Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

untitled

For the first time, Palestinian curricula and textbooks have been produced for most school subjects and levels, which shall gradually replace the old contents supplied by Egypt and Jordan, and partially censored by Israel. The new curricula and textbooks are based on the concept of a Palestinian national history. Although the new textbooks have been harshly criticized by some Israeli organizations, the analyses carried out have established in a rather sober way that in particular the Civics textbooks make endeavours towards conflict mediation and balanced thinking. Yet this cannot hide the fact that this interpretation of history is marked by Israel's concept of liberation and attainment of sovereignty. Knowing for certain that in the present situation, it is hardly possible to reach a consensus on a common interpretation of the history of the Middle East conflict, the teachers and scholars committed to PRIME's work agreed upon to produce a textbook in which both narratives are separately taken into account. The aim is to make clear, by confronting diverging interpretations of the events which partially exclude each other, how conditional both national narratives are, and thus to foster self-critical thinking and mutual dialogue. Within the project, all textbook chapters are being discussed among all team members. A wide consensus on contents should be reached, as far as possible, but in the end, both sides are responsible for their respective texts. This work demands a lot of patience and the capacity to endure tensions and to re-examine one's own identity. When Palestinians and Israelis mean the same, they generally use different words, when they use the same names, they often mean different places. What is said to be a "national catastrophe" on the one side is depicted as a "War of Independence" in the textbooks of the other side. Does the "capital Jerusalem", as illustrated in Palestinian Civics textbooks, only include the Old City and the Arab parts? And how may Israeli pupils imagine an "international resolution" of the Jerusalem issue, when their textbooks show Israeli soldiers standing in front of the Western Wall?

http://www.gei.de/index.php?id=schulbuchprojek_israel_palestina&L=1 72.205.39.139 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

OK, Deuterium, now we have to find some facts to balance what seems to be your delightfully cherry-picked quotations -- Avi 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotations aren't cherry picked, they're representative of their respective sources. As for the balance issues, I couldn't find any serious studies (rather than blatant cherry picking) that found that Palestinian textbooks did incite violence.

Palestinian textbooks did [and still do] incite violence against Jewish people. You have not looked at all of the studies. -Dendoi

What's with all the tags? I can see that you think it's unbalanced, but it's factually accurate (with supporting cites) and written from a neutral point of view. And why the globalize tag? Deuterium 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the worst of it, but there's still much more to go. Stating non-notable opinion as fact is a no-no, for one thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this really warrant its own article?

This seems to me to be a relevant part of Institutional anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Authority or something, but what kind of article title is "Palestinian textbooks", and on what grounds is it regarded as a sufficiently independent topic to stand as an article of its own? Tomer^talk 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. What's next, Palestinian coloring books?

As for the title, I would suggest Palestinian Authority and anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous allegations of terrorist incitement against Palestinian textbooks in the media, and studies performed so it seems to be a very controversial topic and worthy of an article.

Regardless, Palestinian Authority and anti-Semitism is an extremely biased title; Allegations of Anti-Semitism against the Palestinian Authority is the neutral choice. Deuterium 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just another mini-article created for the purpose of soapboxing; it's obviously not quite as useful for that purpose, now that it has been cleaned up a bit. It could probably just be re-incorporated into the Palestinian Authority article, perhaps in an education section. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the title is very misleading. The article is not about textbooks, but about politcs and propoganda. A meaningful article would talk about the Palestinian curriculum, grading system, school boards, examinations, degrees etc. I suggest moving this to an article called Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This woudl be more neutral than Palestinian Authority and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Move

I suggest the article be moved to Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also suggest that "Palestinian textbooks" redirect to some relvent section of an article.Bless sins 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to the purpose of the move and what else would go into the proposed article. This particular article looks like it can stand on its own and many well-known organizations, groups and individuals are concerned specifically with Palestinian textbooks. I don't necessarily object to the move, but maybe it is better if Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would contain a summary section of this one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Humus Sapiens. The reason is that the current title is very misleading. When most people think of "Palestinian textbooks" or "Israeli textbooks", we think of the curriculum of the respective country. We think of the quality of education, the professors that wrote those textbooks, whether they meet world standard, etc. You know, education sort of things. This article doesn't show the Palestinian science curriculum, arabic curriculum, art curriculum etc. only the Palestinain views on Israel.

