the largest population of Israelis outside of Israel. That is, the references were completely false. I am not sure why anyone would bother to say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.210 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The selection of notable Israelis in the montage

H.N. Bialik, the national poet should be here, or at least Nathan Alterman or Yehuda Amichai. Arik Einstein should be here (not eyal golan), or at least שלמה ארצי or חווה אלברשטיין, or מתי כספי. and too many statesmans יניבפור (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific - whom do you think should be replaced with whom? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Bialik died in 1934 - a long time before the state of Israel was established. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. still, Bialik is the national poet. but if not Bailik i would suggest Nathan Alterman (not one of my favorites, but consensus).

2. also, Arik Einstein, the most prestigious singer in israel (few will argue about it) instead of Eyal Golan.

3. I see here 8 politicians - that's way too much! we dont need Benjamin Netanyahu here, he's the Prime Minister, and we (and the rest of the world) hear about him all day long! I suggest put instead the winner of the 2010 Fields Medal, Elon Lindenstrauss. there are many great scientists in israel, and only 2 here (but 8 politicions)

4. also I suggest to remove Moshe Dayan (great person, but) and put someone from another area. my offer is Daniel Barenboim, the very famous conductor.

5. and remove Natan Sharansky and instead put Boris Gelfand, one of the best chess players in the world (and also emigrant from the former USSR)

6. without Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Dayan and Natan Sharansky, we have 5 politicians, and that's more reasonable.

7. best rank of Shaar Peer is 15. why not put instead Gal Friedman, the first israeli gold medalist in the olympics?

8. Esther Ofarim instead of Dana International (or Chava Alberstein). and if consist about Mizrachi, Ofra Haza. יניבפור (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that the current compromise is based on the consensus reached in the discussions we have had in this discussion page.

As I see it, the choice here is really between selecting the most world-famous Israelis (in this case we might end up with a list that consists mostly of Ashkenazim) VS selecting the most accomplished, talented and awarded Israelis (for example, having more notable Israeli scientists and international award winners than local singers and politicians) VS selecting a group of notable Israelis which would fairly represent the different groups in the Israeli society. As I see it, the selection needs to be a well thought of combination of these considerations.

Now here are my opinions of your suggestions:

1. Natan Alterman instead of whom? (By the way - we do not have a good free photo of Alterman in wikimedia)

2. With all respect to Arik Einstein, in my opinion we need to have one of the following singers in the list - Eyal Golan, Ofra Haza or Zohar Argov - since they are of the most notable representitives of their group. Since we do not have any free photos available to us of Ofra Haza or Zohar Argov in wikimedia, I think that we should at least keep Eyal Golan.

3. Benjamin Netanyahu is currently one of the most known Israelis in the world. In my opinion, when his term ends, we should replace him with the next Israeli Prime minister. The majority of the rest of the politicians are amongst the most widely known Israeli leaders whom through Israel's shorty history have had the most influence.

4. I consider Moshe Dayan to be part of the notable leaders I mentioned above. With all respect to Daniel Barenboim, in my opinion, Moshe Dayan is more notable.

5. Natan Sharansky, in my opinion, is the most notable representative of his group.

6. See comments above.

7. In my opinion we should keep only images of the current most notable athletes - therefore, in my opinion, Shaar Peer and Yossi Benayoun are our current best choices.

8. Dana International is more famous world wide and she is one of the most notable representatives of her group. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried my best to make it more cultural and intelligent... hope there are other people here will agree with me that this collection is provincial, politically correct and brain washed (8 politicians), while very successful and influencial israelies, artists, scientists, poets (not even one) etc. stay out יניבפור (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you suggest replacing Emile Habibi (politician), Raleb Majadele (politician) and Salim Tuama (soccer player) with notable Israeli artists, scientists and poets?

