Talk:Racism by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Netherlands

The Netherlands or holland as you wish to call it, is now a days a very peculiar place in the world, once you're talking about racisme. I may say, I am not Dutch although I am a southern european latin citizien. As many central european countries have now a days a melting pot such as USA. This was a result of the rebuilt europe after 2nd WW's destruction. For me I can talk about the Holland just because I am living here for 6 months, and there are things in this country that were really a disapoint to the concept I had about this country. I won't talk about my personal experiences, because I wouldn't be fair enough giving the right picture. Apart from the coolness of people, so different from latin countries(Excluding French...am I being racist here?!?), concepts of friendship is too me, in some crucial points of friendship, like an unknown friendly person that just exist because I need to have company to go out and that can provide fun. That's my interpretation how dutch are. Anyway, about racism. There're two islamic comunities in Holland. The Marokeans and Turkish. Turkish are as usual very european oriented while Marocans have centuries of islamic and arab culture. There's a pot burning in this society, and somehow now is bursting. There's a both direction provocations, but the locals(blank dutch) have are richer and master almost in everything. I fear somehow, a new NAZY and hollocaust or an appartheid is coming, with a lot of inocents future in stake. That's only what comes to my perception. I may not give to much details, you only need to live to feel! Thank you every one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.39.234.23 (talk) 13:33, August 23, 2007 (UTC) As a Dutch citizen I understand your feelings of discomfort with the somewhat cold attitude the Dutch have towards strangers and the differences in social standing between natives and immigrant minorities, however, this is not racism. However, you do have a point about the slowly escalating tensions between the Dutch natives and Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, closely tied to the tensions between Muslims and Westerners that rose from the War on Terror. A vital piece of information missing in the Netherlands section is info about Geert Wilders and his PVV, a far-right party whose controversial views on immigration and the Turkish and Moroccan minorities border on racist. If Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuin are mentioned in the article, so should Wilders be.VerbalWarfare (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

sweden

the Swedish section is too short for a county there racism is everywhere, in sweden people that dont have a swedish name can't get a job, can't find a place to live,and get discriminated everywhere. even violance and murders take place. the immigrants are always weird in Swedish film and tv. xenophobia everywhere. the lands of the lapps are still under occupation. the first institute for race-biology was opened in Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.258.153.103 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

India

Okay, so I think it was a good idea to move this into its own page. But can someone please finally review my contributions to the India part and answer the questions I asked in the racism talk page?

Please help. I also will try, but i might need to do a bit of offline research. Also, Can someone check if the pic on this [1] page comes under fair use? I believe it's an iconic image; when the incident took place, it was all over the papers. And besides, this article needs pix IMO.

—24.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• The India section is highly unbalanced and biased, IMHO. It basically takes sides on the issues of casteism being racism and offers no oppositional view, and it also quite vociferously condemns the idea that there is an Indian apartheid. Whether the phrase is a good one is not my point - the point is this section of the article takes a serious stand on the issue, and that is inappropriate and not neutral. 65.60.220.69 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada Section

It seems like the Canada section is nothing more than a personal rant without citations. French Canadians and especially aboriginals are actually subjected to special privileges in Canada. I'm deleting half of that section, and if anyone wants to back up the statements they can revert. --68.149.181.145 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Honestley, this article makes Canada look (historically and in modern times) less tolerant than Germany and South Africa. Needs reworking. --68.149.181.145 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm torn. I agree it reads pretty funnily. Are Indians the subject of racist treatment in Canada? Yes. Is the Indian Act racist against Indians? No, that's absurd. Are Quebeqois the subject of racist treatment in Canada? Sure, but no more or less than Anglos. I'll look at the section, give it some thought. WilyD 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico, Saudi Arabia

I believe these nations should be re-examined for their historical and present state in regards to racism. It is known that those of pre-dominantly European descent make up the upper echelons of Brazilian and Mexican society. Amerindians and Blacks are considered to be at the bottom of the social caste in Mexico and both continue to face discrimination to the point where it is questionable whether they are considered full fledged members of society. In the case of Saudi Arabia I have been told by several Filipinos who worked there that much discrimination is evident towards East(Chinese, etc) and most particularly Southeast Asians. User:Brian 1:20 24.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)—Dec 08 200624.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rwanda

Shouldn't the Rwandan genocide be mentioned here? --68.149.181.145 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This page does imply that racism is generally a white practice, when in reality racism is probably far more widespread in LEDC's, the only reason it doesnt flare up is that they dont have to deal with millions of immigrants

Switzerland-Racism

I find "Up to the release of this report, many people assumed Switzerland to be free of racism." insulting to my knowledge and have deleted it. I have been to Switzerland, and being a black, was persistently treated differently in every corner of Switzerland . When I talked to many immigrants from Sri Lanka in Glarus, they told me that they were subjected to extremely derogatory treatment by a large proportion of the populace who thought that they had come to Switzerland only for financial incentives. Many other black people(including my French friend who is black) share this feeling of alienation and racism in Switzerland. When I was walking with a Senegalese friend in Zurich, I found the attitude of people was not very different from what you find in a neo-nazi haven. That's why I am deleting this sentence ,as for all I know ,it could be written by a Swiss with a very high view of his/her country.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchh (talk • contribs) 08:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland-Racism

Wondering why this includes a short section explaining the Irish Troubles? If it is an attempt to link the Protestant/Catholic tensions with broader racial tensions (for example, now that the paramilitaries are no longer targeting the "other" community, they have directed their hatred at ethnic minorities instead) then this should be explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, if it is just that the author thinks that the religious tensions are the same as racism, then perhaps the same tensions should be mentioned in the section on racism in Scotland? SteveM 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Scotland was moved to the United Kingdom section, because Scotland and the UK are the same nation, but equally autonomous like the countries of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (is it necessary to move that to the UK section or kept separarely in case it's related to past sectarian or nationalist issues of Ireland before its' independence in 1921?) I never considered the conflict on religious/sectarian groups (Protestants vs. Catholics) under "racism" since the two quarreling groups are "white" and have Anglo-Celtic (British) ethnic origins. The issue belongs in the category of global conflicts related to major political and ethno-national differences fueled by centuries of discriminatory actions: by the Protestant (Scotch-Irish) majority against the Irish Catholic minority (called Northern Ireland part of the "country" of Eire Ireland), and prejudices onto each other (riots, battles, brawls, protests and strikes) nearly brought on civil war for Ireland and the UK. 63.3.14.1 07:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism in England

Anglophobia is identified as a problem in Scotland. Whether this is a form of racism or rather a prejudice is debatable. Should it be included? Anti-Irish prejudice in England has not been mentioned at all whether in a historical or contemporary context. Current anti-Scottish prejudice in England is also ignored. --Artdemon01 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah

Halaqah, could you please review WP:NOR and WP:V before editing again? You inserted a section that had 3 requests for citation, and the only cited citation was from "JewishTribalReview", a bizzare antisemitic site that hardly qualifies as a reliable source. We don't use KKK or Stormfront sites to write about African-Americans, please don't use antisemitic sites as sources for information about Jews of Israel. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you are a strange editor

You have again removed the Israel section because it has in but there is no sources on Malay and yet you have re entered it. how many rules are you contradicting? Which rule is it, citation needed or citation not needed? Everything is antisemitic by your def, this section was leagally added to racism i have simple reinserted it. The site is not antisemitic because you dont like it. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your Talk: page, feel free to remove that section as well, as it's nonsense. I only slapped citation templates on it to try to accomodate you. Also, please review WP:CIV, and review, re-review, and re-review WP:NOR and WP:V. Then please review them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

strange only refers to the two rule policy--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no racism in Israel

this is the section in dispute which i am not allowed to add for fear of anothe 3RR. Thus either there is no racism in Israel worth mentioning or there is a serious bias on wikipedia to be critical of Israel. Israel has been accused of practicing open discrimination to Palestinian people, some argue that there status in no more than second class citizens, they have no rights to vote within the Jewish system and are denied the freedom of movement and settlement afforded to Israeli citizens. Desmond Tutu is a staunch critic of this system and makes parallels to South Africa. and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid. Tutu used the analogy on a Christmas visit to Jerusalem on 25 December 1989, when he said in a Haaretz article that he is a "black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." He made similar comments in 2002, speaking of "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about". There has also been some debate about the treatment of African Jews primarly the Beta Israel who occupy the bottom social economic positions. Critics are claiming racism is behind what they say is the Israeli government's establishment of a 400-person monthly quota on immigration from Ethiopia — even for those who qualify under the Law of Return. Ethiopian Jewry activists complain that the quota and what they cite as a lack of humanitarian aid from American Jewish philanthropies are doubly offensive because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent calls for a mass immigration of Jews from Argentina, France, Australia and South Africa.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Which of those sources refers to "racism"? Also, why on earth would you link to and use "jewishtribalreview.org" as a source, a non-reliable antisemitic site? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i actually dont know that it was antisemitic if it is, i have no idea who they are, but my immediate thinking is they are Jewish from the name--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should not link anti-semitic sites. But neither should we whitewash the rabid racism in Israeli society. When an arab footballer scored a the crucial against Ireland in the world cup, Israeli talk shows were full of callers who said that it would have been better to loose the game than have the crucial goal scored by a "terrorist". And there are plenty non-antisemitic references to document racism in Israel and the struggle against it. A quick google gave me International Anti-Racism Day – Showing Zero Tolerance to Racism in Israel [2] Israel is accused of racism over its war-loss payouts [3] for starters. Abu ali 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel and Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab Abu ali 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we now begin to have a real discussion on this topic with the above sources, also the entire settlement issue needs to be added. and treatment of African Jews.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is needed are reliable, encyclopedic sources discussing this issue, not whatever agenda you are promoting. You've decided you need to accuse Israel of something (actually, many things) regardless of whether or not there are reliable sources to support your claims. Well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

