Talk:Textbooks in Israel

NPOV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jasonld81 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. // Liftarn

Going by this i was removing the parts deemed to be non pov by this previous discussionPalestinewillbefree — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of merge occurring at Palestinian textbooks page.

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

Undue weight on highly partisan source

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

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

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

What controversy?

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

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

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

External link: CMIP "biased"?

Per this diff:

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

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

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

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

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

Source material to add

• Israel's textbooks in Arabic are full of mistakes, study finds Tiamut^talk 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• The Arab Image in Hebrew School Textbooks by Daniel Bar-Tal (2001). This article is mentioned indirectly, but ought to be mined more extensively as a counter-balance to CMIP. (Daniel Bar-Tal is professor of political psychology at Tel Aviv University.) Zero^talk 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• "History textbooks and the limits of Israeli consciousness", Journal of Israeli History, vol 20, 2003, pp155-172. Zero^talk 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Al-Haj, "National Ethos, Multicultural Education, and the New History Textbooks in Israel", Curriculum Inquiry 35:1 (2005). Zero^talk 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

I realize that this problem is probably related to the article title and not necessarily undue weight, but the problem is clear nevertheless: the article is a WP:COATRACK that's supposed to talk about textbooks in Israel, but really talks about the representation of Arabs, or the Arab–Israeli conflict, in the said textbooks. The article does not discuss important issues such as the history of textbooks, major authors, major controversies (e.g. Benny Goren plagiarism controversy, pricing controversy), academic textbooks, and future plans (e.g. digitization)—just to name a few. So maybe we can't fix the undue weight problem quickly, but in that case the article should be renamed. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections to a rename, do you have a proposal? Zero^talk 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Arab–Israeli conflict in Israeli textbooks ? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article might as well be called Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace report on Israeli textbooks, since so much of it is directly from that report. That is why alternative views such as that which I have added by Nurit Peled-Elhanan,should not be removed. The article at present gives undue weight to one report, and does not cover the issue of Israeli textbooks at all. For example why is there no discussion of the textbooks used by Palestinians pupils in Israeli schools, or the non state religious schools where pupils mostly learn to memorise the Torah?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "Israeli textbooks controversy" is probably the best name and is similar to Saudi Arabian textbook controversy.

Dalai lama ding dong: there is material from other sources now, though one source is quoted more than others.VR _talk 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Israeli textbooks

I would like to change this; An analysis of Israeli textbooks in 2000 by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) found that legitimacy of the State of Israel as independent Jewish state on the territory of the Land of Israel and the immigration of Jews to the country was never questioned. There was no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. Islam, Arab culture and the Arabs' contribution to human civilization were presented in a positive light. No book called for violence or war. Many books express the yearning for peace between Israel and the Arab countries. ............................to state that ............... An analysis of Israeli textbooks in 2000 by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) claimed that three fundamental statements can be made about all the school books, firstly that the legitimacy of the State of Israel as independent Jewish state (sic) on the territory of the Land of Israel and the immigration of Jews to the country was never questioned. Secondly, that there was no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. Islam, Arab culture and the Arabs' contribution to human civilization were presented in a positive light. Thirdly no book called for violence or war. Many books express the yearning for peace between Israel and the Arab countries. .......... The section wording is straight from the CMIP report, and it should be made clear that these are its three main findings. Otherwise it a clunky piece of text, and does make much sense, or read at all well. The alternative is to precis the three main findings.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are giving to much prominence to it. But I will lett others revert or tinker with it since my edit was reverted. I am adding back in activist. The source used for the paragraph refers to her as a "Nurit Peled-Elhanan, an Israeli academic, mother and political radical, " in the opening line. Her Wikipedia page says "activist" which I thought would be more appropriate than "political radical". But if you chose to remove it again I will insert "political radical" with a duplication of the inline citation you already provided. Cptnono (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan's wikipedia page says 'Israeli peace activist.' The wikipedia page for education in israel which contains details of Nurit Peled-Elhanan's work states that she is , 'a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.' It might be acceptable when referring to an indvidual to describe them as an activist, but in a section which is not about NPE, but is about textbooks in Israel, it is clearly a POV. The Guardin article says Nurit Peled-Elhanan, an Israeli 'academic, mother and political radical', and the headline says Academic. Please remove activist from this page, as it is POV with regard to NPE's work. You can't remove the whole section about conflcting findings, as it is about textbooks in Israel, and thus very relevant.195.27.17.3 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Activist" is a neutral way of describing a person.VR _talk 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)