Either way, each individual suggestion made here should be seriously discussed by many Wikipedians and consensus should be reached before any future changes would be made. Opinions made by other wikipedians on this matter would be gladly appriciated at this point. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Emile Habibi is a famous writer, and yes, its 9 politicians, not 8, and with Habibi - 10 (as I said - provincial, even more). and I dont care if Raleb Majadele and Salim Tuama will be replaced. I forgot to mention Nachum Gutman, the greatest painter of Israel. no place for him? 10 politicians, not even 1 painter, 1 poet, 1 mathematician etc. "keep the good work". exectly what the world expect from us. we dont need here all the knesset and all the founders. israel made alot of contributions in other areas, inside and outside. Alterman for exemple made huge impact at his time. יניבפור (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You have just proven my point - if it was up to you, you would have probably removed all the notable Arab-Israelis and Mizrahi Jews from this montage. I have to state that I oppose this general proposal - this population consists of millions of people and and definatly deserve to have some representation. As I mentioned before, we do not have a good free image of Alterman. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

that was not my proposal. youre not listening. ומתעסק בטפל, ולא בעיקר. never mind. will wait to other wikipedians יניבפור (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Israelis population numbers for Israel

Israelis population numbers for Israel in infobox includes the settlers in the West bank and the Golan heights. But the regions that the settlers are located in is not Israel. Nothing is also said in the lead of the article that half a million Israelis and 20 000 Israelis live in the WB and GH. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the numbers for Israelis in Israel not including the occupied territories? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Israelis

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Israelis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jewishvirtuallibrary.org":

• From Israel: Jacqueline Shields. "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries".
• From Mizrahi Jews: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mejews.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RS contradiction

:For lack of a more specific template, I have tagged the article with the primitive "POV" -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC) See this edit. So two sources give numbers of Israelis for the U.S.: 106.000 -- 6.500.000 (&tc). That is way too extreme, I call this contradicting RS for now. Now if they are both RS, we should have a section that describes both numbers by background (say definition, or research method). If one is non-RS, that's clear. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism that replaced numbers of Israelis in the U.S., etc. with the numbers of Jews has been removed, and the previous sourcing restored. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Location of Israelis

User:AgadaUrbanit removed WB, EJ and GH from places where Israelis can be found, and claimed "WP:POINT," and "also not consistent with the rest of the sentance". I don't understand this, what is the reason for bringing up "WP:POINT"? and how is it not consistent with the rest of the sentence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising a discussion.

1. It appears that Supreme Deliciousness introduced this content here
2. The addition was partially reverted here, without explanation.
3. Supreme Deliciousness reverted.

We're temporarily removing it while we come to a consensus on what to include. That's how Wikipedia works most of the time: one person makes a bold addition, someone else says, "Hmm, that's not quite right," and then reverts that addition, then everyone goes to the talk page and discusses the section until a consensus is reached to determine exactly what to include. That is called WP:BRD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not replied to my post above, which means that you have not provided a valid reason for your revert, so I guess it can be reinstated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, I've provided rationale, though I'm open to suggestions about how to integrate the content in the article. Please do not edit war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You made claims when you removed the content, but you have not explained your claims as I asked you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, the content was removed here by IP, without explanation, my point #2. I gave rationale, you did not hear that. Please stop Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is about Israelis living in places outside of Israel, how does it not belong there? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your POV, please stop pushing it. I personally do not know if mentioned places are in Israel or not and that's what I have to say about location. Anyway it besides the point, the question raised by my edit summary still persist. I'm going to sleep now, good night. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is my pov? The content showing Israeli settlers living in these places are sourced to the BBC and United Nations. Since you acknowledge that you do not know if the places are in Israel or not, then why are you reverting this edit and editing an issue you don't have knowledge in? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Same argument, different article. Ugh.

Regardless of international opinion, the heights function as part of Israel. Your edit disregards that. PLease find a way to reword it for clarification so that the reader understands the content.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at it closer, ax the whole line. The line after it summarizes it fine. I have already removed part of the line but the rest doesn't even have enough commas.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How come you showed up to this article? Israel has extended its laws to EJ and GH, and this is internationally unrecognized. To follow the view of one country instead of the world view is pov and not neutral. And my edit does not contradict that Israel controls the occupied territories. The line after does not summarize it fine as Canada, US and UK are mentioned while not WB, EJ and GH where even more Israelis live. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? Either it was on my watchlist due to previous concerns I have seen or I took a look at your contributions since I see a concern. Either way, as long as I am not harassing you or trying to give you a hard time it does not matter.