please control your accusations because there is no soap box, only a legal plea for balance on this site. I have equal issue with racism in India and Sudan, this is not indispute, the difference is when racism was added to India there was not a campaign to block it, there was no impossible standard set for inclusion of Uganda or Germany or wherever, this is the issue. the work is on [racism] and it will be copied here. My agenda is for truth and balance i dont have any sensitive to race or geography esp when it borders on racism ("to deny racism is racism" end quote).--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No honest person remotely familiar with Israeli society would deny that racism exists there. Take the treatment of the families of foreign workers or Jews from Arab countries for starters. (Kav L'oved and HaKaset Hademocratit Hamizrahit will provide you with all the references you could want). The conspicious absence of Israel from the list says a great deal about the supposed neutality of wikipedia. Abu ali 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The absence of Israel from the list says more about the inability of anti-Israel POV-pushers to follow policy and write properly than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh U r correct my friend, you are so correct. But the net is closing on that, because I am anti-racism and that is my strength i am speaking against oppression, If Israel tommorow became a bearer of winged doves i would change on a dime. But as long as the world oppresses people based upon skin color or religion or class. But u have set a standard which you are unwilling to appply to your editing skills, see South Africas lead "an example of blatent racism" this is a POV, the only reason it isnt deleted is because we all agree 100%, same with Hitler, its not writen with any talent, but we agree so it stays. if i had ill itent or was a racist i could delete that as a colored POV. So dont boast about your net yet.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, in your opinion is anyone who thinks that racism does exist in Israel an "anti-Israel POV-pusher"? And are those who those who battle night and day to remove all criticism of Israel defenders of NPOV? And do WP Arabs have sole responsibity for adding infomation about racism in Israel? Or do all editors have a responsibility to ensure that WP is objective and evenhanded? Please be so kind as to explain... Abu ali 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abu ali, my opinion is that people who generally edit Wikipedia, or even just articles relating to Israel, solely for the purpose of vilifying Israel, using unreliable sources or none at all, are "anti-Israel POV-pushers". It is also my opinion that when someone inserts a POV paragraph with built-in requests for citation, it is extremely disruptive. What do you think? Does it make sense for someone to put together a few sentences stating his own pov, put {{fact}} tags at the end of each sentence, and actually insert it into an article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I do not know who the people you refer to are. And I certainly hope you are not refering to me! But I think the advice given about not biting the newcomer is good advice. What about my other two questions? Abu ali 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No one says this about Hong Kong or Barbados or St Lucia or Sweden. we cannot look at a blue sky and say it is red. if editors esp admins showed balance then they would find people like me less aggressive in pushing inclusion. I am happy to see Jayjg has added Israel into the racism section, i am very happy, because balance and truth cannot be one way. Is it right any rubbish can be posted about Africans and Muslims yet some topics have an untouchable status? I have no ill intent but as long as I have been alive I have seen stones and tanks, denial will not end that crisis.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

China, South Korea and other countries

From what I know of race and discrimination as it applies to China and South Korea, I don't believe Mexico, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia are any less guilty of societal racism than the former.–3:03 8 Jan 200724.205.170.205 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)user: Brian

• Probably not. What's your point? WilyD 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The most descriptive and accurate, yet not well supported or valid section is on racism in Chile (neither could make a statement on whether Chile has a mestizo/racially mixed majority like Brazil and Mexico, or had a "white" European majority like Argentina). Obviously, the historic racial and class division in Latin America and other non-western countries are omnipresent. The status and evident maltreatment of migrant workers of East Indian, South Asian, African and Middle Eastern origin, now the majority of people in the Persian Gulf countries is a serious controversial issue that can damage the positive reputation of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait as advanced, innovative and soon-to-be developed societies. I wonder racism and ethnic/tribal hatred is a problem in India, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, as well the ongoing ancient Hindu "caste" system (i.e. In India, the 150-200 million very poor marginalized "untouchables" are considered too lowly or "unclean" to higher and every other "castes"), and the lack of modern women's rights in these countries, whether for political, religious and sociocultural (custom, morality, etiquette and gender roles) brought international condemnation and protest. I know sexism and classism aren't exactly "racism" and are different topics, but to openly and legally discriminate or segregate whole groups of people is the same thing like to be racist or politically oppressive, because the person looks different from everyone (women are half the human race!) or from a different background, is unacceptable in western and democratic countries. + 63.3.14.1 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In East Asian(China, South Korea, Japan) nations as well as the Middle East(Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait), Southeast Asian(Filipinos, Indonesians, Thais, etc.) immigrants make up the bulk of foreign laborers and discrimination towards them by members of the host nation is especially evident. In Hong Kong and the Middle East, Filipina maids and those in other domestic jobs suffer much abuse by their employers and in South Korea the working rights of migrant laborers from Southeast Asian nations are frequently violated. Also, an acquaintance of mine revealed she was unable to travel to the Middle East because certain nations in the region refused to give visas to "single Asian women". This acquaintance of mine is from China and she was never barred from visiting other Muslim nations like Malaysia and Indonesia. If the former is true then there can be no dispute that racism exists in Arab nations. [User: John, 19:32 2 February 2007

Start Rfc to clean-up

I suggest that any content without a refernce be removed as OR, that is the best way to start to clean up this mess. How can content on top of content be on this page and no one care where it comes from. As a test i can add any madness about some country and it is still here? the article is a violation of wiki policy.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content is vandalism

Please do not delete content , to provoke an edit war. The Israel content is valid and it is sourced and there are no debates our grounds for its removal. The content has been written by admin jaygig and has been agreed. You are vandalising this page if you continue to delete this content. Please stop what you are doing as it violates wiki policy. Content with sources valid source is allowed use the talk page but this issue in the talk pages you refer to has cleared this issue.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The content I removed was authored by you, and protested by Jayjg on this very Talk page. Inserting material that is improperly sourced merely to present a case is improper no matter who it is done against. Tewfik^Talk 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are vandalizing this page because you are deleting content which has sources, you have not proved according to wiki policy why it is invalid you have just deleted it. But as will happen it will keep being replaced because it is legal content. Further i have not authored anything, the content was constructed by jayjig as a compremise. the content has in valid refernces and even if i did add it, it is valid and well sourced. what you are doing is vandalism by the def i have seen on wikipedia. you are also starting and editing war and are probably violating the 3rr. the discussion is right above for all to see and i didnt see the admin deleting the content, for it was him who reworded it and added it to racism, hence my comments of joy that he finally showed balance, please stop your POV edits which protect racism --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The history shows Jayjg removing the passage. Edits like "It is suggested that this racism is endemic and established in Israeli Jewish society." are textbook WP:NPOV violations (and of course not sourced by RS). Tewfik^Talk 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is the entire content says only that? Why did you delete the entire thing. This was an section reedited by jayjig and i know you are confused because what you dont know is he finally revoiced it. I never edited it, i never created it. my content was on D tutu.(which i will bring up again) PLease replace the content where it doesnt violate anything, like the end of it. and i will personaly expand it according to those rules. It is very aggressive when you delete and entire country which is known globally for racism. That is like chopping South Africa, how many books are written about the conflict? and you delete this country from this section and leave in Trinidad and the Caribbean? what kind of editing is that? Please actually read what you have deleted b4 letting your political views cloud your editing. compare what jayjig deleted to what you deleted, DO they look the same???? r the sources the same? I literally copied his edit from racism and put it here, why do you think i was saying "i am happy to see Jaygig re edit, look above and see the discussion"--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I am happy to see Jayjg has added Israel into the racism section, i am very happy, because balance and truth cannot be one way. Is it right any rubbish can be posted about Africans and Muslims yet some topics have an untouchable status? I have no ill intent but as long as I have been alive I have seen stones and tanks, denial will not end that crisis.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC) " why did i write this on the 2nd of jan?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff you have inserted isn't the same as the stuff you were talking about on Jan 2, was it? Did you forget about WP:RS and WP:NOR? That the sources must be reliable and that they must refer to racism? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT the sources are all reliable and you cannot delete an entire content because of your pov, sorry, you must discuss, you must improve. By that token I can delete most of this page because it has no sources. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Propagandistic sources are not reliable, and sources which don't refer to "racism" constitute original research. Please don't insert material based on either. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well i diagree, now instruct these editors on the correct process to settle this edit war, as the sources refer to racism by all definitions of racism, the sources according to WP:RS are not being violated and the content is drawn from a broad area. I will also dig up evidence that you previously allowed this content and now are blocking critic due to a clear conflict of interest as an admin.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do you imagine my "Conflict of interest" to be? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

let me explain, why do you not delete the other countries which are in clear violation of your above criterion? I will now go and delete two which violated the above. maybe you should review your role as an admin because two users on this page have agreed that a conflict of interest is happening here. Clearly your passions are for one country and your rules firm only in this regard. your pattern of editing and deleting content speaks for itself. I will ask you again. Mr Admin, we have a edit war going on how do we resolve this?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the "Conflict of Interest"; exactly what is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hiding racism is racism

• An interesting case of hiding racism can be found in the Weaver v NATFHE (now part of the UCU) race discrimination case. An Industrial Tribunal in the UK upheld a trade union’s decision not to assist a woman lecturer who brought a case of racial harassment against a fellow worker in a college of further education because he could lose his job. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexist harassment.

