Talk:Racism in Israel/Archive 1

Essay

This is an essay consisting of cherrypicked info to make a point. There is of course racism in Israel (i'm aware of no countries where there isn't some) and there could be an article on this topic. This aint it. The best you could do is nuke it and start over -- you'd of course need to have a couple of few editors to work from the peer-reviewed literature and deal with the key themes. Good luck doing that in wikipedia's editing environment.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC) This is why the page called my attention. I agree to some of his text as a sign of good faith, but overall it's one bashing of a nation with as you say "cherrypicking."Curvesall (talk)

Racism?

Most of the content is not actually about racism, because a large proportion of Israeli Jews is of the same ethnicity as the Palestinians. I think this article is just another attempt to heap criticism on Israel, for which we have other more balanced articles. This needs a rewrite or a trip to AFD. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I totally agree. The entire article comes across as nothing but anti-Jewish racismGiligandon (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I never heard that Mizrahi Jews are a different "race" then Ashkenazi ones. I think the entire section about Mizrahi Jews should be removed. it's about class and community differencesCurvesall (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose merge with Israel and the apartheid analogy

I am guessing that Counteraction, who created this page, was unaware that an article on this topic already exists at Israel and the apartheid analogy. That article is already well-developed, and covers everything mentioned so far in this article.

I suggest that we merge these articles. The title "Racism in Israel" would remain as a redirect. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - If this article were to be merged, a better candidate might be Human rights in Israel, specifically the section Human rights in Israel#Ethnic minorities, anti-discrimination and immigration laws. The scope of the article Israel and the apartheid analogy is much narrower than racism in general. For example, consider: (1) alleged anti-black racism (even against black Jews) in Israel; and (2) alleged racism (but not in an apartheid sense) against Arab citizens of Israel. Both these topics would not belong in an "apartheid" article. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Apartheid is a form of racial segregation that constitutes a crime against humanity. Editors have been advised on countless occasions that adding sourced material to the target article, which does not mention apartheid, violates WP:NOR and WP:Synth policy. harlan (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. I am revising my suggestion to merge with Human rights in Israel. Better match. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better fit. But there are a couple other issues for us to consider: (1) the size of the article. Human rights in Israel is arlready rather large. Adding material into its "ethnic discrimination" section may be unwieldy. I'm wondering if it would lead to a WP:Content fork? If so, which seciton should be forked off? The ethnic discrimination topic probably has sufficient material for an entire article (I'm aware of quite a few issues that are not yet mentioned), so it is a candidate. and (2) the topic of Racism in Asia, especially the navigation template {{Asia topic|Racism in}} that is apparently being built-up now. Should we give the WP community time to build-up that topic area and see how it goes? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be helpful to compare Human rights in the United States and Racism in the United States, where both are large articles, and the latter is elaborating on a single facet of the former. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Add "Right of Return" alleged racism?

A topic that may be suitable for this article is alleged racism regarding right-of-return, namely alleged discrimination against African blacks and African-Amerian blacks. For instance, alleged discrimination related to Black Hebrew Israelites, such as the Ben Ammi situation. Historian Taylor Branch discusses this in Blacks and Jews: The Uncivil War. See also Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism by Seth Forman. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If they would be accepted as Jews as the Ethiopians are, they would be entering jsust like the Ehiopians did, there's no tradition in Israel about Black Hebrews as "Jews." yet, the racist phrase that giligandon has quoted from your source discredited it as a RS.Curvesall (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rearrangement and clean up - racism by Israeli-Arabs

Rearrangement and Clean up

Ethiopians are already mentioned once, no reason to re-mention it.

An opinion by someone, if it is rightfully included at all, has to be cited, specify as to who says so.

There's no need for double entry of anti-Arabism, the same article exist there also, a link is suffice, or remove the repeated one on either location. Yet, despite its repetition, still, I left the "racist" item about polls, which is maybe the only part that may relate to here.

"Motivations" POV's are neither proven nor facts.

How's such a (slanderous generalization of a people) line an encyclopedia entry " ´´the Jews have been accused of Racism"?´´ (Imagine a line: THE ARABS, or THE MUSLIMS have been accused of racism?) And with an essay as a source...? Has this entry became the anti Jewish racism article?

Motive? The extreme opinion, often used by neonazis, some kind of a sepeculation of linking chosenness [2] to the traditional secular regime in Israel, is weird, to say the least, nor can it constitute relevance to "race" or "ethnicity," an Arab convert to Judaism is as "chosen," has the same status in whatever "chosennes" is. Speaking of motives... Well, how about Arab violence as the motive for discrimination against them? Any argument here? Or the dehumanization of Jews by Arab-Muslims (exposed to Al Aqsa TV describing Jews[3][4][5]) as "apes & pigs - for being the anti-Jewish racist motive?

What about racism by Israeli-Arabs?

[So called] "Facts" that are not sourcefully linked to racism or (racial antiSemitism), has no place here.Giligandon (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand many of the changes you made to the article. Can you discuss here first? See WP:BRD. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see one change you made that looks good: you added a section on alleged racism by Arab citizens of Israel ... I'll re-insert that section, and see if I can find some more sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Giligandon: some questions on the material: It says "slaves used to be branded like animals, " .. has that happened in the modern state of Israel? I think the scope of the article is just since the state of Israel was established. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

... also: it says "In a 2009 PEW poll showing 90% of the middle east viewing Jews unfavorably. Overwhelmingly negative attitudes toward Jews in Arab & Islamic countries. with more than 90% of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians expressing unfavorable views toward Jews." but that seems a bit out of scope for the article. That seems like it would be better in the Antisemitism in the Arab world , article, do you agree? --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

... also: I seem to recall reading a source that said that some racism directed at Arabs by Jews was motivated by the Tanakh's stories such as the Israelites conquering the Canaanites (and other neighbors? Maybe battle of Jericho?). Are you aware of any sources on that? --Noleander (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Above you mention source [6] which describes a Hamas representative making racist statements. That raises the question of whether or not racism in the Israeli-occupied territories is within the scope of this article. I think the convention established in WP is that articles on "Israel" exclude the occupied territories, so following that convention this article would exclude material about racism in the West Bank and Gaza strip. We could create a new article on Racism in West Bank and Gaza, I suppose. What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Giligandon: there is a sentence: "The deragetory racist terminology of ethnicity and identity used by local Arab has been explored, and it reveals a consciousness of difference and rejection of the label abed or slave/black. person." .. it has some italics in it. Were those your own italics for emphasis, or are those italics in the original? --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Giligandon: Have you had time to review those issues I listed immediately above? Some of the material is unsourced, and some is outside the scope of the article, and there are some grammar errors. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

noleander, sorry but your edits appear to be a bashing of Israel only. I tend to agree with giligand, I checked the source about blacks in the Negev and it does talk about the racist slur "abid". What's this double thing about Spanish AND N. africans, you should know that in Israel they have the same class and branded as the same Sephardic. Please refrain from constant repetitions and inflating this already long (!!!) article for no reason. I have also another comment, the entire Zionism has to be removed and a link to Zionism & racism, which exist already. I am propsing another page of racism in Palestinian authority, is that what you refer to? or it can be merged: Racism in Israel and in Palestinian Authority (altering the current title into one page) what do you think? Your motivations piece are P.O.V.Curvesall (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: Can you be more specific on your concerns? I've restored the larger version of the article (see WP:BRD). Is there some material you think needs more WP:Reliable sources? Or do you think some material is out of scope of the article? Also, you may be confused about the Spanish/North African distinction: if you read the sources, the North African racism in in the context of Mizrahi Jews, and the Spanish-descent racism in in the context of Sephardi Jews (at least, that is what the sources say ... if you have sources that say otherwise, please present them here). Regarding your proposal to create a new article on racism in the occupied territories, I have no objection to that. Should it be merged with this article? No, the topics are too different: different political jurisdictions, different demographics, different laws, different contexts, different histories, .. in fact the two articles would have virtually nothing in common. Perhaps it would be best if you drafted a version of that other article first, then we could see if a merger makes sense. --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: I added a new section "Laws and efforts to combat racism in Israel". Do you have any sources or material that could be added into that section? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Current Noleander version of: Unencyclopedic, essay, blogging, attack, racialization of communities of the same "race", generalization, biased, repetitions & POV

Racism???

Dear nolenfer, You have been told already at the top of this talk page (by JFW) that the entire issue of slight differences between Ashkenazi as oppose to Mizrahi (Sefardi) is not about "race" (not just because the champion of racism-implementation, fascism, Adolf Hitler saw all Jews as the same race. Sefardic Jews in Thesaloniki & in Iraq were victims of Nazism & of Arab fascists Nazis' collaborators in the Farhud as well as in Arab nazis' torture of Jews in Tunisia , just as Ashkenazi Jews suffered in E. Europe) but about culture, (in reality it should all be avoided) it can only be defined as classism (which exist in every society). As of now it's still on, though it is a distortion of racialization of communities of the same "race."

Did you read the sources in the "Misrahi" and "Sephardi" sections you deleted? What did they say about racism? --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Senseless splitting: Misrahi Jews

Mizrahi Jews, A.K.A. N. Africans, Yemenites, Spaniards, are all under this same class umbrella, no reason to split them. Worth mentioning that the classism was very much at the beginning of the re-creation of Israel, including at the Yemenite affair, it's very minimal today.

Your opinion is not relevant. The article must reflect what the sources say. The sources distinguished Mizrahi from Sephardi, and so this article must follow suit. Sephardi can be used in a few senses (see Sephardi article), so you may be confused by that ambiguity.

The fact that some racism may have declined in recent years would be suitable for this article, so if you can find a source for that, please bring it to this Talk page. But that is not a reason to exclude information about discrimination that has happened in the past. --Noleander (talk)

Point of Views

In the point of views you mention about so called racism there're counter views which aught to be incorporated. Unless you want to write your own attack essay, this current text of yours is neither truthful nor encycopedic.

Can you identify a specific sentence or section that you think was POV? --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Senseless splitting: Anti-Zionism / Law of return, etc.

Why the splitting between Zionism & Law of Return? the latter is part of Anti-Zionists' critics, it's also under category of allegation of racism towards Arabs, as it exactly relates to Arabs (who else wants to "return" to Palestine? Your habit of inserting the phrase: it's racist... especially..., has to be avoided, the allegation of racism has to be clear and specific, not inflated, again, for no reason).

