Talk:Israeli textbook controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is not a forum for general discussion of Israeli textbook controversy. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli textbook controversy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Israel Portal Israeli textbook controversy is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages#Hebrew, Road signs in Israel, Chiloni, Vehicle registration plates of Israel, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Area A, Area B, Area C Copyedit: Palestinian views of the peace process Merge: Rechov Sumsum & Rechov Sumsum Shara'a Simsim Cleanup: Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Agricultural Research In Israel, Cyprus internment camps, Carmel Winery Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Goldstar, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv, Haifa Airport Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Six-Day War, Ashkelon Other: Assess: Translate from Hebrew: He:אותיות השימוש, He:כתיב חסר ניקוד, He:האקדמיה ללשון העברית Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis, Aaron Valero
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	Israeli textbook controversy is part of the Middle East Textbooks WikiProject -- a collaborative effort to create, expand, and maintain complete, accurate, and neutral articles on school textbooks used throughout the Middle East, with a focus on textbook controversies and textbook analyses. You can join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute. This template adds articles to Category:Articles in the "Middle East Textbooks" WikiProject.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 NPOV dispute 2 Discussion of merge occurring at Palestinian textbooks page. 3 Undue weight on highly partisan source 4 What controversy? 5 External link: CMIP "biased"?

[edit] NPOV dispute

The first paragraph is taken verbatim from the Palestinian textbooks Wikipedia entry, but reversed to claim the opposite; rather than the original claim that Palestinian textbooks are accused of instilling anti-Semitic attitudes or inciting Palestinians to commit violence or terrorism, this author made the opposite claim that Israeli textbooks are accused of instilling anti-Arabic attitudes or inciting Israelis to commit violence or terrorism. Certainly taking text from another wikipedia article and claiming the exact opposite would require at least a reference.

The body of the page is about an article which was published by a Tel Aviv University professor entitled "The Arab Image in Hebrew School Textbooks". The article, by the way, is not referenced directly, but rather references #1 #2 and #3 are articles that themselves pick quotes out of. So the pieces that were able to be found of this original article come with the biases of the authors of the articles that are here referenced.

This article that is quoted from is certainly being given undue weight, in that academic articles exist that give well rounded views of how Israeli textbooks portray Palestinians and Arabs. These include:

• "How Israeli Textbooks Portray the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Elie Podeh, published by Indiana University Press in March, 2000[1]

• "Arabs and Palestinians in Israeli Textbooks" a 136 page report from 2000[2] and a 56 page update from 2002[3] by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace

It seems this article was thrown together as a response to the Palestinian textbooks article, and the author searched for and found an article that supported his claim. He neglected to do any research beyond what he wanted to prove as a response to the other Wikipedia article.

Jasonld81 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. // Liftarn

[edit] Discussion of merge occurring at Palestinian textbooks page.

Talk:Palestinian_textbooks#Double_Merge_Proposal. Organ123 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight on highly partisan source

We are relying here mainly on the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, which receives more coverage than all other studies combined (and we are excluding some important studies entirely). Yet according to the Center for the Advancement of Jewish Education, "the CMIP reports [on Palestinians] read as if they were written by a ruthless prosecuting attorney anxious for a conviction at any cost." Ha'aretz opines that "[CMIP chief Itamar] Marcus has been making a living translating and disseminating defamatory communications against Israel, extracted by his staff from Palestinian publications. Marcus, a settler, used to work for David Bar Illan, Benjamin Netanyahu’s PR chief, and served on the Joint Israeli Palestinian Anti-incitement Committee. Marcus’s center routinely feeds the media with excerpts from “Palestinian” textbooks that call for Israel’s annihilation. He doesn’t bother to point out that the texts quoted in fact come from Egypt and Jordan."

So we're allowing far-right Likudniks to write their own history, and presenting it as objective fact. This is totally wrong-headed. While the opinions of people like Itamar Marcus are surely notable, they should not be presented as some kind of authoritative academic study, nor should they be allowed to dominate the article to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I suggest paring down the CMIP "studies" while introducing information from better sources. We should track down the Firer-Adwan studies, for one thing. The IPCRI has a study here which looks useful. And here is a Ha'aretz* piece which points us towards numerous sources.
*It's reprinted on a website run by Israeli radical peace activists. Eleland 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What controversy?

What controversy is there? I did not move this article for a reason. Please explain. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Israelis and their advocates argue that -- unlike Palestinian textbooks which are prejudicial towards Jews and Israelis -- Israeli textbooks are not prejudicial against Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians. Palestinians and their advocates argue that Palestinian textbooks are not prejudicial against Jews and Israelis, or that they are prejudicial but no more than Israeli textbooks are prejudicial, or that Palestinian textbooks are not prejudicial whereas Israeli textbooks are. The analyses performed by CMIP support the assertions by Israelis and their advocates; the analyses performed by individuals such as Prof. Nathan Brown support the assertions by Palestinians and their advocates. To the best of my knowledge, though, there is no major research organization supportive of the Palestinian claims. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 01:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there have been no analyses performed by "major research organizations" on these issues, period. It's all been done by individual professors and small groups of researchers. On the Israeli side, some of it has been given imprimatur by an advocacy group called CMIP, which is not to my knowledge an academically affiliated institution. As far as I know, there is no basis upon which to describe this as a case of isolated researchers versus respected major institutes. <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link: CMIP "biased"?

Per this diff:

Liftarn, please explain the deletion of this external link. The analyses performed by CMIP regarding Israeli textbooks and Palestinian textbooks is one of, if not the most, notable of such analyses. The external link which was provided gives, verbatim, the executive summary of CMIP's analysis of Israeli textbooks as well as a link to the original CMIP report. On what basis do you argue that it is "biased" and should be excluded? Rather than delete "biased" links, please include additional links which, in your opinion, balance the alleged POV -- for example, by including links which dispute the analyses of CMIP. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2. // Liftarn (talk)

I have replaced the Teach Kids Peace link with a direct link to the CMIP page for analyses of Israeli textbooks. I hope you will find the new, direct link to be satisfactory. If not, please indicate the particular points of WP:LINKSTOAVOID which you believe it violates. Thank you for your understanding and your time. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Liftarn, stop removing it please. Personally I think that the CMIP are a bunch of scalawags, but obviously their reports are notable in the context of this article. Using them as external links, and as references (as long as their opinions are attributed and not stated as fact) is entirely legitimate. <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing? You make it sound I removed it more than once. I also said that I think it violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2. // Liftarn (talk)