The part of the line that means anything is that there are large populations in US, Canada, and the UK. The political dispute didn't appear to be the focus until you made that change. So if you want to discuss populations in the territory Israel controls then simply spell it out clearly and in a NPOV manner.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And there are also large populations in the occupied territories. I added other places where Israelis live. How is this not clearly and in a Npov manner [3] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You have mixed the places under Israeli jurisdiction and the places that are not, making the whole paragraph an unreadable mess. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What about after the line, something like this: "Israelis also live in settlements in the occupied territories, which includes, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd omit the specific territory names and include the population numbers: "About 490,000 Israelis live in the territories occupied by Israel", in addition of source. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why omit the specific territory names? What is wrong with the sentence I suggested? We can included the population numbers at the beginning of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Because "Israeli-occupied territories" says more or less the same with less words, which is great for lead. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaza is also part of the OT, but no Israelis live there, to name the specific OTs by name is therefore needed. My suggestion is also only one sentence, so there is no problem with the length. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know, there we settlements in Gaza, so in historic perspective such a generalization as OT is even more precise. Also, since there is barely additional coverage of the subject in the body of the article, per WP:MOSINTRO there is no need for minor details in the lead. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ill create an Israeli settlement section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added information about Israeli settlers to the article. So we can ad it into the lead now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the the relevant sources. In the discussed change Supreme Deliciousness had taken sources (mada2006-06-28, CBS, BBCPT, UNGolanHeights) and combined them to say what was not originally there. With Supreme Deliciousness edits from couple of month ago double counting ( of settlers ) was introduced and created more Israelis than there are, according to sources, introducing factual error also in the infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not combined any sources. I only introduced the sources for the occupied territories as they were not represented in the article, as can be seen in the infobox, only numbers for Israel were there.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

According to my understanding 750,000 from mada2006-06-28 does not include settlers, and from other hand CBS 7,602,400 does include settlers. So Supreme Deliciousness edits from couple of month ago double count settlers. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The CBS source in the infobox is currently only sourced to "Israel", if it is in fact so that it also counts Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, then that part of the infobox should of course say "Israel, East Jerusalem, West bank and the Golan Heights", per npov, as to only say "Israel" would be to claim that the occupied territories "are Israel", which would be pov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CBS source provides 7,602,400 which does include settlers, so double counting happens now, we multiply Israelis. Maybe Che's "Israeli jurisdiction" wording is appropriate or maybe we could style political clarification as footnote, similar to one clarifying whether or not NI is a country, however double counting is plain wrong, I'm going to remove it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed the doubling of the numbers, and added the names of all the regions it counts to the same section. Also removed the Israeli flag as it can not represent the occupied territories, as they are internationally recognized as Palestinian and Syrian lands. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not appropriate. Supreme Deliciousness last edit is out of consensus. Number of options were discussed, Supreme Deliciousness ignored it. SD, please self revert and discuss, to reach consensus before performing an edit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus that we should have double numbers? Is there consensus that we should call occupied territories "Israel" ? My edit could be temporary until something better is suggested. And there were no major changes in my edit from how it was before, I removed the doubling of the numbers and changed placement of the locations to the section that contained their numbers. And the flag per explanation above. You acknowledged before that you do not know if the occupied territories are part of Israel, so why are you continuing to discuss this issue you don't have knowledge in? You also said "POV pushing edit" in your edit summary, what were you referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Supreme Deliciousness misunderstands Wikipedia editing process. Editors should not engage in original research or base their edits on the WP:TRUTH they know. We're here to review the available sources.

As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

I'm glad that Supreme Deliciousness agrees that double counting is not acceptable, however editing summary See talkpage, apparently these numbers are also for the occupied territories. is a bit misfortune considering the fact of previous discussion, where such argument was raised. I've just stumbled upon this discussion, was not aware of it previously.