Did you read the sources in the Law of return section you deleted? What did they say about racism? --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In context - Omission of Israeli-Arab violence

Not mentioning the obvious fact of Israel victim of violence by Arabs [7] [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] in this article is not only omitting the truth but is a twisting around, complete distortion of facts - fundamentally. You almost make it sound as the poor Arabs are innocently victims of an entire population what you try so hard to call racists.

This article should include anti-Jew racism, and it did. I have no objection to that. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian, Indian Jews

Both: Bene Israel & the Ethiopian Jews were under controversy as to the true identity of large portions of these communities, because of assimilation [16] [17] (due to being separated from main Jewish comminities), this has to be stated before crying racism. It of course had the impact of failing to reach a consensus in including them in the Law of Return. Both might even have to be merged.

Your opinion on the matter is not relevant. The article has to follow what the sources say. Did you read the sources in the sections you deleted? What did they say about racism? --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from re adding before a consensus is reached.Curvesall (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your arguments are not rational and are not consistent with WP policy. Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:Not censored and WP:I don't like it. I'll be happy to work with you to improve this article, but try to be more sensible. You may want to look at Racism in the United States to see what a similar article looks like. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Curvesall

• You write "Mizrahi Jews, A.K.A. N. Africans, Yemenites, Spaniards,...". What source causes you to include Spaniards in Mizrahi?

Do you know what Sefardic (referred to ALL Mizrahi Jews) or Adheknaz is?

Sefarad is Spain in Hebrew, just to give you an idea about Israeli society and history. Please ask before "deciding" something you are not familiar with. Why Span is referred to N. African, ME. Jews, please see history books.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "Racism by Israeli-Arabs" under the "[Racism directed at] Arabs" section?

You are right, but if you check it, it's under Arabs, not under racism against Arabs, it's under the issue of Arabs in israel and racism relationCurvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• What source causes you to put the Yemeni baby section under the "Ethiopian" section?
• You changed a sentence to read: School children of Ethiopian ancestry were denied admission into public schools in the town of Petah Tikva, it was suggested in Haretz [sic] that it was for racist reasons. An Israeli government official said "for years, racism has developed here [Petah Tikvah] undeterred".. It was the government official saying it was racism, not Haaretz. Why did you use the phrase "it was suggested in Haretz [sic]"?

Will check that one.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• What source causes you to put the "Classism" section under the "Ethiopian" section?
• What source causes you to put the Bene Israel section under the Ethiopian section?

Ethiopians should be separated, this was done by error. Will change it.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why did you remove material that had examples of anti-Arab racism, but you added examples of Arab anti-Jew racism?

The phrase "anti-jew" and not anti-Jewish smacks of Neo-Nazi vocabulary that use "jew" singular, I prefer to think you are not associated with this. Now, someone above told you already that the anti-Arabism doesn't have to be repeatad tiwce, but a link to that page is enough.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• You have quite a few unsourced statements. Can you provide a source, for example, for "branded like animals, "?

Check that specific provided source by that Dr. it does say so speficially as the words used by a white Bedouin.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• You deleted the "Chosen people" section - did you read the sources for that section?

Someone above already contested it, it's totally unrelated to "race." Nor is the source too good.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• You added qualifying words at the beginning of the sentence: "Nahla Abdo-Zubi a self described anti-Zionist [6] has described Israeli media as racist, in its portrayals of Arabs and Palestinians.[6][7][8]", yet there were three sources for that sentence, and none of those three sources were Nahla Abdo-Zubi. Why did you add those words?

To balance the text that you provided, which looks like one big attack that "the jews are bad." it has to be in context.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, your edits have degraded the quality of the article significantly. I suggest we start with the version that was consistent and fully-sourced, and go from there. We could then proceed by identifying specific sections or sentences (or omissions) and improve it from there. But the current version is a total mess. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to the last coherent version. All statements in that version are fully supported by sources, and the sections are logical and coherent. If you have any specific issues you want to discuss, please discuss them here. But, before you do, please read the questions above and answer those. And please review Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. When you pose questions here, please be specific: cite the sentence or section in question, and explain why you think it has a problem. Also, please read the sources that accompany the sentence/section that you have concerns with. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my replies, please repoly to my comments earlier above, before you re add until a consensus has to be reached. It's disruptive.Curvesall (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: I cannot understand many of your replies. In most cases, you did not reply to the question, or your reply was not rational. Do you mind if I do a Request For Comment (WP:RFC) to get input from other editors? The RfC has to be specific, so perhaps I'll start with the "Nahla Abdo-Zubi" issue. Do you concur with an RfC? or do you want to try to answer the questions again? --Noleander (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Noleander, I just positioned Ethiopians to be in a separate section by itself, have removed the words about the Petach Tikva case as you say that a Gov. official stated that, FYI the Arabs section includes all Arab related subjects, to or by Arabs. thanks you for your understanding.Curvesall (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question about the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You asked about Nahla, Nahla Abdo prides herself of being Anti Zionist, it's highly important to explain where the writer comes from to suggest such an outrageous statement. why isn't her anti-Zionism related all-of-a-sudden just as you haver insertted Zionism here?Curvesall (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: You did not read my question. Abdo was not the writer. Please read the question and sources more carefully. Your non-responsiveness is very disruptive. I'll give you another day to respond to the questions and correct the article, then I'll start with RfCs. --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nahla Abdo didn't write it? I went after the book as a source you provided as a ref. ([18] which both writers are highly criticle of ZIONISM saa whole) What other "questions" besides abdo and asides the changes that I made didn't you like?Curvesall (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Abdo is the editor, not the author. The editor collects various writings together into a book, but is not the author. If you have concerns about the "media is racist" section, perhaps you could find some balancing sources, that is, sources that claim the media is not racist: that is the most encyclopedic way to assuage your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there were three (3) sources. One of them was written by Nabilia Espanioly. None of the three were written by Abdo.

Other questions: just about all of them. For instance, "Chosen people" section: the sources cited relate that to racism in Israel very directly and use the word "racism" or "racist". What sources support your assertion that that topic is not within the scope of the article? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chosenness is not a race, you were already told that above about an Arab converting to Judaism, it's a religious idea, it's actually based on the Judea-Christian book the Bible. Now it's your turn to answer above points directed at your edits.Curvesall (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions about "chosenness" are not relevant. You have to provide reliable sources. See WP:Reliable sources. There are three sources that claim that "chosenness" is related to racism in Israel. That material is suitable for the article. If you are uncomfortable with that material, your best option is to find sources that balance or clarify that (such as a source that says "chosenness is primarily a religious, not a racial concept"). If you can find such sources, I support including them in the article. But your personal opinions are not relevant. Please read WP:Original Research. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for Curvesall: That statement about racism where Arab citizens branded blacks: does the source say those events happen after the state of Israel was formed, in the state of Israel? (could you type-in what the source says on that topic?) If the assertion is simply that those events happened sometime in the distant past, then it should not be in this article, since this article is limited to racism in the state of Israel. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Education section

Curvesall: As a sign of good faith, rather that revert all your changes, I've started with your version, and I'm gradually fixing the grammar, spelling, and formatting errors. I'm also correcting material where you have changed it so it is not consistent with the sources. Please cooperate here on the Talk page. Here is another question: you changed the Education section and in your version (which I've fixed) you said that Daneil Bar-Tal was the source of:

Yuchtman-Yaar, Ephraim, "Ethnic Inequality in Israeli Schools and Sports: An Expectation-States Approach", in The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Nov., 1979), pp. 576-590, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778584

Why did you say that Bar-Tal was the source of that article? --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I inserted Daniel Bar-Tal at the right place, here it is: Look at the ref. number 11 here [19] and the source is:[20]-- Bar-Tal, Daniel, "The Arab Image in Hebrew School Textbooks", in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, Hillel Schenker, Abu Zayyad Ziad, Ziad Abu Zayyad (Eds), Markus Wiener Publishers, 2006, pp 135-152Curvesall (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like there was just a simple a misunderstanding. There were two sources: one was D. Bar-Tel, the other was Yuchtman-Yaar. They are distinct sources, but saying similar things. --Noleander (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why delete anti-racism section?

Another question: the article used to have a section "Laws and efforts to combat racism in Israel" to hold material about anti-racism efforts. Why did you delete that section? --Noleander (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was deleted by the former editor, what did it say? Please post it here first.Curvesall (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted by you, here: [21]. It said "Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country. According to the State Department, "The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law also prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and age." --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Need uniform section naming convention

We have to have a uniform section naming convention for ethnic groups. The Hebrew names may be more precise, but this is an English encyclopedia. English alone (e.g. "Middle Eastern") may not be very accurate, so I suggest we put an English approximation in parenthesis after the Hebrew. --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the next section, as to the real translated proper terminomolgy.Curvesall (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The next section is not too relevant. I ask again: do you have any objections to a uniform naming convention of Hebrew with english in parenthsis (for ethnic groups)? --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism vs Classism - Community-diffrences

I've re-worded the "classism" section so it says "Some scholars view inter-ethnic group discrimination as class-based discrimination (classism) rather than racism.[citation needed]". I think that is the point you are trying to make. But you'll need to find some Reliable Sources to justify that. --Noleander (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said Community-differences, this is how it is commonly titled in Israeli society, it's a more accurate [academic] term & in everyday use: Adatiyut (derived from the word 'Eda' meaning community) it relates (again to all encompassing Sefardic/Mizrahi, vis-a-vis Ashkenazi. A few examples of this term mentioned (as searching it in English is difficult):

The book:"Shlomo Deshen, "Ha'adatiyut shel yozei hamizrah bemashav ha'aliyah." [22] [23][24] [25][26]. I did add the word classism as there might be diffrences in the levels, especially at the beginning of Israel's rebirth. (because I had in mind to be able to) incorporated your text of "elite class" in it. Here's a link about the rather cultural differences between the two blocs [27]Curvesall (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that many sources interpret the conflicts between the various ethnic groups as a class-based issue. However, this article is about racism. So class-based material - if it is included at all - warrants only a brief mention. The sources in that section now all use the words "racial" or "racist" to describe the inter-group conflicts/discrimination. This article must follow what the sources say. To maintain a neutral point-of-view, it is okay to have a sentence saying "Some scholars interpret the group conflict as class-based discrimination, not race-based discrimination". If the sources above support that, it can be in the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chosen People - religious (religious responsiblity) not 'racial'

I've restored the Chosen People section. The sources clearly relate that to racism. Would you like me to provide the supporting text here? If you would like the article to include material that explains how some people treat Chosen people in a religious, rather than racial, sense, that would be fine. But please find sources, and do not delete material just because you dont like it. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1) In reality, Israel, as an overwhelming secular society, to be associated with this religious idea is irrelevant.