The problem with this article is that it is completely political. It doesn't really talk about the Palestianian education, only about the bias in those textbooks. We must realize that there is more to Palestinian books than Israel.Bless sins 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So add such information to a new section in this article. That does not mean the name must be changed. If this section threatens to overwhelm all other information, perhaps it should be spun off into Academic bias in Palestinian textbooks. -- Avi 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. Also, the article seems to reflect a number of reports produced by a variety of sources. I think that Bless sins's complaints are misplaced: it was not Israel, America or Europe that made Palestinian textbooks "completely political." Perhaps you should address your concerns to the PLO/Fatah. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not complaining to anyone (niether Fatah nor Israel). How did you deduce that? Here is my argument in easy to follow steps.

1. This article does not talk about "Palestinain textbooks", but only the political aspect of the textbooks. It does not talk about the science, mathematics, Arabic, art etc, but only politics. A meaningful analogy would be if an article about Paris, was called "France".
2. Renaming the article to "Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" will give the article some context. It would also allow views on Palestinians and Israelis to be presented side by side. Infact the section titled "2002 George Eckart Institute comparison" compares Israeli books with Palestinian ones.

Please do respond.Bless sins 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article talks at length about issues with Palestinian textbooks, and various analyses done of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem! The article doesn't talk of Palestinian textbooks, rather talks of the political aspect of Palestinian textboks. Just as an article about biology should not be named "science", similarly this article should not be named "Palestinian textbooks". In both cases, the given title is far too general for the topic.Bless sins 16:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the only notable aspects of them; highly notable, given the number of studies devoted to the subject. In general, textbooks aren't a particularly encyclopedic topic, so there's no real broader context to place this in. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your kinda agreeing with my position without knowing it.

• "This appears to be the only notable aspects of them". Exactly. Why call an article "Palestinian textbooks" only to ignore most of what they contain? Doesn't make sense.
• "In general, textbooks aren't a particularly encyclopedic topic," again I agree with you. Why call this article Palestinian textbooks when textbooks aren't an encyclopedic topic?
• "...so there's no real broader context to place this in". Right, but I am saying that we should place them in a narrower context. Instead of calling this "Palestinian textbooks", we should move it to something like "academic bias in Palestinian textbooks", or more NPOV, "academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to place bias in its context.Bless sins 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian education is the root of terrorism

Terrorism preceded occupation, just look at the number of Israelis murdered by Arabs before 1967 and before 1956. The Palestinian education system is based on racism and hatred. This is the root of violence. There will never be peace in the Middle East until someone changes the education system of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, and other hostile nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.184.152 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Double Merge Proposal

I propose that both this page and the Israeli textbooks page be merged into a single page called Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will solve some key problems, notably the one described in the section below about how the title does not match the content. It will also allow for other academic groups' biases to be discussed. Organ123 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, by setting up this new page, we could eliminate the current problem of this page being a collection of quotations better suited for Wikiquote. Organ123 00:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro is blatantly POV. ... Or, title doesn't match the entry.

If I didn't know better, from reading this article I'd think that the definition or essence of "Palestinian textbook" is: "Palestinian textbooks have been accused of instilling anti-Semitic attitudes or inciting Palestinian children to commit violence or terrorism." If this article is about bias in Palestinian textbooks (which it appears to be), then it should be called something different, say "Bias in Palestinian textbooks." If the article is just about Palestinian textbooks, maybe there should be, say, a listing of textbooks and a detailed analysis of their content. It seems that this entry and its title don't match. Organ123 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I have been trying to suggest this. It is as if we named the article Botany, to "Science".Bless sins 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge this to "Arabs and anti-semitism"?Bless sins 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done, and your suggestion sounds as good as any I can come up with off-hand:

1) The title of this article doesn't match the content. This article is not about mathematics textbooks, for example, nor is it about the textbooks in general. It is about allegations of anti-Semitism in some of the textbooks.