So, on constructive side, answering Supreme Deliciousness's question from December 2010. We could always use CIA factbook here:

People ::ISRAEL Population: 7,473,052 (July 2010 est.) country comparison to the world: 96 note: approximately 296,700 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank (2009 est.); approximately 19,100 Israeli settlers live in the Golan Heights (2008 est.); approximately 192,800 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem (2008 est.) (July 2011 est.)

This is a secondary reliable source ref that might help to solve the mystery, given sufficient constructive discussion, pending this talk page consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I said before that the source included the settlers because that was how I thought that Israel would see it and count it, but the source is in Hebrew, and with the help of Google translate, I didn't see that it counts the Israeli settlers in the OTs, so I thought it was for Israel. How do you know that it counts the settlers? The CIA source also does not say if the "7,473,052" includes the settlers in the OTs.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a plenty of documents in English at cbs.gov.il site. In particular, "Definitions, Classifications and Explanations" says:

The population [...] consists of permanent residents [...] who live in the area of the State of Israel, including Jewish localities in the Judea and Samaria Area.

Other useful links are:

• variety of population statistic data
• population by locality, type and group

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this concludes that CBS numbers includes occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, I reverted your edit and then added the tag "{{dubious - discuss}}". First, the edit you made did not reflect the outcome of this talk -- there is no outcome yet. Second, having read this thread, your behaviour and reactions in this whole thread are not constructive. So it is not this single edit I am talking about. You have been pointed to crisp WP:policies and guidelines, which you did not use or hear. Third, the whole solution & clarification is quite straightforward, and it is strange that it has not arrived there within a breathe (my hint: sweeping the occupied territories together with Israel is not NPOV, and unnecessary vague). I invite you, SD, to propose an improvement here that can easily satisfy you, the other editors here, and the facts, all within policies &tc. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What WP:policies and guidelines did I not use or hear? There has not been any suggestion from Cptnano or ElComandanteChe about the infobox, and AgadaUrbanit acknowledges he doesn't know if the occupied territories are part of Israel. I doubt no one would object to the removal of the double numbers, and the occupied territories have to be moved somewhere, and since we now know the "Israel" section also contained the numbers for the OT it it was only natural to move them there. The occupied territories were already together with Israel in the numbers, so I only corrected what the numbers represented. The best thing would be to have separate sections for the locations, the problem is that the source used for the numbers for the "Israel" section has merged settlers outside of Israel together with Israelis in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What WP:policies and guidelines did I not [...] hear Q.E.D. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But seriously: what is your proposal, SD? -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above: "the best thing would be... " --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No. You say: "the best thing would be ..." (POV) and you say "the problem is" (POV) &tc around and aound. What do you propose as a text? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What I said after: "the best thing would be ..." is my proposal for the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

SD: Bull shit. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you call my suggestion: "Bull shit" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a text proposal. You, SD, keep diverting. Knowingly you do, so you are a piece of shit. Because you divert, you don't answer. Now what is you text proposal? -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want me to say, "Israel", "East Jerusalem", "West Bank", "Golan Heights" (these being in the infobox). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your proposal? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR note re User:Isrealite1

I have put a note up at WP:AN.3RR to point to the behaviour of User:Israelite1. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs

Emile Habibi and Salim Tuama are fine representations of Israeli Arabs, I do not know about Raleb Majadele though, I think the famous Israeli Druze leader Amin Tarif should be in the Arab minority, I mean he was one of the only Arabs to win the Israel Prize. What do you think? And Majalli Wahabi, the first Arab to ever become leader of the State of Israel.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Usage of terms