2) I repeat: For starters: chosenness means that Jews have been chosen to fulfill the ... This implies a special duty and responsibility on the part of the Jewish people [28] The Centrality of Jewish Chosenness - Chosenness does not mean being favored. It means being given more responsibility to live and act properly. [29] "chosenness is by actions of Jews such as kindness & charity."In other words, explains Rabbi Dubov, the “chosen” status is related to the Jewish People’s responsibility to be, in the prophet Isaiah’s words, “a light unto the nations” (Book of Isaiah, 42:6) From: judaism.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_does_it_mean_to_be_a_chosen_people. 2) Besides, the Mormons claim they are chosen [30] [31]. Or how about the Black Hebrews "Proclaiming themselves the true Chosen People." [32]? Are we going to add racism on their pages because of chosenness? (On a side note: I have experience in Israeli society, I never heard "chosenness" as a fact stated by any Israeli during my years of experience, the most people that do keep talking about this idea are the ones that also keep bringing up the (Russian Anti-Semites' produced) "Protoocols." They use it as an inflammatory "excuse." Nothing against you persnoally though).Curvesall (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion, and my opinion, on Chosenness is not relevant. We need to follow what the sources say. Some sources say that the "chosen people" concept has led to racism in Israel. Do you think that topic is outside the scope of the article? Or do you want to include it, but add some balancing material such as "Other interpretations of Chosen People reject the notion that race plays any role in chosenness"? I have no objection to including a sentence like that, if you have sources to support it. --Noleander (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no objections to including the original "Chosen people" material? --Noleander (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why delete school funding material?

Curvesall: you deleted:

Funding for schooling has been reported as discriminatory against Arab students: a 2009 study from the Hebrew University's School of Education demonstrated that the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for assistance to poor students severely discriminated against Arabs. It also showed that the average per-student allocation at Arab junior high schools was one-fifth the average at Jewish ones.

The source was Prof. Sorel Cahan of Hebrew University's School of Education. Why did you delete that? --

Probably because I haven't seen explicit "racism" mentioned in the source. There might be some ground for reinstating it because the term discriminatory is mentioned, In fact, as a sign of good faith I am inserting it right now, I am also stating the status of controversial Gideon Levy in Haaretz.Curvesall (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good point. When a source explicitly uses the word "racism" or "racist", it is fairly clear that it lies within the scope of the article. But there are some sources that describe situations with terms like "ethnic discrimination" or "discrimination based on Arab vs Jewishness" ... those latter phrasings, I think, are clearly within the definition of "racism" which is "discrimination or prejudice based on race". --04:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no objections to restoring the school funding material? --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples of racist acts

Curvesall: In the section "Racist attacks" there are 2 or 3 examples given of specific bigoted behavior. I think that is about right. Having 5 or 10 examples would be over-kill, and lead to a large article; having no examples would not let the reader know what sort of activity is being discussed. I suggest that we limit examples to just a few per targetted group. Additional examples are welcome, but should probably be presented in footnotes, so curious readers can find them. Does that sound like a good approach? --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: by your silence, I presume you agree with the above? Do you have any objection to me restoring a few examples of anti-Arab discrimination into the article? You removed them all. --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah support

Curvesall: In the section "Polls" there are several paragraphs of polling data, but it is not clear to me that the sources tie that data to racism. Can you supply some quotes from the sources that mention how the results are interpreted as "racist" or "discriminatory based on ethnicity" or something similar? I'm not asking for your personal interpretation of the data, but rather some WP:Reliable Source that makes that connection. If no source makes the connection, it cannot be in the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) We all know, Holocaust denial is part of anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish racism), no need to elaborate. You are not asking me for sources stating that, Are you? (It can be provided though).

No, I was thinking of Hezbollah support. But sources are needed for everything. --Noleander (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I did, coming towards you:

1) I have added the other writers (as separately) after Nahla Abdo.

2) Added the entire piece of 'Funding for Arab school' (under Arabs), I just hope the other user giligando doesn't object to it.

4) I have split Daniel Bar-Tal as his criticism is about discrimination against Arabs (that's where it belongs), from the other part/other source, which is about Mizrahi Jews.

3) Separated the Bene Israel, as it is the only party (so far) that can be apart from the all encompassing Mizrahi/Sephardi. Thanks.Curvesall (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Curvesall: you just reverted about 20 minor formatting and grammar improvements I made. I think it is time for an RfC to get more editors involved. I'll submit one tomorrow. --Noleander (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to 2/3 most important grammar improvements you think you made?Curvesall (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:Manual of Style. In particular, you may want to fix the following in this article:

• Quotes are not italicized; simply "put them inside quote marks"
• Do not use "&" in lieu of "and". Just write "and".
• The lead paragr should summarize the entire article, not just one small part
• Periods go before the citation: blah blah.[35] ( not blah blah[35]. )
• Do not repeat section names in subsections. If there is a section "Arabs" and it has a subsection on polls, the subsection should be named "Polls" not "Arab polls".

and so on. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC #1) Racism directed at Sephardim

The question is: Should the Racism in Israel article include material describing alleged racism by Ashkenazi towards Sephardim? --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) The term "racism" (or race) is highly contested, discrimination (& class) is more accurate.Curvesall (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text is:

Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, particularly of the Orthodox movement, have sometimes viewed Sephardi Jews as inferior.

• Yes - Many sources describe racist attitudes and actions of Ashkenazi directed at Sephardic Jews in Israel. There are many WP:Reliable sources for this material. Here are a few:

• Shohat, Ella, "Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the standpoint of its Jewish victims" [33]: "in 1964, Kalman Katznelson published his frankly racist "The Ashkenazi Revolution" where he protested the dangerous admission into Israel of large numbers of Oriental Jews and where he argued the essential, irreversible genetic inferiority of the Sephardim ..."
• Inauthentic: the anxiety over culture and identity, [34] page 92: "... while Ashkenazi racism toward Sephardic Jews certainly exists, ..."
• "Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought & Culture Spring" online. "Ashkenazi racism deprived me [a Sephardic Jew] of a cultural legacy ... Ammiel Alcalay ... explored the phenomenology of Eurocentrism and found malignant straings of racism in Ashenazic Jewish culture".
• Sephardim, Ashkenazim, and Ultra-Orthodox Racism in Israel, by David Shasha which says "the Ultra-Orthodox Sephardim have been forced to wake up from their complacency and see Ashkenazi racism anew. Feeling that they have properly assimilated into the Ashkenazi Haredi world, these Sephardim have been unpleasantly surprised to find that they are not welcome as equals in that world." This is one of many sources that discuss a recent episode in Israel where an Ashkenazi school segregated Sephardi students.

There are dozens of other sources, but the above are representative. Clearly this material is within the scope of this article. Editor Curvesall suggests that this material should be omitted from the article because the discrimination is based on class, not race. There are sources that do attribute the discrimination to class, in addition to race, and that suggests that the motives are complex, and deserve elaboration in this article. But that is not a reason to omit the material from the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC comment - My only reservation is regarding the use of the word "inferior" in a kind of stand-alone context. "Genetically inferior" might be preferable, or something which indicates specifically that the Sephardic are seen as being, well, less cultural or socially advanced or capable based on their specific genetic background. Granted, my verbosity above isn't necessarily better, but it is, maybe, a bit clearer. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the wording could be improved ... we can work on wordsmithing later. The key issue is including it in the article or not. There is a user that has removed the material three times. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't seen that I have splitted your words into 2 parts, I didn't delete most material (which so - you claim, for example, Daniel-Bar Tal I have separated from the other 2 sources but not removed), but you have deleted my important (in context) insertions. Why? And I though you wished to work together, yesterday. And Why did you again reverted and splitted Sefardim into N. Africans and Spaniards? they are all Sefardim/Mizrahi. Do you have any basis to separate them? if there's discrimination, they are branded as one, see also above Adatiyut.Curvesall (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did review your changes. The "Bar Tal" issue was in the "Education" section, and is unrelated to the "Discrimination targeted towards Sephardim" section that you deleted several times. The vast majority of the sources on this topic are not in the context of education. Please don't confuse the issues, there is enough chaos on this page already. This RfC is a very simple question: Should this article contain material that addresses "Ashk racism toward Seph"? What is your reply to that question? If you answer "Yes", the next question is: Should it be in a dedicated section, as is already the pattern with discrimination towards Ethiopians, etc"? --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bar-Tal is under the Arab section because that's the issue stated there, please refrain from generalization, like the SYSTEM is racist, even if one might find a POV source.Curvesall (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize that many have used (falsely) the word "racism" in regards to Ashkenazi/Sefardi, but to be fair, I can not object to it if it's in the form of discrimination-against not sepefically as racism. If it is in fact included, the explanation of class vs "racism" has to be noted, to say the least. My point is, that if the page becomes a ranting essay against a nation, which your text leans towards to, it's discredited, that's why I keep saying in context.

The RfC might also be asked if this shouldn't be merged into Apartheid allegations.