2) The article as-is does not comply with WP:NPOV, because it does not present a fair treatment of "Palestinian textbooks", especially given that these textbooks are perhaps written by living authors.

3) This article is a collection of quotes, and would perhaps be better suited to Wikiquote than Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should present a concept in a concise way, referencing the most notable arguments to make a compelling and reasonable explanation of reality. People who may support this page as-is should note that presenting the information in an encyclopedic fashion is more powerful than using the current "quote farm" approach.

4) In fairness, I think that the sister article, Israeli textbooks, should be modified simultaneously with and equally to this one, whatever we decide to do. Organ123 19:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow... This is the most racist wikipedia article ever. So the title is Palestinian Textbooks and from the article, one would not know that Palestinian textbooks are used to teach actual academic subjects. Why not take this article and merge it into Arabs and anti-semitism as a paragraph, working all the wondeful quotes into sentance and paragraph structure rather than the present one. Seriously, is there someway we can have this reviewed by an impartial administrator. This is honestly a disgusting display of trying to use wikipedia to promote a political stance, and whoever started it should recieve a lifetime ban. Shia1 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro is blatantly POV. Where are the allegations that textbooks in the Palestinian territories are instilling anti-Semitic attitudes and inciting Palestinian children to commit violence or terrorism'? None are mentioned, and I intend to remove the intro and start with the statement that various research institutions have conducted studies of the subject.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits and NPOV tags

This article gives highly undue weight to the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian Media Watch. It is not clear to me why we should pass on IDF claims, especially not with misleading section titles which do not make it clear that we are doing so. Nor is it clear what makes Palestinian Media Watch, a propaganda front group linked to the Likud wing of Israeli politics, a reliable source on any of these issues. Furthermore, we have not presented any defence given by Palestinians themselves. As a result, we are giving equal weight to neutral academic studies which find no incitement and tendentious partisan claims of incitement, a clear violation of policy.

In addition, please do not cite Palestinian textbooks by name and page number unless you have actually read these textbooks. I have removed all of these citations being about 99.5% sure that the editors haven't. In one case, a pro-Palestinian editor was almost community-banned for doing this once with a claim that wasn't even contentious. Eleland 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3060&CategoryId=21 has a list of sources that can be used to expand the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Creator abandoned this article

Surely the POV nature of this article is obvious to all? The lead introduces the charge of antisemitism, and it is repeatedly implied throughout the text. However, on careful examination, the accusations seem to be empty. There is criticism of the Palestinian text books which could indeed be valid - but only partisans would think of it like that, since it concerns an Israeli construct "Israel's right to exist" (ie not the Palestinian expectation of a state "for all its people"). The really damaging charge seems to be based on nothing whatsoever.

It is striking (and perhaps unusual) that this article was created with a faintly "pro-Palestinian" perspective - so it's not as if we're seeing a viewpoint that's survived by inertia. Look at the history, note the speed with which a tag-team of opposing editors arrived, laid accusations against the creator, slapped the article with tags and turn what is, in essence, a stale accusation into a wholesale assault on the decency of an entire people. Note the impossibly partisan first external link and its irrelevant contribution (Hamas’ Mickey Mouse teaches children to hate and kill) and the absurd comment we've added "Important article from MFA, as well as links to several important non-governmental groups, including PMW." Note how this link and the comment have been edit-warred back in, just in the last few days.

The second link is Center for Monitoring the Impact on Peace, which we know to have been the only consistent maker of the antisemitic allegation - but its abandoned its web-site and changed its name to "The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE)". The new organisation provides nothing for the mysterious statement referenced to the older organisation "In January 1999, the State Department reported that "The methodologies employed by UNRWA make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the extent of anti-Semitic content in host authority textbooks used in UNRWA schools. At the same time, UNRWA's review did reveal instances of anti-Semitic characterizations and content in those host authority texts."[1] which we display so prominently - in fact, this statement is completely unverifiable (at least by web-search).

User:Deuterium started this article and then abandoned his creation after 2 days, his final edit appears to be the last semi-NPOV version. That version of the article documents the bias that does remain, but gives the impression (correct as far as I can see) that, while racism and incitement may have been a problem earlier they have been pretty much eliminated now.