Israel and Israelis have regularly been accused of racism toward Arabs, especially in the Arab press, but also elsewhere. It is suggested that this racism is endemic and established in Israeli Jewish society.[4][5][6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC). look at these reasons "improperly spurced content" for deleting Israel, take a look at chile, and the rest of this article. valid sources are labelled by the pov editor as improperly. this content was re edited by an admin. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained to you many times before that sources must be reliable and must refer explicitly to "racism". Your insertions are neither, and you initially inserted them with a deliberately deceptive edit summary. In addition, creating a whole special section for "Israel and Arabs" is POV pushing of the worst kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are problems with the Israel racism section, then all editors, (Israelis and Zionists included) are welcome to improve it. But deleting the entire section is a violation of WP:NPOV and when done by Zionists editors is a violation of WP:COI. Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a Zionist propoganda tract. Abu ali 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't stop these WP:CIVIL violations about "Zionists editors" and "Zionist propoganda tracts", further action will be taken. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that "further action" will be taken. (In fact I must say that I am suprised that I have not been banned from Wikipedia yet!) When I talk about Zionists editors, I mean those who closely identify with the Israeli state. Although I am no fan of Zionism, I did not mean to insult anyone by use of the term, merely to refer to their support of the Israeli state. Now if you support a particular state, and and remove anything critical of the state from Wikipedia, a resonable person could suspect you of a conflict of interrest, i.e. of your actions being motivated by a desire to defend the state, rather than improve WP. Am I wrong? One easy way to prove me wrong, is for one of the Zionist (ok pro-Israel) editors here to write a balanced and well sourced section on racism in Israel. Why has this not happened? Abu ali 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions on who "closely identifies with the Israeli state" are irrelevant, and have no place on Wikipedia. WP:COI is also not relevant, unless you are alleging that employees of Israel are being paid to edit Wikipedia. Is that the case? If not, please keep your opinions about other editors to yourself, and reserve the Talk: page for talking about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not raise any opinions about which editors closely identify with the Israeli state. And I am not suggesting that anyone is being paid for their editing. But WP:COI#Close_relationships does not require a payment, only a close relationship. What about the 2nd part of my comments? Abu ali 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above user is correct on WP:COI address that, constructive editing doesnt mean a revert war.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:CIVIL, not WP:COI; there are no "conflicts of interest" here except in the imaginations of people trying to excuse their use of bad sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for civility, and will endeavor to be a civil as possible. But if the sources are bad, why not replace them with good sources? Why delete the material. Are you telling us that there is no racism in Israel? Or are you telling us that both yourself and User:GHcool do not follow Israeli media sufficiently closely to be able to provide good sources with minimal effort? Abu ali 10:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it my responsibility to find good sources for POV-pushing? Why can't those who think the material is relevant and encyclopedic do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why describing Israeli racism POV pushing? And why is deleting any reference to to Israeli racism not POV pushing. Do you really think that a short and fairly written description of racism in Israel would be unencyclopedic? Abu ali 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The author starts with his assumptions, and then uses bad sources to try to prove his POV. That is not encyclopedic. A properly sourced description of racism on Israel might be encyclopedic, although only marginally so. Keep in mind there is racism in every single country in the world, so it's hard to see what an article like this adds in general, except a soapbox for people to beat up on countries they dislike. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not enought for you to say "bad sourcing" you must now demonstrate why all the sources are bad.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This source, Al Jazeera, does not claim that Israel is racist, it claims that a specific Israeli, Lieberman, is racist. This source, published in the anti-Israel WRMEA, claimed that in 1999 some Israeli textbooks were racist; it did not claim that Israel today is racist. This source, published in the propaganda-source Zmag, does not say Israel is racist, it says a specific Israeli, Lieberman, is racist. You've been warned about misrepresenting sources before. As for the "poll", there is no source for it at all, you've obviously just copied it from some other article, and as far as I can tell it doesn't even refer to "racism". Finally, the stuff about Ethiopians is crystal ball speculation, and a claim by one non-notable individual. Was the legislation passed or not? You have no idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Poll was reported in Haaretz on 22/3/06. Why do you quote the word "poll". Abu ali 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is correct. HalaTruth is engaging in an ad hominem attack on Israel, Israelis, and Israeli sympanthizers. And Abu ali is completely out of line for accusing Jayjg of WP:COI. --GHcool 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From my reading HalaTruth has merely tried to get a section on Israel added to this article. Adding a section on Israel should be uncontravesial. Supporters of Israel should not try to whitewash the unpleasant aspects of Israeli society from Wikipedia. They should use their knowledge of the country ensure that these facts are described in an accurate and fair manner. Abu ali 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Those with a bias against Israel should not use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their views; please read WP:SOAP. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And those with a bias in favour of Israel should not use Wikipedia as a platform to whitewash the less complimentary aspects of Israeli life. Abu ali 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick google a while back on the question and got the following links. Some may be useful for the section: Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel, Naeim Giladi, [7], Zionism and racism It's not racism, it's just patriotism, Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab The scent of racism , Living as hostages of hatred and racism, [The Israel FA Fight Against Violence and Racism The Israel FA Fight Against Violence and Racism] [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], Abu ali 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha'aretz is a reliable source. The others are not. If you do intend to add a section on Israel using reliable sources and no OR, I don't think anyone will be able to stop you. If you intend to write a section on it, however, make sure you keep it in perspective (for example, don't make the section as long as the section on the France or Germany). --GHcool 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Any section I write, however reasonable and well cited, will be deleted. Why don't you have a go instead? It would show a commitment to improving this encyclopedia which transcends other considerations. Abu ali 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are giving yourself too little credit. I'm sure that if you write a reasonable and well cited section, it will be honored so long as it remains proportional to the racism that exists in the rest of the world. --GHcool 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Kendric7 added a very short section on Israel. It was removed within hours by Tewfiq see [13]. Abu ali 07:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

the aim is to get you to waste your time, and make a spelling mistake and it will be deleted for that reason. We need to make a request for comments from people not close to the topic and go through that procedure. Have you seen the Caribbean is in there? WOW! little friendly Islands made it into racism but Israel cant.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. There is no "aim" is not for anybody to waste their time. The aim is to keep Wikipedia reliable and relevent. I do not 100% agree with Tewfik's edit summary (the survey clearly refers to racism), but I do agree with the edit on the other grounds: that it is not from a neutral source and that the potential for inaccuracy in the poll is very high. Also the poll is 8 to 9 years old! As for the Caribbean, personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this section deleted because only one source is cited and it refers to an isolated incedent, not public policy or even significant public support (the Caribbean isn't even a country anyway). Does anyone else feel the same way about the Caribbean? --GHcool 09:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer this poll [14] to be used? It is about a year old and reported by the more neutral Haaretz newspaper. Abu ali 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange the age of the poll has nothing to do with the topic, is it a current event? And what about America? What about Uganda, how old is that stuff? why apply these rules to one country. please note i tried to get this page deleted in the past. You have two rules, two criterion, one for adding Israel and one for other countries and that is the issue. Had you done this with South Africa you would find i would react the same way. The issue is racism not anything else. And when no one comes into the debate showing balance it doesnt help. It is not grounds for deleting the entire country.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad article, and much could and should be deleted. Regardless, near decade old polls from biased sources aren't really that useful, and there's no justification for adding junk to an article regardless of how much junk is already in there. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a rubbish article, i agree. So where were you when i tried to get it deleted? But you just have issues with Israel. It is beyond me, I just added Slavery in Ethiopia to African Slavery, I am Habasha, why try to cover it? So i am loyal to ending racism, not hiding it, i have no issues exposing racism on my doorstep, in my country.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One solution is for you to write it mr admin, you write it as i really dont want to continue, but the more i see imbalance the more i have a problem. U write the content about Israel, as long as something honest is there i am fine. but dont tell me there isnt a serious race issue in Israel. (thats how it started you said Tutu was relevant)--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are almost 200 countries in the world, and I'm sure there is some sort of discrimination or "racism" in every single one. It's part of the human condition. Please explain why this article only deals with 10% of those countries, and why certain editors feel the need in particular to single out Israel for this condemnation over 150 other candidates. Where is the section on racism in Saudi Arabia? Where is the section on racism in Algeria? Where is the section on racism in Egypt? Where is the section on racism in Indonesia? Where is the section on racism in Pakistan? Where is the section on racism in the Ivory Coast? I'm astonished that neither you nor Abu ali have militated for those sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I answered this question on talk:Racism. Please add the missing countries. But please do not use the fact that these countries have not yet been added to delete material on Israel. Abu ali 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the material on Israel was deleted was because it was original research from unreliable sources, as has been explained. In addition, of course, it would fail the WP:NPOV#Undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. You've had 2 1/2 months to focus on some country besides Israel, and have failed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I have replied to this point as well as to additional threats and accusations [15] on Talk:Racism. The argument you raise about undue weight is a new one and contradicts the your comment above that "A properly sourced description of racism on Israel might be encyclopedic, although only marginally so." Take it easy and lets try to reach a fair and mutually acceptable consensus here. Abu ali 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there as well. Neither statement I have made contradicts the other; keep in mind that this article lists 20 countries, the other one only 6, so that is what makes it possible that in this article "A properly sourced description of racism on Israel might be encyclopedic, although only marginally so." It all depends on how long the section is, and what else gets put in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How long should the section be? GHCool said no longer than France or Germany. This is acceptable to me. Is it acceptable to you? Regarding my alledged failure "to focus on some country besides Israel", I added some material to the England section about a month ago for what its worth. But I know far more about racism in Israel than I do in England. And attempts to add material on England have not been systematically reverted. Abu ali 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think you know "far more about racism in Israel" than in other countries, and from what sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From my own personal experience. I will write my story some day. But not on Wikipedia... Abu ali 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New Israel section