If you were only restoring content, Please explain to me the follwoing: You explain in the tag, restore relevant material that was deleted without explanation your version comes out to: 21,052 bytes, whereas my version is: 21,757 bytes, How come?Curvesall (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stay focused on this RfC. Okay, so you are agreeing that the material can be included in the article, provided that text is included to explain that some sources view it as class-based discrimination (rather than race-based)? If that is correct, then the next question is: What section does this material go into? I suggest that, like all the other discrimination sections in this article, the section name identify the targeted group ... which in this case would be a section named "Sephardim" ... do you agree with that? --

If it is provided in context that: I Israel it's termed community-diffrences (Adatiyut, it's not a POV, it's a Hebrew daily terminology in the paper, if you'd read Hebrew you'd know it as a normal fact), but some have called it racist, that, as it stands now... it's OK, under Mizrahi, section. (not the version: It's racism but some say it's class). But before you add, I am about to add contesting replies to the POV of your material.Curvesall (talk)

Okay, we are getting somewhere. You agree the material can be in the article. Now to a section title: Why do you say that "discrimination against Sephardim" material should go in a section named "Mizrahi"? Mizrahi are Jews from Middle East (and some other places); Sephardim means from Spain or Portugual (and sometimes Seph. is broadly used to include Mizrahi, also). But the word Mizrahi never includes Jews from Spain or Portugal. See Jewish ethnic divisions, Mizrahi and Sephardim articles: do any of those articles contain mistakes in their definitions of their subject? No. Therefore, the material on Seph discrimination should go in a section named "Sephardim", not "Mizrahi", do you agree? If you dont agree, can you proved a reliable source that shows that the common meaning of the word "Mizrahi" includes Sephardic Jews? --Noleander (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to change Mizrahi to Sefardic, (even though both are used interchangeably) here are links: [35] Who are the Sephardim? Sephardic has come to mean almost any Jew who is not Ashkenazi. [36] In the vernacular of modern-day Israel, Sephardi has also come to be used as an umbrella term for any Jewish person who is not Ashkenazi; Ashkenazim have for several generations constituted the bulk of the world's Jewish population.Curvesall (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good it sounds like we have consensus: (a) the material will be included; (b) we will include the fact that many view this as class-based not race-based; and (c) the section title will be "Sephardic". Great. There is one more issue: The top-level section title is "Class" (was "Classism"). I suppose you chose that title (this is the section above the Mizrahi section) because you wanted to emphasize that some sources view this discrimination as class-based rather than race-based. But this article is about Racism, not class-based discrimination. The title should be "Race based discrimination" or similar. The fact that some authorities view it as class-based can be addressed in the text, but we cannot slant the entire section to present the point-of-view that all such discrimination is class-based. We have to follow the sources, and dozens of sources say this discrimination is race-based, and therefore the section title must conform. Do you agree? If you have real heartburn, another solution is to just re-arrange the sections so we dont need a section named "Race" or "Class": we would just have a section called "Directed at Jewish ethnic groups" or similar, and then the whole issue goes away. What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that when laying out the ideas, without suggesting to the reader, usually is a good idea, unless a statement is outrageous, propogating, inflammatory, or a text is cherrypicked, etc.

Now, the reason I have titles it class, to be truthful to the fact, because there was a class diffrence at the beginning of the migration in tIsrael's early days, unnoticed today, asides from isolated cases, with secular European Jews 'on top.' As you can see I am not on a POV trend but history and present truthfulness and not-slandering-an-entire-people was my calling to here. Your suggestion, by default brands the frictions as "racist" already.

By the way the link you provided about the religious and the Sefardic/ashkenazi issue, Will you post also include the stand that stated that it's about content and not about "background" or "race", from Ynet: to maintain an equal level of religiosity, not from racism. [37]Curvesall (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you titled the section "Class". Rather than spend time debating the title, will you agree to re-structure the sections so the "Class" section just goes away? The top section could be "Directed at Jewish ethnic groups" and the sub-sections could be "Sephardi", "Ethiopian" ,etc. The "class" vs "racism" subtleties can be described in the text in the top-level section. Is that okay with you? --22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you on this but... The problem is, that the term "racism" have been used so loosely especially by politicians in Israel on both sides, and moreso by anti Israel critics. It's not truthful. Is there such a thing a "sefardic" race??? (I think a user on top of this talk page already said something against this entire "racism" thing here) Which is why maybe we can exclude Ethiopians, who are clearly Black.Curvesall (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the RfC. I understand that many sources discuss the issue in terms other than race. But this article is about alleged race-based discrimination. We must follow what the sources say. The issue now is the name of the section above the "Sephardim" section. It is currently named "Class". That is not acceptable. I'm proposing to eliminate the whole problem by just having a section hierarchy that is very simple: there would be a top level section "Discrimination directed at Jewish groups" and under it would be the various subsections ("Sephardim", etc). Content would only go into those sections if the sources explicitly identify the issue as racial discrimination aimed at the named group. Is that acceptable to you? --Noleander (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So you wouldn't -- then -- have to split into: Sefardim, Bene Israel, Ethipioans?Curvesall (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with what the subsections are (as long as one of them is Sephardim). If you think they should be Sephardim, Bene Israel, and Ethiopian, that is okay with me. Do we have consensus then? --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind test-posting the portion somewhere (here or in a sandbox) before pasting it on the page???Curvesall (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to recap: (1) change "Class" section to "Directed at Jewish groups"; (2) include "Sephardim" subsection under that; (3) include discussion of class-based vs race-based interpretations of the discrimination. I'll let you write (3) since that is your area of expertise. As for the content to go into the "Sephardim" section, it would include the existing Mizrahi material, plus the older material in the archives (it is viewable here ). --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus achieved

Thanks, it would just be easier (in order to avoid misunderstandings) for us to see it first in a draft, with the ability to edit it before finally inserting into the article as I see you made many draft/pages.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

Okay, I'll be happy to do that. Will you agree to show all your changes to the article, here in the Talk page, before making them and waiting for others to aprove before inserting them in the article? --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. We're talking about changing in your draft first before posting it into the article, so you will clearly see if any (and which) changes are made. This would avoid messing around with the page.

You didn't answer my question. Would you please answer it? --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you asking me? I am explaining to you that I want to see the current version you have either in a draft or here, before you are to post it in the page, after my edits, if any, it should be fine, for now, I believe. I don't think it's difficult to understand that I just don't want unexpected surprises. or important chages-points that by you it might seem minorCurvesall (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking you is "Are you willing to present all your proposed changes to this article, here in draft form, before putting them in the article?" Can you answer that, please. --00:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to my future changes? I am asking you the same thing, I think we should both answer yes. Mutually, Now let's see your draft vis-a-vis the "Directed at Jewish groups" - as this the only portion discussed now.Curvesall (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot agree to that. You have introduced dozens of flaws and mistakes into the article, and it would take forever to fix them if we had to have a 12-hour Talk session over each one. And, of course, there is no WP policy that requires editors to get permission before changing an article. If you want to see what the "Sephardim" text is that Im planning on inserting, it is here .. from the article archive. If you want to insert it into the article, and improve it, go ahead. As long as your improvements are supported by WP:Reliable Sources and consistent with the consensus above. --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Style problems

Curvesall: Could you fix the style problems identified above in the section named "Grammar"? I tried to fix them twice, but you reverted my fixes, so I'll give you a couple of days to fix them, otherwise I'll revert back to the version that has decent style. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Will see to it now.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

Abdo author issue

Curvesall: could you please fix the attribution problem with Abdo: that person is not the author of the cited source ... Abdo (and the other person, Lentin?) are editors. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I will, alter it and ommit that they "wrote" it.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

The political opinions of the editors of the book are not relevant. Please delete the discussion of the editors. You may name the author of the material. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-racism section

Curvesall: Can you please restore the 'Anti-racism' section that you deleted? See section named "Why delete anti-racism section?" above in this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I asked you yesterday the same thing, what did the 'anti-racism' section say, it was probably removed by the user giligand, can you post it right here?Curvesall (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you removed it. If you look above in the "Why delete anti-racism section?" section of this Talk page, I SHOW YOU THE DIFF WHERE YOU DELETED IT. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking you again, Can you post the 'anti-racism' part here? As far as I can remember, I didn't notice it. Curvesall (talk)

You can find the deleted section, and everything you deleted, in the history of the article. Go to the article page, and click the "View History" button a the top. That will show a list of all past versions of the article. Go down the list to find one before you deleted stuff. Click on the date (for example "August 10, 2010") of the old version you want to see. That will show you the old version of the article. You can get some text from there. BUT if you also need to get the old footnotes ("ref"s and citations): You must click on the "Edit" button at the top of the old article: that will show you the raw text - including the footnotes. Copy that text. Then go back to the current version of the article; click "Edit' and then paste the text and save it. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-racism section - reposted

As you can see, I have re-inserted it yesterday after material - found.Curvesall (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: I cannot find the anti-racism section. Can you show me where you re-inserted it? --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Testing: Directed at Jewish groups

I have made the changes as per STYLE, and other points, in accordance with these latest replies to you here: [38], Can you give me a test example (there) of what and how you are about to post in: Directed at Jewish groups'?Curvesall (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot understand your question. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag

Cruvesall: can you please remove the Merge tag from the top of the article. There is no active merge discussion. I removed it twice, but you put it back in twice. --Noleander (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I have removed it in my draft page , link above. Even though I can't see that there was any agreement concerning this.Curvesall (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent

Is this a general wiki rule that quotes should be blocqkuoted not in italic?

I see you already made the changes, Why not post it in a draft, example: [39], first, as agreed?

I just looked up again saw the 'anti-racism' section, searched for a source of the text you had and I am to repost it. It might have been removed by mistake. The 'merge' tag, I think we need a consensus from those that have originally put the stub in there.

We have consensus. It was already discussed and agreed. You can delete the merge tag. Please read the Talk page postings more carefully. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: Can you please remove the Merge tag. The merger was abandoned. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yemenite babies affair - as oppose to 'kidnapping'

Question, What do you think, changing "Kidnapping Yementine babies" to "Yemenite babies affair'? as it is contested by a leading Yemenite scholar, posted yesterday by a user.Curvesall (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That is okay. --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did. I just looked at the sources again and I used the term from there - "disappearance", I hope it's OK.Curvesall (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism in Israel and in Palestinian National Authority

Noleander, the earlier discussed and agreed by you [40] expansion into the new title: Racism in Israel and in Palestinian National Authority, please respond to this.Curvesall (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the topic "racism in the Occupied Territories"? If you want to put material on that topic into this encyclopedia, it cannot to into this article, since the O.T. are outside the state of Israel. If you want that material in this encyclopedia, what I suggest you do is: create a new WP article titled "Racism in the Occupied Territories" and spend a couple of months building it up, and getting it in good shape. Then, after that article is good, and after this article is cleaned-up (there is a lot of work to do in this article) - then you can propose merger of the two articles (but, based on similar discussions in the past, it probably will not get merged). But there is no way it can get added into this article now. In any case, this article as dozens of flaws and shortcomings that need to be fixed before doing anything drastic to it. --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I am referring to an example of the new title: Racism in Israel and in Palestine or more proper Racism in Israel and in Arab Palestine, since they are so intetwined. (I have already ready material for that) Your current page would go under 'In Israel' section of course. Is that OK with you?Curvesall (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No that is not okay. There are three separate entities: (1) the state of Israel; (2) the Occupied Territories; and (3) Palestine (before the state of Israel). There could be three separate articles. This article is about the state of Israel. If you want to create the other articles you may. After all three articles are created, and in good shape, we could consider a merger. However, this article is a mess now, so it would be premature to merge them now. I suggest that you create the other new articles, and write them, and get them in good condition, then re-visit the merge idea later. --Noleander (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am trying to make sense of this article and the disputes. To Curvesall -- there already is an article entitled Racism in Palestine. No I take that back. It is called Racism in Palestine (Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population) assuring that no one will ever find it. Other articles which contain information on Israeli "racism" include Racism in the Middle East which would probably interest you, and another called Anti-Arabism with a section for Israel and one called Arab antisemitism. KantElope (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI report