In October, Shalom11111 introduced that the occupied territories are "disputed", along with other changes such as inserting a link to Status of territories captured by Israel but linking to the section "Disputed". That's dishonest. I changed this to Israeli-occupied territories for a week ago. Today, Shalom11111 changed this again, changing to the "disputed West Bank", along with saying how Israel refers to it, and the link to that specific section. In the same edit, Shalom11111 changed from "Israels official census includes Israeli settlers in the occupied territories" to "Israel's official census includes Israeli settlers in the disputed, generally known as occupied territories". I reverted this and then Shalom11111 changes again, saying that he is only "adding Israel's official view, not deleting the generally accepted one". Now it's good and honest, as we aren't giving Israel's view the same significance as the rest of the world, which means that we call it "occupied" and not "disputed" etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you finished by saying "Now it's good and honest, as we aren't giving Israel's view the same significance as the rest of the world, which means that we call it "occupied" and not "disputed" etc.", then why did you even post this entry in the first place? There's no reason to update Wikipedia users about past edit wars you have participated in or anything of the kind - if everything is solved now, what did you achieve by doing that? I am all about improving Wikipedia, not accusing Wikipedians. -Shalom11111 (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am explaining more detailed what the problems with your edits were. You didn't get it first and accused me of POV pushing when I was not. When you make such changes and also accuse me of something like that, expect to get a response. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you now understand that placing fringe views besides mainstream views as equals is wrong and see why your edits were inappropriate? Sepsis II (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To IRISZOOM: That's ridiculous, how childish. So according to what you say, every single Wikipedia user who disagrees with your edits should report them on the articles' talk pages, right? When I wanted to tell you something about your problematic editing last month, I contacted you directly on YOUR talk page, which is the proper way of doing it, and you know this very well. There, you accused me of doing you a "Badge of shame" (in your words), which is EXACTLY what you just attempted to do now. Disgusting. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reaction. It's nothing wrong with discussing it here, especially with your several controversial changes and accusation that could need the feedback by others. I haven't even talked about "a badge of shame". Unless you have something constructive to add about the topic, I won't respond to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting anti-Jewish ethnic hatred. Denying that Judea and Samaria exist is racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.201.205.252 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality in this article

I would like to know why you think my edit is not making this article more neutral Hertz1888? Palestinians are indeed an ethnicity, just as Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardi Jews are ethnicities. Palestinians can even be subdivided into Muslim and Christian because both groups have had slightly different ethnic heritage. To not call Palestinians an ethnicity is a significant POV that the majority of the world outside of Israel does not share, and we should be avoiding POV's like that on Wikipedia. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this article (or any on Wikipedia for that matter) really the place for editors who deny the existence of the Palestinian people and also do not use the talk page on articles before blindly reverting? Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I don't care for your accusatory tone. It is in violation of WP:AGF, and hardly the way to elicit a cooperative response. 2. Reverting is not "blind" when edit summaries are given. 3. Your tagging of the whole article for non-neutrality on account of one disputed line seems like severe overreaction. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1. It's not accusatory, you blatantly voiced your opinion that Palestinians are not an ethnicity, which is inaccurate and although you are entitled to your opinion you should keep it off of Wikipedia.

2. Reverting is blind when you don't look at the talk page or discuss something before you revert it.

3. My tagging is accurate as per Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Israelis. Not all Israeli Arabs identify as Palestinians. To label them as such regardless is not neutral. Looking back, the wording in question was present for more than two years, and seems accurate to me. If you believe it is incorrect, the burden of proof to change it—after obtaining consensus—is on you. Possibly the principle that should apply is that "if it's not broken, don't fix it." Hertz1888 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I love how you didn't respond about your accusation that Palestinians are not an ethnicity, that's hilarious.

It is by choice of the Israeli government to label all Palestinians in Israel as simply Arabs, the rest of the world sees them as what they are, ethnic Palestinians, the high majority of them do identify as Palestinian, whether or not you believe some of them don't is your opinion. The fact that it hasn't been changed is irrelevant, the way it is written is a non-neutral way. How accurate would it be to label all of the Ashkenazi Jews as Russian because many of them speak Russian and have adopted some Russian culture? Yet you see fit to call all of the Palestinians in Israel, "Arab" because they speak Arabic and have adopted Arab culture? It is a sly way to disassociate the Palestinian identity, and Wikipedia is no venue for that. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This source right here shows that they not only identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli Arab, they are ethnic Palestinian, "After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/world/middleeast/service-to-israel-tugs-at-arab-citizens-identity.html?hpw&_r=0 Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, hilarious. Discuss editing, not editors. This is not about me. If you continue to put words in my mouth, and to hurl accusations, don't expect a lengthy, serious response. Even your own source says most, not all. Sometimes the lines are blurred; WP should reflect that. The line between ethnicity and nationality is another example. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You should edit Wikipedia based on facts, not your POV, I am not accusing you, simply stating what you wrote, which is that "Palestinians aren't an ethnicity", that is what you put in your Edit Summary to justify your revert...[[4]], which is why you are hilarious.