I just read the new Israel section and I think it is acceptable. I do not intend to change one word of it. On the other hand, I find the picture of the defaced grave to be inappropriate because it was clearly an act of vandalism not supported by the majority of Israelis and because it gives undue weight to Israeli racism (most other countries don't have pictures). My ears are open if somebody would like to present a good argument for not removing it, but in the event that a good argument is not presented, I reserve the right to remove the picture within the next week. --GHcool 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you think it is acceptable and that you are not going to delete it. I still would be suprised if one of the other members of the WP:ISRAEL project does not delete it within a few days. I must point out that Arbcom member Jayjg castigated me [16] for inviting RonaldR to add this section accusing me of "canvassing people to edit-war" on my behalf. I have no objection to removing the photo as your arguments on this point make sense and as you are seeking consensus on the talk page rather than unilaterally deleteing. Abu ali 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you bring up members of the WP:ISRAEL project? Which have been involved in this article? Jayjg ^(talk)

15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Israeli rule" of the city of Akko in Israel User:Huldra added a section recently which was deleted but can still be viewed in history - 14:44, 16 February 2007, in which there were 'reports', by an unnamed Arab, of Israelis killing 80 Palestinians for no apparent reason, and of Israelis kidnapping and killing Palestinian children, to mention just two, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Then, in his talk page, he gets the support from Abu ali who criticizes editors for removing anything 'remotely critical' of Israel.

This is what vandalism is

Revert vandalism Reverting articles to prevent vandalism is considered a genuine use of the revert function, but gaming the system to circumvent the three-revert rule is disruptive and considered to be vandalism. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pretending your reverts of improper material are countering "vandalism". People really do understand that content conflicts aren't "vandalism", and they won't buy it if you end up on the WP:AN/3RR page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

deleting content on an entire country is vandalism, and you are clearly forgetting your duties as an admin. further more you made some of these changes on the racism page. you now have returned to your previous status of deleting content and as the user above says it is a clear conflict on interest.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the material doesn't use proper sourcing, it's not vandalism. You were warned. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen please stop warning me and follow wiki policy, what is wrong with the sourcing now? you are in violation of Wikipedia:POINT and are having a conflict on interest. where is your evidence to show that all of those sources violate what you say it does?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you imagine that I have a "conflict of interest"? Why, for example, would I have a conflict of interest, but you not have one? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I would be careful about warning for WP:Point violations while removing content with this reasoning: I will now go and delete two which violated the above. Tewfik^Talk 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

THE PROOF REGARDING JAYJG EDITS

Evidence of admin jayjg edits to Racism where he allowed the content and modified the content for inclusion It really didnt take that long to track down, proof of the content added for clarity by the above admin who clearly comprimised and allowd the edit being deleted wholsale the date was 29 dec 2006. Now this admin has returned to delete this content again. We can continue to look into the record to see the pattern of editing. Hence why above i stated i was happy to see it wasnt being deleted. But again the edit war has started.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First question: Is that content the exact same as the stuff you are now inserting, as you claimed, or have you added a bunch of poorly sourced original research? Second question: When you added that poorly sourced original research, did you do so with a deliberately deceptive edit summary? Please answer both of these questions honestly and accurately, then we'll move on to other issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer you, then put back what you found acceptable at the time, per your changes above. If the issue is it being different then put it back in its original form. and deal with the person(s) that deleted it. U r missing my motives, i coulnt care less if this debate was about China or India. Please look and see my first request was for India to be included, then i went to SA, then i said hold up "where is Israel". My concern is South Africa has been included, Canada, Caribbean, why is there two sets of rules. the minute serious content, honest content is added i will be finished and you will not see me again.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not allow you to insert *any* content that is not from reliable source and does refer directly to RACISM. Get it? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

you added it, or cant you access the link? I have actually never written anything. You reworded it. Do you get it! It was there for 1 month until last week. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two questions, please answer both honestly:

1. Did you insert the exact same material, or did you add to it?
2. Did you insert the material with an honest edit summary, or did you try to hide the fact that you were inserting it?

I need honest answers to both of those questions before we move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Comment having seen the Rfc) HalaTruth - if you wish to restore a section on Israel and racism, please draw your material from reliable sources, which are not difficult find - NY Times, BBC, Independent Newspaper This has nothing to do with censorship and Jayjg is perfectly within his rights to remove poorly sourced material from non-reliable sources, which the additions certainly were. The various allegations being thrown around about are not helpful. Time would be better spent sifting through the multitude of acceptable sources and constructing a readable section that meets policy. Then there would be no need for any dispute.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 09:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(Update) I see another editor has taken it upon themselves to do what HalaTruth failed to do. Incidentally, why was there so much kerfuffle surrounding the Israeli entry when much of the page fails to meet the criteria laid out above? -- Zleitzen (Talk) 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good question. Abu ali 10:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of poll

In this edit [17] Jayjg removed a poll which was aparently useless because it was 9 years old. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, I think that 9 year old racism would still be relevant for this article. But in the interrests of finding a mutually acceptable consensus I will conceded this point and suggest using far newer poll which was reported in the 22/3/06 issue of Haaretz. [18] Abu ali 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab

By Eli Ashkenazi and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents

Sixty-eight percent of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Israeli Arab, according to the results of an annual poll released Wednesday by the Center for the Struggle Against Racism.

The "Index of Racism Towards Arab Palestinian Citizens of the State of Israel," conducted by Geocartographia, revealed on 26 percent of Jews in Israel would agree to live with Arab neighbors in the same building.

Forty-six percent of Jews would refuse to allow an Arab to visit their home while 50 percent would welcome an Arab visitor. Forty-one percent of Jewish support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in places of recreation and 52 percent of such Jews would oppose such a move.

The inclination toward segregation rises as the income level of the poll respondent drops and also as the level of religious observance rises. Support for segregation between Jews and Arabs is also higher among Jews of Middle Eastern origin as opposed to those of European origin.

"Racism is becoming mainstream. When people talk about transfer or about Arabs as a demographic time-bomb, no one raises their voice against such statements. This is a worrisome phenomenon," Bachar Ouda, director of the Center for the Struggle Against Racism, said on Tuesday. The report covered the year 2005 and the center will, in the future, present monthly and bi-annual polls.

The index, edited by Ouda and attorney Ala Khaider, surveys racially-motivated incidents that took place during 2005 and examines the attitudes of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs.

During the course of 2005, 225 racially-motivated incidents directed at Arab citizens were reported to the center or in the media. The center believes that less than 20 percent of attacks or other incidents are ever reported.

Seventy-fire percent of the reports on racist incidents came from institutional sources such as government ministries, government companies or publicly-elected officials.

The poll further revealed that 63 percent of Jewish Israelis agree with the statement, "Arabs are a security and demographic threat to the state." Thirty-one percent of Jews did not agree. Agreement with the statement was strongest among Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews and low-income earners.

Forty percent of Jews believe "the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens" and just 52 percent don't agree with the statement.

Thirty-four percent also agreed with the statement that "Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture." Fifty-seven percent did not agree with the statement.

Half of Israeli Jews express fear or discomfort when hearing people speaking Arabic. Eighteen percent of Jews said they feel hate when hearing Arabic speakers.

Responding to the report, Hadash Chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh said racism against Israeli Arabs "is a direct result of official racist and discriminatory policies" dictated by the government.