A discussion about the editing on this article is taking place at ANI. All editors are urged to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution in cases where consensus is not clear. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Should raise "Arab discr against others" up to top level

Curves all: the current section "1.6 Racism by Israeli-Arabs" does not belong under the "Arabs" section. The "Arabs" section is supposed to contain material about discrimination directed at Arabs. Section "1.6 Racism by Israeli-Arabs" is about discr by Arabs directed at others, and it should be a top-level section. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So far it is 'what relates to and from Arabs' maybe this can be changed.Curvesall (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please change that. "What relates to arabs" is not logical. The top-level sections should be divided by the group of people that are the targets of the discrimination. So the top-level sections should be:

• Anti-arab discrimination (from Jews)
• Anti-Jewish (from Arabs)
• Anti-Jewish (from other Jews); including anti-Ethiopian
• Anti-black (from Arabs)

Or, there could be just one "anti-black" section, including discrimination from both Jews and arabs. The section titles do not have to include the word "Anti" ... I am showing that here just to make it clear. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia is in Africa, not India

Curvesall: Why did you put the Ethiopian section under the Bene Israel section? Ethiopia is not in India. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, OK I just changed that.Curvesall (talk)

You cannot write your own essay

Curvesall: Please remove the following text you put in the article. "It's completely false to state that Israel is the only country "based on" religion or ethnicity. Christmas is on the official calendar of most Christian countries, and in Poland & in Ireland on many subjects, the Church has the final word. If Israel is racist, so are the above (and other) nations mentioned." Editors are not allowed to put in their own opinions. Please read WP:Original Research. --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not mine it's by the lefty liberal Peacenow Please check before accusing

Please check the source (ChicagoPeacenow [41]) before making accusations.Curvesall (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot use blogs as sources in this encyclopedia. Only use quotes from major newspapers, academic works, or books published by reliable publishers. Please remove that quote from the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I stated specifically that it's by notorious peacenow. A very famous organization that is rather critical of Israel. It's an article by themCurvesall (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a blog, on their own website. You can only use it if you find another reliable source that quotes them. See WP:Secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A better source OK Here's a more official source, will add it with this one [42], I thought it's important to note that peacenow says that...Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

Do you replace the entire article each time?

Curvesall: Can you explain how you make edits to the article? Do you have a personal "draft" copy that you work on, and then when you are ready to put it into the article, you copy the entire draft into the article? If that is what you are doing, you have to stop. Other editors change the article. If you copy your entire draft into this article, you un-do all the changes that other editors make. Please stop doing that. Instead, you must click the "Edit" button, and put your changes in one-by-one. Do you understand that? --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: can you please reply to this question? --Noleander (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I ask you to do, which you didn't do, yet, I am telling you in answer to the question, again, 'My last changes since your edits were only what you have asked'. If I did I notified you, I am asking you to do the same.Curvesall (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your answer. Let's say some editor "X" makes a change to the article. Then you want to add something to the article. Do you copy the entire article from your draft into the article? If you do that, how do you make sure that editor "X"s change is not lost? --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't updated my draft, since you have ignored that 'testing ground' pilot proposed to you, If it wouldn't be a damnning of an entire system, maybe it wouldn't be important, as it stands now, the balance is needed.Curvesall (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not understanding my question. Pretend there are 10 editors working on this article. The way it works is: Each editor clicks the "Edit" button on the section they want to change, then they type-in their changes, and then "Save" that section. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to copy the entire article from your local, personal version and write-over the entire article every time. My question here is NOT about the content you are adding: it is the process. Above you suggest that you and I both keep two personal copies of the article, and share proposed changes. THAT IS NOT THE PROCESS TO USE. No article, anywhere in WP, uses that process. By copying your entire article in every time, you are over-writing changes from other editors. I am not the only other editor working on this article: editor "wikifan12345" also made changes that you deleted. Do you understand this? -Noleander (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My last changes since your edits were only what you have asked

Please check the diffences between your last edit and mine [43], If I did make any edit, I notified you here first. As you can see here I made the changes that YOU have asked me, about formatting/style and adding the anti-racism section, that's allCurvesall (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your changes look okay. Can you reply to the question in the section above? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why "secular"

Curvesall: In the baby section you wrote "Secular Israelis of European descent ...". Why did you put the word "secular" there? I looked at the sources, but I do not see them saying "secular". --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Because some say it was anti-religious more than any other cause, see next paragraph.Curvesall (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was edited by me originally, then it's probably because of the argument that it's more of a secular-ashkenazi elite that is dominant, (example: lef-wing and secular ... "The Arrogance of Israel's Elite... left-wing and secular forces have fought non-stop to preserve their monopoly... dominant Ashkenazi elites") .Curvesall (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not sufficient to put that qualifying word at the start of the sentence. Can you find a source that says only secular Israelis were implicated in the incident? Other sources do not mention "secular" at all. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a source that says that religious officials were also involved? As the source [44] provided states that it was a SECULAR motive, it in fact says that it was a 'secular' crime by secular officials. Why the game?

Here's more from a famous Israeli writer Barry Chamish also known for criticizing the IDF):

With so few secular Jews to populate Israel after its creation, the Sephardim of Asia and North Africa, the vast majority of whom were religious, were manipulated by created hatred to move to the new state. Their arrival was no cause for their celebration. In an act so horrid that it defies every precept of the 3000 year old Jewish holy works, the Labor governments of the 1950s, led by Atomic Energy Commissioner Shimon Peres, had every single Sephardic infant and toddler, some 113,000, subjected to massive blasts of gamma rays through their brains. Some 4,500, mostly Yemenite infants, were kidnapped.... [45]

Curvesall (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See next parag.

Source

Do you was a "source" to show that Israel's regime was and is secular? I am not sure I follow your question, I just showed you a tip, Do you want more on the clearly secularization campaign in relation to Sefardim? In any case here's a clear source that this case was about secularization: [46] "missing children... the real crime, and the true objective of the governing elite, was to deny a Jewish education to the Jewish children... They were sent to secular kibbutzim and institutions to teach them about being Jewish in Israel."Curvesall (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many quotes

Curvesall: in the section "Towards Jews" that you wrote: you have too many quotes. Please read Wikipedia:Quotations. The rules are:

• The style to write in is an "encyclopedic style".
• That means you cannot have lots of quotes, only a few
• It is best to re-word or summarize a quote in your own words (and then do not use quote marks " " )
• It is okay to put lots of quotes inside the footnote ("ref") so readers can see the detail by going to the bottom of the article
• It is okay to have a few quotes in the article, but they should be rare.
• Do not use block quotes unless it is a large quote (about 4 or more lines long). Block quotes are very rare in an encyclopedia. If the quote is 3 lines or shorter, just put it inside " " quote marks and do not use block quotes.
• Never use italics for quotes
• Also, if you want, you can put lots of quotes in the WikiQuote project.

The "Towards Jews" section is almost all quotes. Can you convert most of the quotes to plain english, in other words, summarize the quote? If you want help with converting, let me know and I will be happy to help. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just removed 'blockquotes'.Curvesall (talk)

Noting the character of those making outrageous accusation on an entire system is importnat

Of course the character of the editors that (host/gather bit & pieces, cherrypick) slam an entire system is important, Why did you remove that before reaching an agreement here? Please don't start an editwar, again.Curvesall (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you find another WP editor that will support your position that a book's editor's should be mentioned in the article? Maybe you could do an RfC? --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this current version: "The Israeli media as been described as racist in its portrayals of Arabs and Palestinians by critics of Zionists"?, Otherwise you make it sound as a "stated" fact on an entire system, It's unfair.Curvesall (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is okay, but you would have to find sources that describe all three sources (not just the first one) as "critics of Zionism". The latter two sources are apparently not anti-zionists. --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"See also" template

Curvseall: Please change "See: Anti-Arabism in Israel which some claim it relates to intolerance" to be a "seealso" template, like it was. You do it like this: {{seealso|Anti-Arabism in Israel}} . Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want a source that refutes that it is always motivated by "racism"?Curvesall (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont need any sources. It is a "See also" link ... those use templates like the one I show above. See also links do not have any words after them. Please change it to a template. --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The poll

At the very BBC link you base the "anti arab" rises, it exist also this: "Israel's Construction and Housing Minister Zeev Boim said the rights group's report was biased and without credibility", It should be admitted.Curvesall (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply, that poll was contested, it's stated in that very BBC source.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

Your recent drastic edit without agreeing

Why did you remove the words "secular regime"? If you don't want it by that case, It can be added in the main 'sefardic' section (b.t.w. Yemenite has to be included into Sefardim) Here's a quote: "The Ashkenazic secular leaders of the State contrived munerous elaborate plans to reduce the perceived Seophardic threat" (Jewish action, Volume 59 Author Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Publisher Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1998 p. 21)Curvesall (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: There is already a section on the Talk page (above) for the "Secular" issue. Please post all comments there. DO NOT create new sections in the Talk page if there is already a section on the topic. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you please respond to my recent question in the section above named "Do you replace the entire article each time?" --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent major edits

Some of your changes are improvement, subsituting Sefardic for Sephardic, and some typos which I haven't changed. however:

Why remove: "his remark cost him his job." at the Israeli-Arab driver?

You changed the original quoted text (in that source): Propaganda materials, into "materials", Why?

Why remove the clarifying word: "Officially" at the ADL?

If anti-Arabism is not racism why mention it here? Is (so called) anti-Arabism actions always "racism?" not really, want source?

The word unjustifably is directly related to the peacenow material.

You added: against non-Jews, can you quote sourcefully?

Why add the . stub at the respected JVL site that states facts?

Why remove the contested merge tag, was it resolved?Curvesall (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for all of the edit but: JVL is not a WP:RS, ADL is not an official organ of Israel as far as I know. Unomi (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Who decided that the JVL is not a RS? How about the BBC (which is claimed to be anti-Israel biased [47]) is it RS? if you go down this road... beside,s no one has statted it as a "fact" without claimg that it's the JVL as the source says so. No one says that the ADL is an Israeli official body, the text only states that ADL says that "officially" Israel does not have any such laws. Not that it "speaks" for Israel.Curvesall (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a rather long discussion on WP:RSN which found that JVL was less than reliable, and better sources should be used. You can search for 'Jewish Virtual Library' at WP:RSN to find the discussion in question. Yes, BBC is considered RS, even Fox News is considered RS - RS is somewhat tricky on Wikipedia. If you want, you can open a discussion at WP:RSN regarding BBC. We can't use ADL as a source for Israeli laws, we can state that "The ADL states that .." adding "officially" before that line rather than as a part of the ADLs statement might be considered editorializing. Please be careful when you edit the article, you seem to be undoing more edits than you mean to. Unomi (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC) The text stated: "Officially, the ADL says"...