And yes, the source says "most, not all" the edit I made was in the lead of the article discussing the major ethnicities in the Israeli population, if you feel so inclined by all means add a "mostly" before Palestinians, but the fact of the matter is that they are "mostly" Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and that is how it should be worded, not "Arab Citizens". Also, Wikipedia does reflect the "blurring of lines", I suggest you read through the "Arab citizens of Israel" article to see just how the lines are blurred. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to hear from other editors on this (taking the risk that they too may be mocked for expressing an opinion on an ambiguous matter), and perhaps a consensus can be reached. That the existing wording has been in the article for nearly three years speaks in itself as a form of consensus. I would think that it would take a strong new consensus to make the proposed change. Nor (in my opinion) do I see the current wording as lacking in neutrality. If anything, it is matter-of-fact and takes no sides. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I already put up a notice in the Palestinian-Israeli area seeking more editors opinions on this. Your opinion that Palestinians aren't an ethnicity nullifies your view that the current wording is neutral. The "Arab citizens" identify in majority as Palestinians, Druze, Bedouin, etc. You did not see fit to revert my part of the edit making the Jews more specific when I subdivided them into Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi, you only changed the part concerning Palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was talking to others. Your tone is not conducive to a reasonable dialog between us. The question is not what I have done or not done, it concerns what, if anything, is to be done about a certain statement in the lead, and whether the non-neutrality tag added in connection with it should remain. Though I do not claim to be an expert on the differences between ethnicity, nationality and identify, the existing, long-standing wording seems to me to avoid getting into POV conflicts over such distinctions. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You claim that Palestinians are not an ethnicity, that says enough about your expertise on this page. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I start claiming Ashkenazi Jews are not an ethnicity and are simply Russians? You must agree they are a distinct ethnicity otherwise you would have reverted that part of my edit. Yet you believe Palestinians are not an ethnicity? Let's only call Palestinians in Israel Arabs because they speak Arabic, that sounds very neutral to me, but let's make sure to distinguish Druze, Bedouins, Copts, as separate ethnicities and not Arabs although they too speak Arabic. Wrong. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA: " Comment on content, not on the contributor... Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Hertz1888 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use wmf:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities "posting content that is false or inaccurate". You justified your revert with inaccurate information stating that Palestinians are not an ethnicity. I am not personally attacking you, I am pointing out that you are not following Wikipedia rules. Stop playing the false victim. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

False victim? Why not give the full quote? It is this (emphasis added): "With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate". There was no intent to deceive. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Goodbye. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is completely deception, your edit was to change the wording from Palestinian to Arab. You justified it with a false statement saying Palestinians aren't an ethnicity. Your end result deceives readers by leading them to believe that the citizens of Israel are not Palestinians but simply Arabs. Even though the majority of "Arab citizens" identify as Palestinians per sourced material. You are wrong. Goodbye. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Lazyfoxx, that is ridiculous. Palestinians are a nationality, not an ethnicity. Their ethnicity is Arab. Saying they are an ethnicity is like saying Syrians, Jordanians, or Saudi Arabians are an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.201.205.252 (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Palestine under heading "Religion in Israel" without indication that it's outside of Israel

It's of course inappropriate as misleading to place a photo of Palestinian landmarks under "Religion in Israel" when the caption does not inform the reader of the actual location. I tried making it clear that the photographed landmarks, the western wall and the dome of the rock, are not in Israel only under Israeli military occupation though this edit was reverted by a Miami IP without any explanation. Sepsis II (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the eternal Jewish capital, and there's no point denying it, Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.135.194.52 (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let us all just ignore the ethnic hatred above (which it must be seen as when an ethnic group is used as a slur).