• You're right about the newspaper vs encyclopaedia issue. Material should never be deleted because it's dated, it should just be made clear when data is from. After all, we still have an article of the Piratini Republic, which hasn't existed in 150 years. WilyD 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad Abu Ali's soliciting you to edit-war for him was successful. Polls are not particularly useful metrics for "racism", they generally just show what they've been designed to show. Rather unsurprisingly, a poll intended to show an "Index of Racism Towards Arab Palestinian Citizens of the State of Israel", by Bachar Ouda, director of the Center for the Struggle Against Racism, and attorney Ala Khaider, shows racism against Arabs. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I solicit WilyD to edit war for me? This is a disgraceful slur, especially from an ArbCom member who is supposed to be the public face of wikipedia. Insults aside, I would say that Geocartographia is a respectable organisation and its findings were reported in a number of reliable sources. Your dismissal of the findings is original research. Abu ali 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC) And for the record, I would like to call on both Jayjg and WilyD to avoid edit warring and attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page. Abu ali 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious as to why you blindly reverted me, rather than just restoring the ancient poll, if that's what you objecting to. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • His comments to me were actually in response to my edit - this is an article I keep an eye on. I "blindly" reverted you because you removed sourced, encyclopaedic relevent material for an admitted reason that's completely faulty. The "ancient"-ness of information isn't relevent here - if you have move up to date information, that might serve as a counterbalance, but this isn't Wikinews. "Dated" information is treated as it should be in an encyclopaedia, we date it and include it. WilyD 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact, the whole section is now pretty well sourced and relevent. The pressure that's been put on Abu Ali to clean up his additions has worked, they're actually pretty decent now (although I'd like to reformat the survey data for aesthetic purposes). Now everything is sourced, relevent, encyclopaedic and what have you. A "non-blind" examination will determine that reverting his material is no longer appropriate. (It probably was when he first entered it with poor/no sourcing.) WilyD 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, except for the stuff that is non-encyclopedic and not appropriate for the section, like the image and the poll. Abu ali didn't insert the material, and my edit didn't "revert" it. Honest descriptions of actions are essential here, please start using them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That statements are so disconnected from what I can see, I'm not sure how to understand them. Perhaps you can elaborate? In any event, I'm not sure your continued ad hominem arguments are helpful. My ascription of the polls to Abu Ali may not have been right, and I've already retracted it. WilyD 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Polls are ephemeral, not encyclopedic, and quoting a specific poll from 9 years ago because it agrees with your POV is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. In addition, if the issue is just the poll, then you shouldn't be blindly reverting my other edits, and falsely claiming that I have "improperly deleted a section" or "unjustifiably blanked" it. Please try to work with me, rather than blindly reverting, or I think you will find it very difficult to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I note there has been agreement on the page about the inappropriateness of the image. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the image (as suggested by GHCool) is OK by me. Abu ali 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the image. WilyD 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet you blindly reverted it in 3 times. How strange. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I blindly reverted it zero times. I deliberately reverted it three times because it was blanked without justification, is at least marginally relevent and was deleted in a grossly inappropriate edit. WilyD 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you blindly reverted 3 times. Justification for its removal was given in the edit summary, agreement for its removal was clear on the Talk: page, which you ignored, and it was removed with an entirely appropriate edit. WilyD, you must start being honest here, there's no way to move forward without that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blindly reverted zero times. I inspected the edit in detail before reverting. I don't always look over a talk page before reverting terrible edits - it's rarely worthwhile. WilyD 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cool it, you are both at your 3 reverts limit. Lets try to reach agreement on the talk page. And Jay, if you object to the 9 year old poll, would you agree to the 2006 poll I referenced at the top of this section? Abu ali 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now we're attempting to deal with WilyD's blind reverts. If he's willing to stop doing that, stop using misleading and inaccurate edit summaries to justify them, and deal solely with the poll issue, then we can talk about that. Until then, there's really no point, is there? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My reverts were not blind. I restored the material because it was all sourced and encyclopaedic, and your edit summaries specified reasons for deletion that don't justify deletion. There may be a bit of cleaning that Abu Ali's edits could use, but they're actually pretty decent now. Reordering thoughts might be appropriate, I don't know, but an edit that's 95% destructive and 5% constructive is best to just revert and reapproach (assuming your deletions were 5% constructive, which sounds like an overestimate to me, but there seems to be some consensus on this image issue. The image was of reasonable quality and at least vaguely relevent. Given the overall quality of the edit, it seemed smartest to just restore it.) WilyD 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they were blind. You simply reverted to the previous version. My edits involved cleaning up the edits, and removing the picture and poll. There was agreement that the picture didn't belong, there was no objection to my other edits, and the poll has been controversial for days, and the quality of the edits was high. If your issue was just the poll, you should have simply restored that (or better, discussed it), rather than blindly reverting. Unless you are willing to work honestly on this, we won't get far. The first step is admitting your blind reverts and misleading edit summaries; otherwise it will be impossible to assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that you've already concluded I'm acting in bad faith (per your use of the word "blind" every time you say revert) and I'm not sure it's worth my time and effort to try and convince you otherwise. My edit summeries were also very accurate reflections of my edits - I'm not sure I can begin to guess how you could conclude otherwise. WilyD 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to explain my revert here. I'm honestly not sure if the poll should stay or not, but I'd rather see some more thorough discussion of its merits rather than name-calling. Generally, I think its better to cite secondary-source analysis that uses polls rather than polls themselves. Polls can have extremely questionable methodology and serve only to advance a political position. I will try to find this specific poll on JSTOR later to learn more about it, but I would prefer if rather than citing one poll, we cite a review article from a scholarly publication that looks at multiple primary sources. GabrielF 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with your "control edit". I would suggest we go with the best data available - at this time, this seems to be Abu Ali's poll. If you can find better, we'll use that instead. WilyD 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, no progress at all can be made unless you pledge to desist from blind reverts and dishonest edit summaries and comments. Do you make that pledge? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that I have not blindly reverted, nor have I made a single dishonest edit summary, this is an easy pledge for me to make. Care to discuss the material rather just offer so ad hominem arguments? WilyD 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we have 2 polls here, 1 from 1998 and one from 2006 (above). (see my comments at the top the section). And I did not enter either of them into the article. And it would be nice if Jay apologised for wrongly accusing me of recruiting you to edit war on my behalf. Abu ali 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll note that you're not "your" polls. Whatever that's worth. WilyD 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It might help avoid personalizing the argument. The newer poll may overcome objections about the source and age of the 1998 poll make it easier to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Abu ali 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your personalisation point. The age point is complete bunk. WilyD 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the age point. But am prepared to concede this point in order to reach a concensus. Abu ali 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why - if you compare to the Canada section of this same article, it's almost all historical, not current, racism. WilyD 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Abu ali 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that JayJG makes a reasonable point here about polls being ephemeral and potentially unreliable. Per WP:RS, Wikipedia generally prefers to rely on secondary sources (e.g. a review article about the topic in a scholarly, and if possible non-political, publication) rather than primary sources, such as polls. Sometimes it isn't possible to rely on secondary sources (for example, articles on current events), but I think in this case we should try to find secondary sources first. GabrielF 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The later poll is cited in Haaretz on 22/3/06 and in the Independent 12/2/06 and in the Star [[19]] Abu ali 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Any secondary source can simply be dismissed as biased; this is a case where a primary source is almost to be prefered. Geocartographia seems like fairly decent apolitical and scientific bunch from poking around on google (considering their use here to measure Israeli satisfaction with their family physicians, that's hardly the purview of whackjobs). I didn't find the results of the 1998 poll to be particularly shocking, and as Abu Ali says up top, this isn't wikinews, so I can't agree with excluding this as "dated", especially when most of the sample surveyed are surely still alive and kicking in Israel. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a fair point about the fact that the poll is dated, but that still doesn't explain the other potentials for it being an unreliable poll. Anyway, the Israel section is satisfactory the way it is now without this poll. 2 undesputed and well-sourced paragraphs on one of the smallest nations in the world is more than enough, wouldn't you agree? --GHcool 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We can talk about polls in general. But regarding the two specific polls cited: Is anyone suggesting that these polls do not roughly represent the range of views held by Israelis? Abu ali 20:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I concede that there are some (perhaps many) Israeli Jews on the far-right that are very vocal about their opinions on Arab citizens of Israel. This is an unfortunate, but completely natural symptom of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The poll explicitly states that these attitudes exists more among lower income and religiously observant Jewish Israelis than for higher income and secular Jewish Israelis. That is an important factor in the poll. The difference is that while racism exists in Israel (as it does everywhere else), there is also an even more significant left-leaning tendancy for the equal treatment of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli judiciary and Knesset. The same cannot be said about the Palestinian territories or any of Israel's independent neighboring states with reguards for their Jewish citizens (nonexistent since they were driven out ... talk about racism!) or to Jews worldwide. --GHcool 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So you find the polls roughly representative of Israeli opinion? Abu ali 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not say that. That would be too simplistic. The poll is an interesting one and it reflects something important about Israeli society, but what it says exactly is debatable and requires context. I addressed my thoughts on the polls above. I have nothing more to say about it except to repeat that it is not approriate for this article for the same reasons I do not think that any polls are appropriate for this article. --GHcool 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is always best in cases where "the interpretation is debateable" to leave the interpretation to the reader. Abu ali 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with you on this point, but this does not address my assertion that the poll (if used, and I am against the use of any poll) can only be understood through the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Without this background information, the poll is meaningless at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. --GHcool 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we censor the poll to protect the reader from misunderstanding the results?Abu ali 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No. A serious encyclopedia should provide factual and educational information rather than questionable and sensationalist, let alone politically slanted POV. One quick look at this talk page (along with Talk:Racism) shows that a few users use WP to push their political agenda. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What precisely do you mean by politically slanted POV? And are you free of pushing a political agenda of your own? I still think that one of the polls should be refered to in the article as it is clearly relevant to the subject of racism in Israel, and has been cited by multiple reliable sources. Abu ali 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell whether Humus is making a confession or engaging in WP:POT. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the argument not to use politically biased sources for politically charged arguments is rediculous. We all know no such sources exist. WilyD 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on using the poll (and I repeat, I am against the usage of all polls in this article), then please provide some background information on the Arab-Israeli conflict with particular emphasis to the Al-Aqsa intifada. Racism certainly exists in Israel and Wikipedia should reflect this, however, the racism exists in part because of a context unique to that country and its citizens. This is not POV pushing in one direction or the other. It is simply telling the whole truth: that the Arab Israeli conflict has contributed significantly to any prevalence of racism (percieved or real) that exists in Israeli society. --GHcool 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We agree that "Racism certainly exists in Israel and Wikipedia should reflect this". And as in other countries, racism does not drop from the sky. In my opinion sources of racism include government as well as suicide attacks on Israeli civilians carried out by various Palestinian organisation. It may be useful to analyse the roots of racism in Israel and elsewhere, as long as we are balanced and do not engage in original research. Abu ali 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but suicide bombings and such aren't "Racism in Israel", in the same way that cherry-picking a specific act wouldn't be. Rather the entry should reflect any government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, and scholarly reports about widespread discrimination. For example, there is a world of difference between the survey of victims of actual racist incidents cited by Zleitzen, and the more nebulous poll of Jewish Israelis' attitudes towards Arabs - especially without any context of the Arab-Israeli conflict provided. Tewfik^Talk 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the article was State sponsored racism by contry. But there is no consistency in restricting the article to state actions in Israel, when all forms of racist acts and opinions are covered in other states. Racism of state institutions is an important part of the discrimination faced by Arabs, and I could write a book on this subject. But 225 racially motivated attacks sited above are also significant as are the widespread racist prejudices they encounter in Israeli society. When 68% of the population would refuse to live in the same block of flats as an Arab, it is not just a question of private beliefs. It means a student in Tel Aviv University has great difficulty renting accomodation for instance. I know one Arab student living in West Jerusalem who was firebombed by neigbours who objected to an Arab living in their building. Of course racism against Arabs is just part of the story. Mizrachi Jews, Etheopians and migrant workers also suffer racist abuse. Abu ali 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this only for Israel, but as a means of cleaning up an unencyclopaedic article that is currently being used to more to present a forum for every grievance than for objective discussions of every country's status. What happened to your friend is unfortunate, but what would be more useful than citing random numbers about incidents etc. would be to include scholarly sets of statistics that discuss these numbers in context. We'll have to do a little more work on research, but that will help us separate the chaff out of large parts of this article. Tewfik^Talk 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik here. Scholarly NPOV works with emphasis on historical factors trump polls and isolated incedents, however Abu ali is correct in asserting that the topic includes de facto as well as de jure racism. I suggest Abu ali writes the book he says he could write on this subject, have it peer reviewed and published, and then cite it on Wikipedia. Before that, I would advise against the "a little of this a little of that" style of reporting and other OR tactics. --GHcool 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced information without synthesis is never OR. While snippets of information are not as good as comprehensive scholarly work (which of course, are never, and probably can never, be NPOV - this doesn't matter), if they're what we have, then we have to write an article with what we have (when better sources are found, we can worry about that). Waiting for a perfect source to come along would prevent any article from ever being written. We should always endevor to write articles with the best sources available, but we should endevor to write articles. WilyD 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I just wrote a section in this article on racism in Iran using sourced material from The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. A more scholarly, comprehensive source written by respected historians than that one is difficult to find. Its a shame that "all you have" are snippets when scholarly work is so easy to find these days, but then again, finding scholarly work requires effort that is antithetical to your stated tactic of "waiting for a perfect source to come along." --GHcool 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets make sure to keep cool. In reply to your assertion WilyD, when sourced information can be OR if it is used to present a novel conclusion (as in: here are three instances of men biting dogs, hence many men bite dogs). Tewfik^Talk 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, which is why I specifically said Sourced information without synthesis is never OR. Sourced information with synthesis is original research, of course. WilyD 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposition on the usage of polls in general