All subsequent versions of the article up to the present carry out a species of ethnic libel, leaning heavily on wholesale distortion. Even the chronological order, (oldest, most partisan and most damaging claims at the top of the page) inserted in two stages by different editors, seems calculated to deceive the reader - as if we are in favor of perpetuating hatred and mistrust. This version of the article is being enforced with no apparent concern for the policies of the project (RS, V, NPOV and UNDUE). (Compare this article with the soothing one on Israeli textbooks, some of which probably have more severe problems). PR^talk 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The organization isn't "new", and it didn't "abandon its web-site". It changed its name, and moved to a new website. You'll find it here. As for the "mysterious statement", it is not "completely unverifiable by web-search", but easily found here. Finally, please stop using article Talk: pages to make false and pejorative statements about other editors, and as a soapbox. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your work digging up references is praiseworthy. However, please stop using false and pejorative accusations about false and pejorative statements about other editors as weapons to get your way in content disputes. Instead, try arguing in a rational and civil manner. Thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no specific "content dispute" here, and please stop making nonsensical turnspeak comments. Instead, try arguing in a rational and civil manner. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it your claim, then, that PR is not, above, disputing the content in this page? <eleland/talkedits> 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he is, in some way or other, but he hasn't actually stated what specifically he's disputing. Instead, he's given a lengthy spin on his view of the history of the article and the motivations of its editors, and soapboxed about "a species of ethnic libel", "in favor of perpetuating hatred and mistrust", etc. Ergo, no specific content dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Independence of sources

The article as it stands is giving undue weight to biased sources such as Palestinian Media Watch and, of course, the Israeli Defence Force. The chronological order seems unnecessary. A logical layout would be to present truly independent sources first, followed by partisan sources from each side. The US and the EU could also be given sections to give their perspective on the issue.

There should also be some attempt at summarizing what each source says. At the moment it appears many of the accounts are directly contradictory of each other. And explanation of why that is so (textbook editions? faulty assessments? different standards?) would be useful. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thought - there should be a section that details the comparisons between Palestinian and Israeli textbooks. A few of the studies have done this but they should be put in one place. Factsontheground (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two somewhat different topics that have been combined in this article - the studies of the textbooks and their claims regarding the hatefulness of the content, and the public controversy over the content of Palestinian textbooks. It would be worth separating the two. The former should be divided into sections based on the affiliation of the organizations who oerform the sources, the latter should be ordered chronologically. Factsontheground (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Arutz 7 as quoted by JVL

After being shown the English translation of textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Armin Laschet, a German representative in the European Union Parliament threatened to halt all EU funding of PA educational institutions "until all the Palestinian textbook passages antagonistic to Israel are removed."

One example from the books Laschet saw was a textbook on Islam that calls on high school students to beware of the Jews because they are "deceitful and disloyal." Another blamed European anti-Semitism on Jewish greed and fanaticism.

Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, gave the PA response in Al-Hayat al-Jadida, "We cannot expect a people under occupation to have textbooks which idealize, praise and express love for their occupiers."

Israeli texts do not "idealize, praise and express love" for the Palestinians, but they do not malign or disseminate hatred against them either.

The PA's deputy minister for education denied the books were being used, but Yasser Arafat confirmed that they were in the PA schools. He claimed the books were old ones from the Jordanian system and that the PA lacked funds to replace them. Laschet replied that the European Union was providing the PA with 300 million Euros [roughly $300 million] "and they certainly can bear the cost of publishing new textbooks."

Wikipedia

After being shown the English translation of textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority, Armin Laschet, a German representative in the European Union Parliament threatened to cut off all EU funding of PA educational institutions "until all the Palestinian textbook passages antagonistic to Israel are removed."