By the way, anyone can post on a noticeboard and saying something is not RS, fact is it's listed in [List of online encyclopedias] Quotable so much (not just online, but also) in books: [48] Moreover Can you count how many time the 'Jewish Virtual Library' is quoted as 100% "facts" by the very BBC which you seem so much to support??? Start counting here: [49] Or shall I say the BBC endorses the Jewish Virtual Library.

(btw, so is 'Israel National News,' quoted as 'news' in Foxnews, which you agre is RS [50]).

Because there are no clear guidelines on it, it is tricky, If I were to state the ADL fact as a "fact" or the JVL facts as just "facts," without naming them as a source, you might have some grounds, maybe. Thanks.Curvesall (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat unclear what I can do to help you, WP:RSN is a central location where editors can weigh in on the reliability of sources. JVL was found to have numerous issues, including using Wikipedia as a source, unclear authorship, unclear sourcing, unclear editorial process and cases of misrepresenting the purported sources.

Regarding the ADL quote - Officially, the ADL says "... " Seems open to misinterpretation vs something like: The ADL states "Officially, .." if such a quote can be found. Please understand that the phrasing should avoid any sense of editorializing on our part, if readers are left with the impression that we are sticking "Officially" in there as a weasel word it would be unfortunate. Unomi (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Merge discussion was ultimately struck down and withdrawn see here and here. Unomi (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with itCurvesall (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How to change the article

Curvesall: When you want to change the article, here is how to do it: Look at the article. Scroll down to the section you want to change. On the right side is a blue "[Edit]" word, click on that. Then type-in your changes, and then "Save" that section. DO NOT DO THIS: do not click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the article and then copy the entire article from your personal version of the article and write-over (paste) the entire article. Also, do not paste an entire section. If you do that: you will un-do all the edits of other editors. Do you have any questions about that? --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I am not picking a fight here, I haven't made big changes, but Please don't remove the 'rest of the story' text from the New york times and the BBC, whoever keeps editing this page keeps removing it tiny text from your source Gerber-Shoshana's about secular elite have also been added., also you post 3 times from the same source madmoni shoshana (I have put them, all under "ref name=madmonigerber"), but you don't mention her criticism of secular elite in page 62, the writer Ela Shohat has been criticized even by the well resoected forward. regards--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.186.64 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: when you add a sentence into the article, please follow the instructions above ... otherwise you un-do all edits from other editors, even edits you agree with, like spelling or style fixes. --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Curvesall: I have no objection to the content you want to add to the article. Generally, it is within the scope of the article. The problems are:

• Some of your sources are not good ... see WP:Reliable Sources. Secondary sources are best.
• You should put balancing (or rebuttal) content after the initial content that describes the alleged racism/discrimination, not before
• Do not put in too much rebuttal information .. that violates the WP:Undue or WP:POV policies. You did that in the "Zionism" section: you have way too much information there. You should move some of that into footnotes, or use "see also" links to point to other articles in the encyclopedia that already cover that information.

--Noleander (talk)

Don't confuse my edits with someone else's, also the anti-racism setion I don't think I have removed it orig. I am glad it's up there, Nor did I change recently, your styling.

• Will be going on vacation to the islands, not always with the ability to edit. All I am asking is a bit of repair of the damage you have done. Please don't make drastic changes befote addressing them here.

• You haven't addressed all my questions above, yet.

• (We both don't want to get back to square one, Do we? in my next edit I will shorten the NGO and Peacenow article vis-a-vis your anti Zionist posting WP:POV.)

• Some of your sources are not reliable, especially controvertial authors. WP:Reliable Sources.

• Many of your recent changes are not satisfactory. However, I am asking you a minimal of cooperation in not deleting important parts...

• In order not to mess (as of now) with 'all' your edits, please (you) do the following smalll step (without my current interferring):

• Please add at least 1) At the section 'Polls' 'anti-arab racism rise' case the statement by the Israeli official refuting the poll by the Arab organization in that BBC link (Association for Civil Rights in Israe news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm ) However, Israel's Minister said the rights group's report was biased and without credibility

It's very unfair to leave out the text and cherrypick what you like from that BBC report.

2) "Jewish Groups" section: The Orthodox Union's assertion: Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, its system is criticized since the beginning, Ashkenazic secular leaders of the State vs Sephardim. The OU is a very respectable org., It speaks for religious people, Please do that.

You think you can do that? Peace.Curvesall (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Working on this, copy-editing

If you give me a few days I will work on making the article more intelligible and readable. After that, perhaps we can argue about the content. KantElope (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

The following is from the fisrt comments on this page, which the creator of this page has not replied to.

This is an essay consisting of cherrypicked info to make a point. There is of course racism in Israel (i'm aware of no countries where there isn't some) and there could be an article on this topic. This aint it. The best you could do is nuke it and start over -- you'd of course need to have a couple of few editors to work from the peer-reviewed literature and deal with the key themes. Good luck doing that in wikipedia's editing environment.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloated Zionism section, writing paragraphs and then adding "citation needed" to every sentence

The article is about racism in Israel, not anti-Zionism. Most of the content here is OR. Adding citation tags doesn't change anything. Most of the black section is original research. But most importantly, the lead must be sourced. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I agree that the Zionism should be de-emphasized in this article. However, the relation between Zionism and Israel is so strong, that some mention should be made of allegations that Zionism is discriminatory. (2) Yes, the Black section is very poor. I think user Curvesall wrote that, and I tagged it. If it is not cleaned up in a week or so, I'll see what I can do. (3) Lead sourced: Sources for the lead are optional, and the lead is supposed to reflect the content of the article's body. Rather than add sources, it may be better to improve the wording of the lead paragraph so it clearly and neutrally reflects the content of the article. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made the Zionism section very brief. I also tightened-up the "Law of return" section. Curvesall: If you want to add some balancing information into either of those sections, go ahead. But please keep it very terse, and make sure you have great sources. If you want to include lots of quotes, consider putting the quotes inside the"ref" area, so the reader can see them in the footnotes, not the main article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yemenite-babies - not racism but anti-religious coertion

I have not taking off the section of Yemenites, but in truth, it was all about anti-religious coertion, here are a tip of the iceberg.

Mostiessin (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confused. This article is about racism, not anti-religion. If the article were about religious bias: you would have a point, perhaps the kidnappings were secular, not religious in motive. However, this article is about racism, and the claim (by the sources, not me) is that the alleged kidnapping had a racist motive: Jews of European descent kidnapped babies of Yemeni ethnicity. So say the sources. Religion vs secular has nothing to do with it. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to ? Marokwitz (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What source is noleander claiming that the secular kidnapping of religious yemenites was about racism???Mostiessin (talk)

A Few problems with this bias (and half ignorant) article

My two cents.

1) Sepahrdic/Mizrachi's one check sources in those cases, (it's about muddle easterners who are called also sephardim, nothing about "spanish or portugheze" it's ignorance...], 2) don't remove refutation from sources. 3) I didn't find anything from US State Dept. so why mention it in the beginning. 4) Author Raphaeli quotes also Former Canadian MP Irvin Cotler, hwe has to be cited.Mostiessin (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter is not relevant. There are two distinct sets of sources: one discusses Sephardic Jews (in the context of "from the Iberian peninsula", not in the context of "including Iberia and Middle East"). A second set of sources focuses on Mizrahi Jews. It is true that sometimes the word "Sephardic" is used to include Mizrahi, but that is not how the sources use "Sephardic". The article must follow the sources on this. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, please check your sources, since it seems you are confused. I am quite familiar with the topic, and the term Sephardim means all Jews who use a Sephardic style of liturgy, and therefore includes most Jews of Arabic and Persian background, whether or not they have any historical or ethnographic connection to the Iberian Peninsula. The terms Sephardi and Mizrahi are used interchangeably in modern religious context. Marokwitz (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just using the same terminology as the sources. We cannot speculate on what the sources were thinking. Are you saying the Sephardim article is wrong? it says "Sephardi Jews ,,, [is] usually defined in contrast to Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews." By putting the sources that discuss "Sephardim" under a section named "Middle Eastern" you are imposing your own assumption that the sources were talking about the Middle Eastern aspect of the Sephardim definition, rather than Iberian peninsula aspect. --Noleander (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that these sources are treating the two terms are synonymous, and in the citations that I verified, many use both terms. Jews were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492 and resettled mostly in Arab countries, and Mizrahi Jews consider themselves Sephardi. People of Iberian origin are not a distinct Ethnic group in Israel (very few people can trace their origins back to 1492), so there is not much sense in saying they are discriminated against. See also Mizrahi Jews#Other designations and Sephardim#Sephardim and Mizrahim. Marokwitz (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've persuaded me. You may want to improve that intro paragraph in the Sephardim article to reflect what you are saying. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism?

Most of the content is not actually about racism, because a large proportion of Israeli Jews is of the same ethnicity as the Palestinians. I think this article is just another attempt to heap criticism on Israel, for which we have other more balanced articles. This needs a rewrite or a trip to AFD. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

A. What is the justification for this page, Is there already a racism page on larger nations than aiming at tiny Israel?

B "OR" it's all a collection of essays, and has a problem of original research.

C - The sources are from obscure books and other enreliable sources.

D - The tone does proper.

---

Man, please see how to sign post.