I agree with you, Sepsis II. Unfortunately, this is a typical problem in this area. The section about Armenians have the same problem because it says that that the Armenian Quarter, in the Old City of Jerusalem, is in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting Islamic propaganda to Jewish articles. The article Palestinian people is filled with Islamic propaganda, and no Jewish point of view is allowed. Therefore, no Islamic propaganda should be allowed in this article. Also, denying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is ethnic hatred of Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.129.198.247 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You people always refer to Jews you disagree with as "Zionists" adding "Hasbara," so I don't see the problem with responding in kind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.129.198.247 (talk • contribs)

All you are achieving by using proxies to post racist, pro-Israeli messages is to make readers around the world to conflate the two. Sepsis II (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

including non Halackic Russians

Here I removed a parenthetical note about "non Halackic Russians." I have no objection to this other than the fact that I have no idea what it means and that "Halackic" doesn't actually seem to be a word. If it's related to Halakha and is somehow claiming that there are Russian Jews who are intrinsically outside the Halakha, it's certainly controversial and needs a source. If it means something else, I'd like to know what that is if we're to leave it in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Bedouin or Bedouins

I hate to intrude on the weighty and serious conversations going on up above with a small matter, but it's my impression that the word "Bedouin" is already plural, so we don't need to say "Bedouins." However, I will note that both the OED and Merriam-Webster list both forms as correct. I suppose I personally prefer "Bedouin" as both singular and plural in English, but certainly the most important thing is that we be consistent throughout the article, I suppose. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I unilaterally switched back to "Bedouin" as both plural and singular, because that's how it's done in the articles wikilinked to as well as the sources cited. Of course, I don't feel strongly about it, as I said. Consistency is all that matters to me on this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Both seems to be correct and used often, including here in the linked articles. I am used to write "Bedouins" so that is why I write that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is "the neutrality of this article" disputed?

If someone thinks so, please explain exactly why. Give specific examples here so that we can discuss and vote for/against the issue if needed. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps enough has already been said on this in the preceding section; perhaps too much. The entire article is tagged for non-neutrality on account of one editor's insistence that all Arab citizens of Israel should be called Palestinians, per ethnicity. I believe it is legitimate to question whether ethnicity, nationality or identity is involved and applicable. Because that is a highly ambiguous question (which may be difficult to resolve), I believe the current wording of the lead (the wording existing prior to mid-October) is more neutral than the proposed change would be. Accordingly, the change should be rejected and the tag removed. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hertz1888 POV on the neutrality of the lead is not neutral, he reverted sourced material while stating in the edit summary "Palestinians are not an ethnicity." At the same time he left material I added which specified ethnic types of Jews in the lead (Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, etc.) untouched. The article is marked as neutrality questioned because the lead suggests a predominant Zionist viewpoint of the ethnic descriptors in Israel. Israeli-Arabs identify themselves as Palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And No Hertz1888, I did not ever say all "Arab Citizens of Israel" should be called Palestinians, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. The wording of the lead currently reads "The largest ethnic group is that of Ashkenazi Jews with smaller numbers of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, followed by Arab citizens, mostly Arab Muslims, with smaller numbers of Israeli Christians (mostly Arab Christians), in addition to Druze and others minorities." It is talking about the largest ethnic groups in Israel, after the Jewish ethnicities, Palestinians form the majority of the citizens, mostly Palestinian muslims, with smaller numbers of christians. This is how it should read by a neutral standpoint encompassing more viewpoints, especially self-identity, rather than only portraying how the Zionist viewpoint sees the ethnic divisions in Israel. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the largest groups of Israelis are Palestinians, as such they should be listed independently, not under the very broad term Arabs due to a few non-Palestinian Arabs live in Israel as well. Sepsis II (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of them are Palestinians, which is also reflected in the sections so I don't see why we couldn't resolve the issue with the lead. The notion that Palestinian is not an ethnicity is a non-starter and we can't let one editor impose his view, which has also lead to this article unfairly being dispute-tagged for such a long time. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Serious, objective discussion of the original issue (whether "Palestinians" may neutrally be substituted for "Arab citizens" in the lead paragraph) has been inhibited by a lynch-mob atmosphere on this page. Had this section, and the original one preceding, not been poisoned by personal attacks and other hostility, I believe the question could have been resolved months ago, either by remaining with the status quo or by adding qualifying wording to it, such as "many of whom self-identify as Palestinians". I said almost from the beginning that "[T]hough I do not claim to be an expert on the differences between ethnicity, nationality and identify, the existing, long-standing wording seems to me to avoid getting into POV conflicts over such distinctions". (In return for this moderate statement I was further mocked.) As there seems to be general agreement that not all Israeli Arabs self-identify as Palestinians, there is room for doubt that a simple substitution would be neutral or accurate; this is an ambiguous area. I thank Shalom11111 for removing some especially inappropriate content from this page, and IRISZOOM for modifying the tag on the article.