There are currently 3 references to polls in the article: one on Russia and other post-Soviet states, one on Scotland, one on France. I suggest that we limit the article only to racism by deed (including and especially de jure racism) and not privately held racist beliefs that found in polls. The reason is because polls in general have such great potential for unreliability and because the topic is so controversial, it is likely to prove anything about any country about how it views races through polls. Limiting the article to racism by deed seems more encyclepedic, NPOV, and relevent. After all, racism unacted upon is a minor sin akin to desire for an adulterous relationship unacted upon or desire to murder unacted upon. What are other peoples' feelings on this? --GHcool 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I support that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you judge a country by the actions of a few of its citizens? It seems like the article you really want here is Racism by person. Scientific polling is far more reflective of a given country's attitudes. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The point here is not to "judge a country" (that would be the antithesis of the NPOV policy). The point is to report on the racism within the listed countries. In my opinion, the most neutral and scientific way to report on the racism prevalent within a country is to document actual behavior (indisputable) rather than inferential analysis (debatable ... often with an agenda). --GHcool 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That won't work. All editors need to do here is to construct sections which discuss Racism in a given country - using a variety of reliable sources that refer to racism in a given country - discussing attitudes, incidents etc. If a student produced a piece of work on a sociological issue such as this, without any reference to such material, also announcing that polls are to be broadly rejected because they have such great potential for unreliability - they would fail. Opinion polls and attitude surveys conducted by magazines, associations, and institutions are a key source of information. There can be no restriction on credited polls with accompanying analysis, as there should be no restriction on a study of racist attitudes in an article called Racism by country. These would be curious binds that have no precedent, and would not help this article.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair and intelligent response, although I still disagree for the reasons stated above. Does anybody else agree with Zleitzen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Whether various editors agree with your unusual proposal or not, rejecting the citing of polls is quite simply unworkable, not just now - but in the future, when editors who are not privy to this discussion wish to edit the results of polls onto this page. There should be no barrier preventing editors writing paragraphs based on this - First French racism poll released or this - Poll shows big shift against racism. That would be detrimental to the improvement of this article. -- Zleitzen (Talk) 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just from personal experience, having moved from central Texas to Boston without changing my license plates, right around the time of James Byrd, Jr.'s death, trying to nickle and dime a given political region's degree of racism by "incident" doesn't make any sense. I don't think that murder in East Texas reflects at all on the opinions of the land of LBJ, despite all the dirty looks I got driving through African-American neighborhoods in the weeks after that attack. Your suggestion is just too complicated; what do those three hicks say about Texas as a whole, let alone the whole U.S. of A.? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to isolated incedents that were condemned by the majority of citizens. I am referring to overall supported racism such as the Jim Crow laws of the pre-civil rights era southern United States. --GHcool 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GHcool is entirely correct. We must report only information that is explicitly treated as racism (focusing on government policies). It is not our call to make about what does and doesn't constitute it, else it will be quite simple to forget about NOR, RS, & V. Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "explicitly treated as" do you mean "explicitly called"? If so, then I agree completely. WilyD 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no serious dispute here. Editors should use reliable sources and are perfectly free to create material based on studies of racism from those sources - which can include citing polls referring to racist attitudes in a given country. Comments above attempting to assert that we must only report government policy - or incidents that are "explicitly treated as racism" (whatever that means), or "racist by deed" (whatever that means) are not to be taken seriously. Studies of racism can refer to all manner of attitudes, polls, statements etc and can be used, provided that they refer directly to "racism". I have provided examples of what can be used above, and no arguments here can possibly prevent these being used by editors as per policy, as they inform the article - are relevant and encyclopedic. I urge editors to please move on from this non-issue and address the large swathes of unsourced material that remain in this article.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Polls are notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, while so-called scientific institutes who carry them out almost never show the method used to calculate them (in flagrant contradiction with the scientific method), which is already an important problem, they tend to lose again precision when cited on Wikipedia. They should thus be used with a lot of caution, if at all, and probably not for Racism issues. Using the example of the First French racism poll released (false title by the way), if used (why not?), it should include the firm who made it (TNS-Sofre), the organisation that requested it (CRAN), the number of people interrogated, etc. On a whole, it is difficult to categorically exclude polls, but certain rules concerning their use should probably be created. I've seen people on Wikipedia use "statistics" (which are supposed to be more reliable than polls, since they are based on facts) to claim stuff like "88% of Black people are criminals", which is, logically speaking, a complete senseless statement (where? when? what "crime"? why were they arrested? etc. etc.) Tazmaniacs 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism in African countries