---

On top of all the problems with this rantingblog entry (since it's not an article) is the copy editing entire material from Anti-Arabism, what for?Colourfully (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is inaccurately named

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi/ Mizrahi Jews, and Arabs are all Semitic people. This article is not about racism, rather about segregation and discrimination based on ethnic group or religion. I think that it should be renamed to "Ethnic Discrimination in Israel" . Any objections? Marokwitz (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I object a bit....if there is to be an article I think it's better to base these 'Racism in...' articles (most of which seem to be pretty bad) on the UN's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination definition to keep things consistent. Also see Racism by country to see how patchy the coverage of this issue is in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

hoyland, what is the connection between racism and backgrounds of jews?Mostiessin (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I haven't read this article in a while. It was a horrible mess last time I did. I'm probably not a good person to ask as I have a conflict of interest in the sense that I think the notions of race and ethnicity are mostly bullshit so I tend to stay away from these issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any form of discrimination is bad. However I don't think it is correct to label every case of segregation / discrimination as racism. Discrimination based on skin color or genetics is racism. Discrimination based on class, religion, country of origin is non-racist discrimination (which is just as bad, but let's use the correct terms). The Arab-Israeli conflict is a religious and political one, not a racial conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I think 'Discrimination in wherever' works too to cover all aspects. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to "discrimination" since that would include discrimination against women, disabled, homosexuals, etc. "Racism" by definition simply means race-based discrimination. Racial discrimination is very, very important topic in the sources (particularly in human rights sources) as well as in the literature of minority racial groups. It is a very notable topic, and certainly this encyclopedia should not white-wash it. More importantly, there is an effort underway now to create articles regarding Racism for various countries around the globe (see the Racism navbox template at the bottom of the article). A possible title could be "Racial discrimination in Israel" --Noleander (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But most of this article does not deal with Racial discrimination. Jews and Arabs, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi are all ethnic groups belonging to the same race - semitic people. The only topic that qualifies as "racism" is the discrimination against Ethiopian Jews. Marokwitz (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You opinion on the underlying motives behind the discrimination is not relevant. We have to follow what the sources say, and they describe it as racial discrimination. Your point is well taken, though, and balancing material can and should be included in this article that indicates that some sources interpret the alleged discrimination as based on factors other than race. I believe the article already has such balancing information, but feel free to improve those areas. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. Check again. Most of the sources in the article are about discrimination of various groups, and do not mention the word "racism". If we kept only the citations that actually label it is "racist discrimination", we would have to delete half the article. Changing the title to "Ethnic Discrimination" would enable us to keep most of the current contents. Just to give one example, the sentence "Israel's education system has been sometimes been described as biased or prejudiced against Arabs" and the underlying citations refer to discrimination of the Arab-speaking ethnic group, not of a specific "race". So - what do you choose, delete this sentence or rename the article? Marokwitz (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that Discrimination in .. would work well, it is true that it is more inclusive, but it would allow us to work with the content to the degree where we can see if we have enough for Ethnic Discrimination in .. etc. Unomi (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that is just plain white-washing. The word "racism" or "racist" may be offensive to some, but WP is not censored. We don't use weasel words to provide comfort. And "ethnic groups" by any definition are racial groups. A title like "Racial or ethnic discrimination" could be acceptable, but it is still white-washing. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups are not racial groups. Ethnicity and race are separate things. And you didn't answer my question. Marokwitz (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I share Seans view on the idea of races in the first place, I consider myself aracialist. That said I do appreciate that other people may not share my perception of reality and may in fact act out racial fantasies. I do not object a priori to the existance of 'Racism in .. ', I do however agree with others that this article may not be it, and further, that in order to become so certain sections may need to be removed. What I meant was that by renaming this article we can deal with a wider array of sources and incidents without quibbling too much over whether it belongs or not. Then when we have a well rounded, well written article we can create content forks that deal more in-depth with particular aspects. Unomi (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also censorship requires the absence of information. I can't see how an article titled 'Discrimination in...' containing a section about racial/ethnic discrimination, a term the likes of Human Rights Watch and the UN use, containing sourced information (some of which no doubt will use the term racism), would result in censorship or white washing. And as Unomi says, there are practical advantages to avoid quibbling about inclusion/exclusion criteria and to provide a stable base for content forking as the content grows. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sean: regarding your suggestion of a "Discrimination ..." article that contains sections for race, homsexuality, women, etc. ... such an article would be okay, but I think the Human Rights in Israel article is very similar to that suggestion, so they would probably get merged. This article ("Racism in ..." ) can be viewed as a content-fork of the existing Human Rights in Israel#Ethnic minorities, anti-discrimination and immigration laws section. That section has been there for a long time, but is very sparse. There is lots of well-source material that could go in that section, but that "Human Rights" article is already too large. See WP:Content fork and WP:Summary style. In addition, there is an effort underway to create "Racism in ..." articles for countries in Asia: see the footer Navbox template: {{Asia topic|Racism in}} . That effort is significant and should not be marginalized. There is racism in every society, and trying to eliminate the word "Racism" in article titles is censorship and white-washing. Should all the "Racism in <some country>" articles be renamed? Or just this one? --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: The definition of racism includes all race-based and ethnicity-based discrimination. From the racism article: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination." So my answer to your question is: (1) Racism includes, by any definition, discrimination against ethnicities; and (2) many sources do use the word "race", "racial", "racism" or "racist" to describe the various discriminations identified in this article; and (3) Even if a source does not use the word "race" or "racsim", WP policy is to use the standard meanings of words: and if a source describes a discrimination against a group due to their "ethnicity" or "ethnic group", that is - by definition - racism, even tho the sources may not use the word "racism". --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And, in the spirit of WP consensus-building, I repeat my suggestion of "Racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel" as a possible title for this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noleander, first of all, if you think both are synonymous, then I can't see why you so strongly object to the proposal of renaming this article "Ethnic discrimination". Secondly, it is far from universally accepted that xenophobia and ethnocentrism and discrimination against minorities is equal to racism. In cases where discrimination exists one side often accuses the other side of racism, but we must maintain NPOV and explain the views of all sides. Thridly, with such a loaded word such as "racism" we should always stick to the sources, calling an act "racial discrimination" when the source only says "discrimination" is a huge NPOV no no. In the spirit of consensus building I would accept any of the following titles: "Discrimination in Israel", "Ethnic Discrimination in Israel", "Minority Discrimination in Israel", or "Minority rights in Israel" (In all cases this article should be transformed to be a sub-article of "Human Rights of Israel" focusing on discrimination/rights of minorities as opposed to gender based and other forms of discrimination). Marokwitz (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were synonymous, I said racism includes ethnicity-based discrimination. Do you think Racism in the United States should be renamed? --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that article includes only sources actually mentioning "racism", and does not distort the sources. Your argument is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH - you are using another source [the UN definition] to impart meaning into what's written in other sources. Many or most sources used in this article do not say anything about "racism". It seems that everyone but you agrees that the article should be renamed. The only other option would be to remove the offending portions. Marokwitz (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. The two titles that seem most reasonable to me are "Ethnic discrimination in Israel" and "Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel". I'll try the latter, since it seems broader and more encompassing (some readers may think "ethnic" alone only may include semitic ethnicities; or perhaps may not include skin-color based discrimination). --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this, it is a made-up name. I think I came up with a better name, which is the term used in the US department of state report ([51]): Societal discrimination in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Societal discrimination

I can't say I think this is a particularly good name, if you see the state report the context of that is this sentence: "The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens." which makes it clear that societal discrimination is just one of a number of venues for ethnic discrimination. un☯mi 12:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No. societal discrimination is just one of a number of venues for discrimination, not ethnic discrimination. It encompasses ethnic, religious, racial and class based discrimination. If you prefer, we can rename this article to simply discrimination in Israel, but this might be too inclusive. Marokwitz (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is true that Societal discrimination can be against a number of things; ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, hair color, religion, body odor, etc. That doesn't seem to make it a better title for this article, which seems to include institutional and legal discrimination and seems to try to confine itself to ethnic discrimination. (ec) How do you feel about just 'Ethnic discrimination in Israel'? un☯mi 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good point. That title would be OK with me. Actually I suggested this title earlier since it seems fairly accurate. Marokwitz (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw :) I am going to go ahead and move it there then, lets see how that goes. un☯mi 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I've edited the lead sentence to read

Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel, whose very existence is disputed by some, encompasses Jewish discrimination against Arabs, Arab discrimination against Jews and Blacks, and discrimination among groups of Jews, such as Ashkenazi discrimination against Jews from Yemen, North Africa, Iberia, the Middle East, Ethiopia, and India.

instead of

Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel encompasses allegations of or encompasses claims of

One reason for this is the simple lack of clarity: discr--Carwil (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)imination is not "allegations of discrimination" (in the same way that adultery is not allegations of sleeping with someone who is not one's partner).

In good faith, I added a fact-tag to a claim that I doubt can be substantiated. Let me provide an analogy for what is needed to meaningfully substantiate this claim. Imagine this text:

Speeding on the Pacific Coast highway consists of cars, trucks, and bicycles allegedly exceeding their legally allowed velocity on that roadway.

To claim that such speeding is just an allegation, we need a RS that asserts cars, trucks and bicycles never speed on the PCH; or at least we need to claim that speeding on the PCH has never been adjudicated (legally, through social science, reportage, self-admission, etc.). Denials of speeding in particular cases do not render the very category of speeding into an allegation. However, there may in fact be a considered opinion by a RS that claims "no racial or ethnic discrimination exists in Israel." If so, please add it as a citation. If not, in a few weeks, I will remove my disagreeable weasel word phrase from the lead.--Carwil (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz has re-inserted "claims of" with the explanation: "This is a disputed statement. There are reliable sources to both sides. Use NPOV terms and properly describe the content of this article)". Earlier he reverted the edit described above with the explanation "Avoid weasel words." I'd love to meet both of these requests by substantiating and specifying the phrase "whose very existence is disputed by some," but since I'm not sure that the sentence is true, I can't. Marokwitz, could you propose a text that meets the above concerns, and specifies who is denying there is racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel?--Carwil (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Using phrases like "claims of .." or "allegations of ..." are generally discouraged. They are acceptable if there is some legal accusation that has not been proven in court. But in this article, all the assertions about racism/discrimination are pretty widely made and documented (as is found in all countries, by the way) going in all directions between races/ethnic groups. So inserting "allegations of" or "claims of" or "alleged" is a weasel-word in this article, since the weasel-words are hinting to the reader "the discrimination didn't really happen" (wink, wink). A better solution is to for the article to plainly say "Report R published by group G documented discrimination as follows .... [relible source here]" and then balance it with material that says "However, anti-discrimination laws are on the books, (or anti-racism public eduation etc) blah blah ..." --Noleander (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be fine with any wording that is balanced and doesn't state disputed things as a plain fact. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook article in the Atlantic Free Press

Atlantic Free Press - Jonathan Cook - Lieberman and The Ethnic Cleansing of Israel, 19 January 2007.

An article on Israel, parts of which deal with what is described by Jonathan Cook as racism:

... Recent polls also reveal how fashionable racism has become in Israel. A survey conducted last year showed that 68 per cent of Israeli Jews do not want to live next to a Palestinian citizen (and rarely have to, as segregation is largely enforced by the authorities), and 46 per cent would not want an Arab to visit their home.