Laschet saw was a textbook on Islam that calls on high school students to beware of the Jews because they are "deceitful and disloyal." Another blamed European anti-Semitism on Jewish greed and fanaticism.[25][26]

Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, gave the response for the PA in Al-Hayat al-Jadida, "We cannot expect a people under occupation to have textbooks which idealize, praise and express love for their occupiers." The statement caused outrage and fury among many circles. The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise answered to his response: "Israeli texts do not 'idealize, praise and express love' for the Palestinians, but they do not malign or disseminate hatred against them either."[citation needed]

The PA's deputy minister for education denied the books were being used, however Yasser Arafat confirmed that they were in the PA schools. He claimed the books were old ones from the Jordanian system and that the PA lacked funds to replace them. Laschet replied that the European Union was providing the PA with 300 million Euros "and they certainly can bear the cost of publishing new textbooks."[27]

EvanHarper (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, that was gross plagiarism. I have re-written the section so as to remove the overt plagiarism. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2006 Israeli Defense Ministry study

All of the references to the alleged examples of anti Israeli statements appear to be to the textbooks themselves. This would make them Primary sources, so they will need to be replaced by reliable secondary sources, or the examples removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Brown

Is an expert in the field and an extremely well qualified source. He is the author of such works as Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords, published by University of California Press. The blanket claim "non-RS" does not justify the removal of a noted scholar. I am returning that material. nableezy - 22:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Brown is a famous and renowned expert on this subject. Zero^talk 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So when his analysis is reported by secondary sources, it might just be worthy of inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He is the secondary source. Youre just outside of violating the 1RR, and the tendentiousness of repeatedly removing an expert on the topic, when two other users have already objected makes this more than a foolish act. Possibly a report worthy one. nableezy - 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You provided a dead link which purports to lead to a primary study by this individual not referred to by secondary sources. Ankh.Morpork 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what a secondary source is? nableezy - 19:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And as far as deadlinks, there's a template for that. Democracy, History, and the contest over the Palestinian curriculum is available here. Ill get the link for the rest of the material soon. nableezy - 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And here is a UNRWA document citing Brown for the rest of the material. Self-revert. nableezy - 20:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And here is Haaretz doing the same. Note they call the paper this is taken from an authoritative study exonerating the Palestinian Authority from claims it has misrepresented regional geography. nableezy - 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Depiction of Israel in Palestinian textbooks per unanimous consensus. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Textbooks in the Palestinian territories → Textbooks of the Palestinian National Authority – This article just covers textbooks issued by the Palestinian National Authority for use in Area's A and B of the Palestinian territories. Presumably Area C uses the same textbooks as Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support (but see also my full support for the other title proposed below) - the topic is actually "stuides about a particular subject in textbooks published in the PNA", so while I agree that the current title is wrong and that it should refer to the PNA the new title proposed is also not entierly correct. The article is not about the textbooks of the PNA in general, but specifically about "studies into the representation of Israeli Jews and the State of Israel in the PNA textbooks". Japinderum (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hm. This article, and several similar ones, appear to be WP:COATRACKs. What's actually being described is something like the Depiction of Israel in Palestinian textbooks, but I'm not sure renaming just this one is the best way to address the issue. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  Good proposal, I agree to such rename (for this article). For others it can be dealt on their talk pages. Japinderum (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

BDD's proposal looks like the best way to go. Nightw 19:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• In response to BDD's message on my talk page, I definably don't oppose his proposal. My support for my proposal over the current title shouldn't be interpreted as opposition to any other proposal. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion

I'm going to add the details about the latest study [1],[2].

I was thinking about rearranging the order so we cover the most up to date studies first. Any thoughts?

Also the latest study is a comparative study of Israeli and Palestinian Text books. There has been previous research on Israeli text books [3]. I'm wondering if there is any justification for changing the scope of the article to "text books in the Israel Palestine conflict" or something similar so that we can include research into Israeli texts. Probably the article would still predominantly cover Palestinian texts because more has been published on that. Dlv999 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been slowly working to improve Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and wandered over here from there after reading about the new study. It certainly makes sense to also have this article cover both and be called something like Textbook depictions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I have a bunch of research organized by topic with quotes and know I have a few things on Israeli teachings/textbooks which may already be here. If not, I'll provide the source.