When one looks at Racism by country list, one wonders about racism in African countries which are perpetrated by blacks. The list comprises mostly of Western nations, with some Middle Eastern and Asian nations as well. The fact is that blacks along with everyone else is guilty and capable of racism. There are numerous examples such as persecution and discriminatory practices against Asians by black Ugandans, the violence and bigotry black coastal peoples in Madagascar display towards the Merina ethnic group of Indonesian descent, the discriminatory practices by blacks in power during the post-apartheid era to provide blacks with employment at the expense of leaving many in the Coloured population without jobs and the inter-tribal conflict and high rates of attacks against foreigners in the Ivory Coast.(User: Michael 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to find reliable neutral sources and add that information to the article. Check the racism article because there are sections on different countries. Uganda is one of them. In fact, maybe all the sections on specific countries in that article should be moved/merged here. Spylab 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see that someone added other countries, but almost all of the claims in those new sections lack references. Spylab 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Which claims do you feel specifically lack references? There are references for both Ivory Coast and Madagascar. [User:Michael] 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Many sections throughout the entire article lack references, not just the African sections. They all need references, or else the information cannot be considered reliable. Spylab 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I can see, the following countries are "reasonably well sourced":

1. Canada
2. Hong Kong
3. India
4. Indonesia
5. Possibly Iran
6. Iraq
7. Israel
8. Cote D'Ivore
9. Madagascar
10. Russia et al
11. Sweden
12. United Kingdom
13. Scotland
14. Possibly Zimbabwe

The rest are not. Sorucing would be nice, although a lot of the other articles are still verifiable (or consist only of a "see X", which isn't good, but not really a sourcing problem (maybe a POV problem). WilyD 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fallacious claims of WP:COI

For those editors that are attempting to bypass 3RR on the basis of spurious claims of WP:COI against some editors, please read the guideline at WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes that says clearly:

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Any editor attempting to disrupt the editing process with spurious claims of COI, will be considered disruptive themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uhm --- Have any claims of a COI been made? Or is this posted at the wrong article? WilyD 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is the wrong article, or maybe someting is going to happen so a defense is being pre-prepared. basically like the insanity plea. It isnt so much what was posted but WHO posted it.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The same editor pasted an identical comment here WilyD 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, well we dont have to say anymore ;-] ;-] i think it is clear what this is about ;-] and these are admins. see my above experience.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course false claims of COI have been made WilyD, and on this very page, by Abu Ali and by Halaqah. See #hidding_racism_is_racism above, for example. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that, probably because that's a fairly old accusation - I would have expect this was in regards to some ongoing dispute. WilyD 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

jayjig maybe you should assume good faith and do not start conspiracy theory accusations against editors, clearly WillyD is having difficulty seeing your point. we r humans not machines and conflict of interest is a reality, like blatent asking a palestinian to edit an artcile about israel and be fair.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI from start to finish, understand exactly what it means on Wikipedia, and then be very careful about accusing anyone of it ever again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism ref coming give me some time

hi guys can u give me some time to get the refs?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. Find references first, then insert material based on those references. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

listen mr jig apply your rule equally across the board. citations are for stuff pending sources. practise consistency is is more peacful. i will return and add ref when i source them. hence the {{Fact}} tags, if not why have tags.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags are for information that has been in articles for a while without citation. Don't insert unsourced stuff to start with. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran

This makes no sense. That is a POV interpretation, saying that just because that one person wrote a book that counts as racism against Jews by all the people. If all it takes is one person or a group of people, then every nation in the world should be on this list. Where does that source mention racism? Come on, there are some racists in every nation in the world, so why is the list so short?Azerbaijani 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR for clarification on how this kind of thing is decided. WilyD 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That section was not even about Iran, it was about one person, yet this article is supposed to be racism by country. If the section can show that there is significant racism within the country as a whole (not just one person) then that would make more sense. Again, if the only requirement for adding a nation to this list is to find one person that is or makes racist comments, then why hav you not added every single nation in the world to this list?Azerbaijani 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As the intro says, there *is* racism in every country in the world (maybe not Sealand). The list is incomplete - as is almost every article in Wikipedia - she ain't a finished product. WilyD 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You still have failed to say how quoting Khomeini implies racism within Iran as a nation.Azerbaijani 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Khomeini was arguably the most important figure in modern Iranian history. His philosophy is extremely popular in the Middle East. Quoting Khomeini is not akin to quoting one specific racist because his philosophy, including his racist views, echo throughout the region. Your argument that quoting Khomeini is just quoting one man is the same as saying that we should not quote Hitler in the paragraph on racism in Germany. This section MUST be included in the article. --GHcool 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran II

Okay, I've put together a few references and tried to put together a little something for Iran so KhoiKhoi will unlock the page. He says he won't unless we have some consensus, so here:WilyD 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to article 19 of the Iranian constitution:

the people of Iran belonging to whatever ethnic or tribal group shall enjoy equal rights and colour of skin, race, language and the like shall not be considered as a privilege

Iran is a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The 1993 review of Iran's compliance with the treaty by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that although the government of Iran condemned racial discrimination in public statements, insufficient information was provided by Iran to properly assess how the convention was being implimented in Iran, and whether Iran was fufilling its obligations under the treaty. The Iranian representative respond to the committee saying that there has not been a census of racial demographics in Iran, that the government of Iran does not collect or use racial information in hiring government employees or university admissions and that Iran is not a multiracial society.

Other agencies have alledged that ethnic minorites such as Azeris, Kurds and ethnic Arabs face persecution. Reported issues include Arab land being purchased at low prices or confiscated and the violent repression of Kurds. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad blamed unspecified "enemies" for increasing ethnic tensions in Iran, while interior minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi claimed the United States plans to increase ethnic violence in Iran.

Editors' opinions

"Oppose" Original research or synthetic research by evaluating and integrating existing sources (some questionable) into new concepts. Kurds and Azeris are not a race, they're Iranian ethnicities. --Mardavich 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• To quote the very first sentence of the Racism article: Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various "human races" or ethnic groups. - The paragraph I've suggested does not address the issue of whether Kurds and Azeris are races or ethnicities ... and if they're either the term to describe discrimination against them is Racism. WilyD 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• In fact, they're both explicitly referred to as ethnic groups, not races. WilyD 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity and race are two distinctly different categories, your last paragraph is synthetic research, some of the sources you've used for it are questionable too, like politically-motivated human rights reports issued by other governments or government-affiliated agencies, and regardless they don't speak of racism per se. Read "No original research" :Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." --Mardavich 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • They are two different categories (I've no impression this is distinct) and the discrimination against either category is racism. This is just what racism means .... there's no original research in identifying explicitly labelled ethnic discrimination as racism - using dictionary definition of words is not original research. WilyD 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, your last paragraph is a new s ynthesis of published material serving to advance a position and hence original research for an article named "racism by country". Whatever your broad definition of racism is, Persians, Kurds, and arguably Azeris, are all Iranic peoples, and share the same racial background , so some political disputes or complaints of discrimination between these related groups has nothing to do with racism. Otherwise, by your logic, complaints of discrimination by Mizrahi Jews in Israel, or Shia Arabs in Saudi Arabia and most Arab countries, can be categorized as racism too. --Mardavich 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, Shia Arabs are religiously different, not (necessarily) ethnically different, so no. But discrimination against the Irish in the UK is racism, for instance. Discrimination against Mizrahi Jews in Israel would (probably) be racism, although it would have to be on ethnic rather than religious grounds. Obviously I realise that ethnicity and race are nebulous concepts, but the application here is so straightward and general that accusations of original research are just bizarre. WilyD 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it's not bizarre, it's a fact. Racism is a serious charge to be making against a person, let alone an entire nation, based on a new synthesis of questionable published material. If you want to include the last paragraph, then we should rename this article to "allegations of ethnic discrimination by country" or something more NPOV like that. --Mardavich 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
            • The paragraph already contains two qualifiers alledged and Reported that serve to indicate that it isn't proven. Titles NPOVing is contradicted by the naming scheme. WilyD 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I can bring you news articles which attest to the funding of separatists and terrorists against Iran by the US, UK, and Israel. Also, this paragraph again fails to show that Iran is racist. If anything, this is merely oppression by a autocratic government, not racism. This paragraph also does not tell the full story.Azerbaijani 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have relevent sources and want to use them to expand the section, by all means ... As for the second point, I have no opinion, I'm just repeating the conclusions of reliable sources ... WilyD 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Iran and Racism?!...never No one can differentiate between so-called "ethnic" groups in Iran before using the language factor! I mean physical appearance and almost all of the cultural items of the Iranian "ethnices" are the same as Persians in Iran then that's impossible to have racism! There is no dominant "race" in Iran and almost all are identical in morphology...Language is not a racial factor , but Persian language is not "imposed" to anyone in Iran same as English in USA which is "lingua franca" between all of the iranians ...
  • C'mon, let's be realistic. A list of Countries without racism might include Sealand or the Pitcairn Islands. More realistically, it doesn't even matter if what's there is true. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If what's written is not original research, but verifiable information from reliable sources, then its reasonable for inclusion. In fact, editors are specifically discouraged from trying to figure out whether things are true. WilyD 12:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I didn't see any thing related to racism in what you complied (probably OR). --Pejman47 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is in response to the RfC. Reliable sources indicate discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin. The fact that Kurds et al are not distinct races is beside the point.--Mantanmoreland 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are those who Oppose here suggesting that all material on the page not specifically dealing with "races" be deleted? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Kurds, for example, have been historically shat upon in the region for ages, by Turks or Iranians or Iraqis alike. But is the motivation for this political or ethnic? I would propose that it is the former, that the enmity and conflict stems from Kurdish nationalism and their desire for their own state, rather than from their ethnicity itself. Thoughts? Tarc 12:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it matters - Indians are/were persecuted across North America primarily for political (or economic) reasons, rather than ethnic reasons. But I doubt anyone would object to calling their treatment racist, regardless of the motivation. WilyD 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Turkey is correctly included in this article for its well-documented ethnic hatred against Armenians and Kurds, among others. Why is persecution of Kurds in Turkey considered racism but not in Iran? Let's be consistent, please.--Mantanmoreland 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Iran in this list because:

1. Both Wikipedia and Wiktionary include ethnic differences in "racism." As long as that is the basis of this article, it should not be disputed here. Dispute it there.
2. Is it possible to bar any nation from this list?
3. I have seen nothing to convince me of new synthesis. The allegation is made but I don't see it. Perhaps we can only include things that speak poorly of Iran if it is plagiarized.
4. It seems evident that the editors in favor of inclusion are nonchalant (cool-headed), while the editors opposing are excited and bordering hostile. In such cases, I tend to fall on the side of the more level-headed because I perceive that they have smaller personal POVs.