... A poll of students that was published last week suggests that racism is even stronger among young Jews. Three-quarters believed Palestinian citizens are uneducated, uncivilised and unclean, and a third are frightened of them. Richard Kupermintz of Haifa University, who conducted the survey more than two years ago, believes the responses would be even more extreme today.

... But the right is deeply unhappy at Majadele’s inclusion in the cabinet. Lieberman called Peretz unfit to be defence minister for making the appointment and demanded that Majadele pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Lieberman’s party colleagues referred to the appointment as a “lethal blow to Zionism”. A few Labor and Meretz MKs denounced these comments as racist.

... Meanwhile, Jewish MKs have been allowed to make the most outrageous racist statements against Palestinian citizens, mostly unchallenged. Former cabinet minister Effi Eitam, for example, said back in September: “The vast majority of West Bank Arabs must be deported ... We will have to make an additional decision, banning Israeli Arabs from the political system … We have cultivated a fifth column, a group of traitors of the first degree.” He was “warned” by the Attorney-General over his comments (though he has expressed similar views several times before), but remained unrepetant, calling the warning an attempt to “silence” him. The leader of the opposition and former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel according to polls, gave voice to equally racist sentiments this month when he stated that child allowance cuts he imposed as finance minister in 2002 had had a “positive” demographic effect by reducing the birth rate of Palestinian citizens.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already inside the poll section, though by another source.Colourfully (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The poll may be mentioned, but none of the rest is. Nor is the source currently used.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-name article? Best name?

I think this article has been re-named rapidly, several times, without proper discussion or consensus. The names used so far are:

• Racism in Israel
• Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel
• Societal discrimination in Israel
• Ethnic discrimination in Israel

and a fifth candidate that has been mentioned is

• Racial discrimination in Israel

The original article name was "Racism in Israel". There was consensus, I believe, for the re-name to "Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel". There was not consensus for the subsequent re-names. I will move the article back to one of the original two names that did contain the word "racial", so we can begin a proper discussion. Please do not rename without consensus. -Noleander (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on the name: I object to the omission of the word "racial" or "race" in the title, since I think some forms of discrimination covered in the article are not merely "ethnic": such as discrimination against Black Hebrew Israelites (which was recently deleted from the article without discussion, by the way). Also, it appears that Jewish-Arab and Arab-Jewish discrimination (based on Google) are more widely described as "racism" than "ethnic discrimination". Also, I think the word "ethnic" is a weasel-word in this context. Another option, although I do not endorse it, is to split the article into two articles "Race-based" and "ethnicity-based" discrimination. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually there was discussion above and the consensus between all participants on the name "Ethnic discrimination in Israel" (including yourself - you previously said you are OK with this name). That participants that agreed on that name were me, you, Unomi, and Sean.hoyland. You said that Ethnic includes also Racial. Why did you choose rename again after we settled on an agreed name, and without discussion? Marokwitz (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not agree with "Ethnic discrimination in Israel" ... I mentioned it (and perhaps my wording was not clear, so I can see how you may think I endorsed it) - and I said "some readers may think "ethnic" alone only may include semitic ethnicities; or perhaps may not include skin-color based discrimination)". I deliberately re-named the article to "Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel" as a middle-ground that seemed to cover all the concerns of various editors. But if that title is not satisfactory, we can go back to the orginal title "racism in Israel". In any case, do you have any statistics that show that Arab-Jew discrimination (in either direction) is more commonly referred to as "ethnic discrimination" rather than racism? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I extensively read materials on this topic, and most reliable sources simply say "Discrimination" and don't qualify it as "Ethnic" or "Racial". Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination in Israel? The article jumps around, from racism allegedly against Jews, and racism allegedly against Arabs, and then Jew-on-Jew hatred, then blacks, etc..etc...If we keep "Racism in Israel" then the bloated sections about education/zionism should go. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: There are quite a few sources that use the word "racism". If we look along the spectrum of possible names for the article (racist - racism - racial - ethnic) the suggestion for "Racial and ethnic .." or "Ethnic and racial ..." is (1) a good compromise; (2) broader, and (3) more accurate. For example, there are a few sections (including two which were deleted, I'll go ahead and restore them) that dont really fit under the title "ethnic discriminiation":

• (a) Black Hebrew Israelites ;
• (b) the Yemenite baby-kidnapping incident.
• (c) the "Attacks" section (describing attacks by Arabs on Jews).

I think "Ethnic discrimination" would be a good title if the article were only about the discrimination between Jewish groups, but is anyone proposing a content fork for this article? If not, we need a broader title. In any case, the article was originally title "Racism in Israel" and there was not consensus to change it to "Ethnic discrimination .." --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The current title is general enough to encompass discrimination on all grounds (Religious, class-based, racial etc). I see no reason why this article should elaborate on all the different reasons for discrimination when we can use the more general term and let the article cover all the different aspects. Otherwise we will end with absurd title such as "Religious, class-based and racist ethnic discrimination in Israel". I'm sure some editors will be more than delighted with the above title, but here we do things based on consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there was no consensus for the "Ethnic discrimination" title. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the discussion above, this appears to be is the title nearest to consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do an RfC to get more input from other editors? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed it to a title that is closer to the original "Racism in Israel" but also includes the "ethnic discrimination" aspect. The big problem with the "Ethnic discrimination" title (besides that it is a white-wash) is that it excludes material (already in the article) like racist attacks, which are not "discrimination". Another example is the material about Holocaust denial: that may be racism, but it is certainly not "ethnic discrimination". We need a title that encompasses all the material. Regarding your comment about the "absurd title" "Religious, class-based and racist ethnic discrimination in Israel - that is a non-sequitur: no one has proposed any material for this article based on religious discrimination or class-based discrimination. ALL material in this article is race-based discrimination according to the sources (yes, I understand that some editors disagree with the sources on some of the material: but we follow the sources, not the editors). Another option is to do a WP:Content fork and break the article into two articles: one for ethnic discrimination between Jewish groups; and a second article for racism ... but that would probably be meaningless since a Merger proposal would inevitably follow, and succeed. Finally, it is far, far more important that the title be accurate than it be short. --Noleander (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if you name it "discrimination" (solely), the inner-Jewish-groups you include, can then stay on.Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New title disputes the page

Since you have re-put the word racism, the entire section of Sephardim aught to be removed. Regardless of some links suggesting the term, the entire section then become s POV.RS101 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We must use the interpretation given by the sources, not by WP editors. If the sources describe it as racism (and they do) it is within the scope of this article. Also, the title encompasses both "racism" and "ethnic discrimination" and the sephardic discrimination is widely considered to fall under the latter umbrella, so the racism question is moot in this example. --Noleander (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Law of return = Deportation of children of immigrants

I propose to add a new section on Israel's policies of deporting children of immigrant workers. Sources include Latino Migrants in the Jewish State: Undocumented Lives in Israel by Barak Kalir, and Foreign workers in Israel: global perspectives by Israel Drori, as well as recent news coverage. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

While you are on that topic, you ought to be able to find material on discrimination against Thais, Filipinos, and other Asians in general: not just against the immigrant workers' children, but against the workers themselves. So far this article has been unnecessarily limited to Jewish subgroups, Arabs, and blacks, but it's essential that all the demographic groups in Israel be represented. Quigley (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, provided Reliable Sources are available on the topic. Can you identify any sources on that? --Noleander (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, please make a distinction between 'regular' immigration policies of a sovereign country and actual racism. If you are going to merely use the article to bash Israel, then you are actually doing a disservice to any actual racism that will be lost in the messy article. I suggest you go to other 'racism' articles and see what is legitimate there. --Shuki (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Shuki. Immigration policy does not equal racism or discrimination. We must be extra careful in this area. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a pure immigration issue, unrelated to ethnic bias or racism. Not every rhetoric using the word "racism" is serious enough for encyclopedic reference. Do you have any serious scholarly source saying that the deportation is motivated by racism? If so, can you provide exact references ? Marokwitz (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources indicate that racism is involved in the deportation issue. If there are sources that indicate otherwise (e.g. the immigration policy is simply related to labor issues or whatever) those can be included for balance. But if the sources say there is a racism (or ethnic discrimination) aspect to the policy, then it falls within the scope of the article. I do agree that WP:Reliable sources are required on this topic, and it should not be in the article if Reliable Sources do not directly link the deportation policy to racism/ethnic discrimination. And none of the above would be an argument for exclusion of material about the similar, but distinct, topic of ordinary discrimination (not related to deportation) directed at Thais, Filipinos, etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

True, so is Black Hebrew Israelites issue pure immigration policy. Since we talk about ¨hate crimes¨... PHAS-Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs... "In such an environment, Christian Arabs have found themselves victims of prejudice and hate crimes. Tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians have left ... incidently, Black Hebrews Israelites don't belong in Israel, they are not Jews, If I would claim I am Jewish do I belong in Israel? and if I am rejected are they racists? Of course not! Also regarding the inflammatory tone of this editor, I would like to know what is "jewish discrimination" and what is Christian discrimination or Muslim and Hindu discrimination?Stud1989 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Stud, let's hold a mirror up to your statement. How would you view it if, say, someone said that Jews don't "belong" in Russia because they're not Russian or in the US because they're not Aryan?     ←   ZScarpia   13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is aleady that Law of return issue Hey ZScarpia, Thank you not for trying to fatten up this bigoted page against Israel but stud is right, since Noleandeer has alrerady made a section of "law of return" exclusively for Jews, all your words are already included, once! in fact it is already twice on this page: Zionism as "racism" and the Law of return section which both have the same idea of criticizing the refuge-for-Jews policy as "racist."Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Material: Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of Hebron

Haaretz - Noam Ben Ze'ev - Those noisy barbarians, 23 August 2010: Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of Hebron, doesn't want Jews to take on boogie-woogie from the jungle.

According to Lior: There are some honorable people among the goyim. A few, but they exist. I think that even in Hebron there are a few who are human beings - which doesn't mean I'm saying they shouldn't all be sent to Saudi Arabia. They should all be sent to Saudi Arabia!

    ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another inflammatory piece?Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your WP:POINT? --Shuki (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as my point is concerned, the clue is in the title: I'm trying to contribute material to the article. This article is about Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel isn't it? Now, what is your point? WP:POINT directs to the guideline whose title says: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Are you trying to say that I'm disrupting Wikipedia?     ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorically yes. You are using the talk page as a repository of news clippings. If you have something to add to the main article, please do so. Please also differentiate between actions of the state, government officials, and individuals, speculation, random quotes, etc... Do you want to start with Rabbi Dov Lior? How do you suggest we add this information and where (if it is even worth adding). Cheers. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)