And studies should be organized with most recent and most credibly sourced ones first. If there are any from advocacy groups that are not covered by WP:RS (especially if WP:Undue anyway), zap 'em. CarolMooreDC 05:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title does not fully represent this article. Textbook depictions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. is certainly an improvement.Upper lima 65 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as suggested.  Sandstein  20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Depiction of Israel in Palestinian textbooks → Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – Per discussion above. Seems logical and neutral to cover textbooks on both sides of the conflict as is done in the latest academic study Dlv999 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Moved to its own section; it's generally not good practice to start an RM in an older discussion section. Also tweaking the proposal to include an en-dash, per the parent article Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\
• Support per discussion in the previous RM. This should entail a partial merge from Textbooks in Israel (those parts that deal with the conflict). --BDD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - far more in compliance with NPOV policy! CarolMooreDC 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- There is no controversy surrounding Israeli textbooks because Israeli textbooks tell the truth and are not racist, nor do they deny genocide. Qassam3983 (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Qassam3983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just put a welcome note on Qassam3983's talk page, since s/he is not aware of proper procedure for responding to RfC in terms of policy and not personal opinion. CarolMooreDC 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This user is a sockpuppet. I've striked their !vote. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Then, hearing no criticism, go for it?? CarolMooreDC 22:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error corrected by LA Times, but remained in this article

The article says, "Likewise, a 4th-grade Palestinian book included a story about a Palestinian who came to the rescue of a wounded Israeli soldier out of his 'obligation as a Muslim Arab,'" citing an LA Times story that initially claimed this was the case. Note that this has been corrected in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-israeli-palestinian-textbooks-unbalanced-20130204,0,3549890.story. I have thus corrected the error in the Wikipedia article. Notaneditorjustaneditor (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Expand article with info on Israeli textbooks

By using:

• Any relevant info from -- or removed relevant info from - Textbooks in Israel, including sourced relevant info left out that is used in references in that article
• Any removed relevant info from this article, including sourced relevant info left out that is used in references in that article
• Anything missing from Jews, Israel and Peace in Palestinian School Textbooks - does it really need an article?
• Books and scholar.google Searches of terms like "Bias in Israeli textbooks" (I did some for another article will add later since in part of big list and housework calls.)
• Other? CarolMooreDC 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone object to putting the content of Jews, Israel and Peace in Palestinian School Textbooks here and dropping the separate article? Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand the proposal about using material from Textbooks in IsraelDian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of "independent" versus "Israel-affiliated" organizations - and State Department Human Rights Report

This division doesn't make sense. I don't think any editor here is in a position to judge whether or not an organization is "independent" or non-partisan.

In particular, the same organization is characterized both as Israel-affiliated and as independent: Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) - 2000 is characterized as independent. The same organization - which follows criteria and protocols from UNESCO - was renamed The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) - and its work is characterized as Israel-affiliated.

In my opinion, the value of this article is to bring together a neutral listing of textbook studies - in chronological order (or reverse chronological order). // retracted: Perhaps the title should be changed to reflect the focus on Palestinian textbooks. I don't know if it would make sense to have a single article covering both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks, but if such articles are kept separate, it is certainly relevant to have cross-references// Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) and Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the article, I think the title is fine, even though most of the emphasis is on PA textbooks because quite a lot of material has been added about Israeli textbooks. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of anti defamation league and Jewish journal as sources considered unreliable

Could somebody remove it? They are considered unreliable by Wikipedia policy. Nohorizonss (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Scope

@GordonGlottal the scope of this article is textbooks in the IP conflict, why are you restoring material that you admit has nothing to do with it? And who tagged you? nableezy - 13:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think if you encounter an item that doesn't fit the title of the page, remove it. But if you encounter a cited page that doesn't match its title, change the title. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I just did remove it, you restored it. Why did you restore material unrelated to the topic of this article? nableezy - 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Still looking for an answer as to why completely irrelevant material is being edit warred into the article. nableezy - 12:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal if you cannot explain why you reverted to include material that is completely unrelated to the topic of this article I will again be removing it. nableezy - 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of a coherent reason why we should keep off topic material in the article, I’ve reverted and also removed other off topic material. nableezy - 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To editor GordonGlottal: If you want to change the scope of the article, you can start an RM. Until then, the contents should be restricted to the existing topic. You can't just add irrelevant material and require the title be changed. The (true) fact that there is other irrelevant stuff already in the article means that the other stuff should be removed, not that it can be expanded. Zero^talk 04:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)