I look forward to a carefully-considered, balanced and speedy resolution to the question at hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not only about identity but also heritage. We could use the wording at the main article, which says "the majority of whose cultural and linguistic heritage or ethnic identity is Palestinian". --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The "many of whom self-identify as Palestinians" is the equivalent to writing "The largest ethnic group is that which self-identifies as Ashkenazi Jews". Sepsis II (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sepsis, we are talking about the major ethnic groups, it is accurate to state that the second largest ethnic group after Ashkenazi Jews are Palestinians. This current wording is incredibly biased, "The largest ethnic group comprises Ashkenazi Jews. Additionally, Israelis include Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, Arab citizens, mostly Muslim, Israeli Christians (mostly Arab Christians), Druze, and others minorities."

As I said earlier, I propose this rewording, "The largest ethnic group comprises Ashkenazi Jews, closely followed by Palestinians. Additionally Israelis include Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, Druze, Bedouin, and other minorities." Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that that's an excellent suggestion. I am in favor of adopting Lazyfoxx's wording.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this division. However, the number of Palestinians in Israel are at most the same size as the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews if not counting them together so I think it would be better to write "The largest ethnic group comprises Ashkenazi Jews, followed by Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, Palestinians, Bedouins, Druze and other minorities". --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It utterly fails to address or even recognize the uncertainty over whether Palestinian is an ethnicity, nationality, cultural group or something else. Don't sources differ over that? What, if anything, makes the rewording more accurate than the existing wording? Hertz1888 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

But "Ashkenazi," "Sephardi," "Mizrahi," it's already clear what those are? Ethnicities, nationalities, cultural groups, or something else? Really I think you're being too picky for the lead, which is supposed to provide a reader (remember the reader?) with a concise overview of the subject. If they want to know what Palestinians are, they can click on the link. That's my feeling, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

On consideration, I believe I prefer IRISZOOM's suggestion to Lazyfoxx's. It flows better, and it's simpler and more informative to the casual reader. I think it's reasonable to distinguish between the kinds of Jews and not so necessary to distinguish between the kinds of Palestinians by religion as we do now. It glosses over in a good way the question of the intersection of ethnicity with religion by listing Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi separately without overloading the lead with fine, less important, distinctions between religious affiliations of Palestinians (I personally know an Israeli Palestinian Buddhist, so nu?).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that we have the level 3 subsection Israelis#Palestinians says to me that in order to comply with WP:LEAD we ought to describe Palestinians as Palestinians in the lead. I really think IRISZOOM's suggestion is the best way to do this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Palestinians are an ethnic group and also a nationality as citizens of the Palestinian Authority would be counted as that, irrespective of ethnicity. The current division by religion in the text is not accurate. We could add that they are mostly Muslims and that there is a significant Christian minority. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in Iriszoom's suggestion of rewording as "The largest ethnic group comprises Ashkenazi Jews, followed by Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, Palestinians, Bedouins, Druze and other minorities", so I am to in favor of this. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semiarbitrary break: I made an edit, maybe we'll discuss it

It seemed to me that there's general agreement that IRISZOOM and Lazyfoxx's version meets everyone's needs, so I adopted it and removed the POV template. As I said in my edit summary, if I've misread things here, please feel free to revert and we'll keep talking.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is great. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)