Again, for the above-stated reasons, if the article is to exist (I think Wikipedia may be better without it) I support the inclusion of Iran in this article.—Red Baron 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. While I'm not editing this page, I'm here per the RFC. The task of separating racism from "related forms of intolerance" is an intractable one, given that races are socially constructed in the first place. Further the Convention (ICERD) says the following:

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Rather than fill this page with needless debate, it seems better to stick to the broader vision (also as per the Red Baron above). Perhaps a statement to that effect could be integrated into the lead.--Carwil 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 2nd paragraph on Iran has obvious stereotype problems. stated references only speak of occurences. They do not give any indication of how widespread such "practices" are, and how much discrimination is needed to point a "racist" finger at Iran as a whole. Furthermore, counter references can be provided to show how well integrated these ethnicities are in Iran. The sheer number of ethnic minorities among Iran's ruling govt and military officials is an obvious such counter indication. If citing some reports of discrimination counts enough to refer to Iran as "racist", then we should be consistent and do the same for the US. After all, segragationists like Strom Thurmond resided in the US Senate for ages, and people like Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein still do (which supported a "racist" [20] bill calling all Iranian students as "potential terrorists"[21]). Let us be consistent and list the US Congress in this list of racism as well. There is no shortage of reports in that matter.[22][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329788/posts][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]--Zereshk 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The section on America is not under consideration, but you may wish to consider editing Racism in the United States or any of its daughter articles ... WilyD 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zereshk. --Rayis 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Red Baron--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Zereshk.Gol 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Ethnic groups of Iranians have been Iranian for centuries and millennia: the new concept of nation-states in modern-western ideas does not correlate well with the ancient concept of Iranian identity. The terms "ethnic ", "minority" and "race" itself are not understood in the conventional Iranian culture than as it is understood in the west. --Alborz Fallah 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Amnesty International: "Despite constitutional guarantees of equality, individuals belonging to minorities in Iran, who are believed to number about half of the population of about 70 millions, are subject to an array of discriminatory laws and practices. These include land and property confiscations, denial of state and para-statal employment under the gozinesh criteria and restrictions on social, cultural, linguistic and religious freedoms which often result in other human rights violations such as the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, grossly unfair trials of political prisoners before Revolutionary Courts, corporal punishment and use of the death penalty, as well as restrictions on movement and denial of other civil rights."[31] This proves the need for a section on racism in Iran. No-one is surely suggesting that Iran is unique in this world in having no problems with racism?!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

when a country have not collected any census about its ethnic diversity in arount 100 years, and there is no sign of any question about the ethnicity or background of the applicant in application forms, how can there be a discrimination in employment? of course, iran is a shia state and in the application forms there is a section about "religion" and there is a strong discrimination about some religious minority, (e.g. Bahais). But it is far from "racism"--Pejman47 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you don't need to do either of those to discriminate in employment. Names, job interviews, and so on can give away ethnicity without a direct question - and the biggest reason countries collect data on racial and ethnic groups is because they're committed to eliminating racism. Of course, it's straightforwadly apparent that the list of countries with racism already exists, but a brief overview is nice, to lead into main articles where appropriate or whatever. I'd like (eventually) to have an entry for every country on the list, but that's clearly impossible to do while the list is locked. If the Iranian editors are so opposed to this proposal, rather than just offer flat nos, why not propose an alternate entry? WilyD 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. No, this "proves" the need for a Human rights in Iran. Discriminations against minorities are not necessarily racism (i.e. the "Kurdish question" in Turkey is certainly not reductible to a "racism" issue, but rather to a fear of separatism, which is quite different). Tazmaniacs 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary would diagree with you, and say that discrimination against minorities is necessarily racism, in the same way that continuously Hydrogen burning discreate lumps of gas located in space are necssarily stars. WilyD 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

as I remember Ali Khamenei and half of the army and about all of the security services are Azeri, and former minister of Defense and current head of juridicy systems are Arabs but you can not find a high ranking official who is not Shia. And this is not related to any kind of racism. --Pejman47 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what that means is really for the reader to work out from whatever sources we can gather - if you have any kind of relevant sources, we can figure out how to incorporate them. I was/am just trying to give a very general overview. Whether those observations mean much is unclear. We certainly have a long history in my country of treating our largest minority pretty shabbily, but our third, fourth and fifth longest serving prime ministers all come from that background, for instance. Given that the section reads The government of Iran says there's no racism in Iran - but others say there is. No particularly good study has ever looked at the issue I'm not sure how this can be particularly contraversial. The only surprising thing is that Iran would believe anybody is naive enough to think there's a real country without any racism. Fake country, maybe. But real country? I'm fairly sure there's only one conceivable candidate. WilyD 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I correctly understood, you consider the actions of Canada 's government, towards its French minorities as "racist"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pejman47 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not specifically aware of any such things, at least not de jure. Certainly there have been historical culture problems and conflicts, economic discrimination (historically the economic control of Quebec rested in Anglos in Montreal), widespread prejudice (i.e. Speak white) and so on. Is it unclear to you that this article is racism organised by country rather than racism committed by the country itself? Does the intro need to be more explicit? WilyD 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

all the people around the world make joke for each others (e.g. English for Scottish), and by being a minority, you will not have some rights automatically regardless of your place. You didn't answer my question do you consider actions towards french people of Canada as racist? (I really don't like playing with the definition of this word, Its definition is clear to me). --Pejman47 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's clear to me that the Quebecois (and even more so other French Canadians) have experienced racist treatment, at least at the hands of Anglo-Canadian culture, if not the federal government - they certainly did from the government under British North America, i.e. the explusion of the Acadians and so on. Speak white is not a joke, it's a serious insult and would definitely constitute fighting words. Anyways, as far as I know, since Canadian Confederation in 1867, there hasn't been any de jure racist treatment of the Quebecois, though there's certainly been some from other sources business, culture, whatever, and it's not an amount I can quantify. I'm not sure exactly what it is you're looking for - I'm not particularly a scholar of history. WilyD 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism this probably has a good overview of the kind of stuff Qubecois were facing in the 1960s. Of course, today most talk about racism in Quebec is about racism by Quebecois so it's harder to dig up current stuff. WilyD 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The claim that "Kurds and Azeris are not a race, they're Iranian ethnicities" and so the question of racism is original resarch, is clearly at odds with the UN report, which equates ethnic discrimination with racial discrimination – "Members of the Committee stressed that ethnic monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran would be a way of assessing whether the State party's professed policy of ensuring racial respect was being implemented in practice." The government representative's claim that "Iranian society was not multiracial" fails to meet the wishes of "the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination" "to be informed about the treatment and the situation of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities" to assess compliance with the Convention. The Committee obviously considers ethnic discrimination to be the same thing as racial discrimination... dave souza, talk 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of two points: one user claiming Iran is a racist state, another user claiming there is no racism in Iran. Both views seems to be biased. Another problem lifted is the point about ethnic discriminations & racism: are all ethnic discriminations racism? (IMO, yes). Another important point is the problem of identifying ethnicities (Kurds, Azeris) with races, and claiming that the difference between an ethnic group & and a race prevents any accusation of "Racism in Iran". Although this argument has some sound, claiming that because "races" do not exist racism doesn't exist is clearly a fallacy. So, the last argument I am aware of is that: "there is no racism in Iran because the ethnic discrimination there is not motivated by racist views, but others political, economical, or/and cultural views". Another fallacy, IMO, as racism is clearly a political, economical & cultural operation, and that racism is always targeted against an ethnic group (what else can it be targeted against?). Anyhow, surely any Racism in Iran should be considered as a subset of Human rights in Iran. Tazmaniacs 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that Iran is a racist state. Certainly the proposed section doesn't say that. It only says Racism may be present in Iran which is a very weak claim - it seems obvious to me that every state has racism in it, except maybe this one or this one. WilyD 11:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Please give some thoughts and feelings on this so we can establish a consensus and get back to work on this miserable article. WilyD 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)