Talk:Ethnic profiling in Israel

POV

Assertions such as the notion that Republicans in the U.S. - as opposed to airport and border security experts - admire this policy especially need to be given attention. If kept at AfD, the article will need to be edited for balance and, especially, to cover the world wide admiration for Israeli security screening techniques among security professionals worldwide. Probably should change title Effectiveness of Israeli security screening, a title better supported by academic sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertisement for any state's virtues (or vices). Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Nishidani. I created this article to document an important phenomenon in Israel, not to give my own opinion on it. 'Racial profiling in Israel' focuses on one of the controversial (and notable!) security practices of the Israeli Security Forces. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If kept, this should probably be renamed to Security screening in Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's an obvious POV pushing move.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that is the parent subject here and a NPOV title. I will also note that Israeli security profiling is much more complex than just Racial - you have age, fitness, nature of travel group (e.g a youg man alone vs. young man with his wife and kids), previous travel, citizenship, naivety (those who appear clueless are a risk for being used as bomb mules without their knowledge), and a few dozen other factors). It is much more complex than just Arab vs non-Arab.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

'Security screening in Israel' is a clever retitle that would instantly block out a large number of sources dealing with Israeli 'profiling' that has zero to do with 'security'. I.e. (something I have yet to add) the profiling of people in Gaza or the West Bank who need medical care in Israel, or winning Fulbright scholarships abroad, or proposed marriages between an Israeli and a Palestinian in the territories, all are subject to intense 'profiling' of their whole kinship network, in order to get a 'fix' on the person applying for something. Jewish Israelis don't have to undergo that. And it has little to do with security, much to do with 'getting the goods' on an occupied people so that they can be blackmailed, for example (the evidence often is that many people affected pose no threat, but they are screwed up, either by having to 'provide the services with information on neighbours or kin, or because a loose genealogical connection smears them by genetic association. It's all documented: the book I introduced today (Cambridge 2018 has pp.218) a long chapter on profiling, the law and kinship, for example, and marriages are blocked not for security reasons, but for demographic or racial reasons. Definitely a no flyer.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

yup, this proposal is just an obvious attempt at POV pushing and also a sneaky attempt at redefining the scope of this article which would then be used to exclude relevant well sourced information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems strange to me, and cogent with a theory of POV-pushing, that no mention of criminal profiling is made. Certainly the authorities responsible for the security of their fellow men would be interested in using methods empirically seen to work. Criminal profiling, for example, is legitimate in Germany, and a majority of police officers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada consider profiling to be useful, so why shouldn't the Israeli cops do the same? XavierItzm (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that you think it compelling evidence for a 'theory of POV-pushing' that no one has introduced a topic you thought of now. You are saying an absence of a mention of something is proof of the presence of bias regarding that something. What Israeli police are doing is not consonant with European law, to state once instance.

You don't appear to have read the article you cite, which refers to a case of criminal profiling by police that was taken to the Stuttgart court, and got a verdict of acting in contravention of European law.

Es wird festgestellt, dass die von Beamten der Beklagten am 19.11.2013 im ICE 377 zwischen Baden-Baden und Offenburg durchgeführte Identitätsfeststellung und der anschließend erfolgte Datenabgleich rechtswidrig gewesen sind.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, In Deutschland ist Racial Profiling juristisch nicht explizit geregelt. Linky. There seems to be a bit of a contretemps between EU law and German law which somehow the Germans haven't gotten the chance to fix since at least six years ago. Sort of as if there was a law to leave your front door unlocked every night. You might "forget" to comply for a few years.
Now, whether the predictive profiling the Israelis engage on would pass muster with the Stuttgart Administrative Court, well, that's just hard to say. I doubt the proposition will ever be tested. XavierItzm (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Avi Kober definition on the leading paragraph is questionable

So, one source is quoted and Wiki says on its own voice:

Racial profiling is commonly defined as the use of race, ethnicity, religion or nationality as grounds for suspecting someone of incurring an offense

But if you go to the actual "racial profiling" Wikipedia entry, it reads:

Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior, rather than on individual suspicion

I think we ought to use the broader "racial profiling" definition, or explain that some, such as Avi Kober, extend the concept beyond the standard definition. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No. That makes a simple edit messy. It is not an exceptional or rare definition, and Kober knows the topic better than wiki editors or Merriam's dictionary. Further one should never cite a Wikipedia entry on one page as an authority for another page in composition, as you do. I didn't think Kober's definition warranted buttressing, but that is easily done. The definition of the American Civil Liberties Union in (2005) runs:

'The discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.' (Michael L. Birzer, Racial Profiling: They Stopped Me Because I'm ------------!, CRC Press, 2016 p.14)

the ECRI's 2004 'General Policy Recommendation No.8 . .urges states to implement legislation adopted in connection with counter-terrorism at national or local level in a manner that "( )does not discriminate against persons or groups of persons notably on grounds of actual or supposed “race”, colour, language, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin.'“ (Mareile Kaufmann,Ethnic Profiling and Counter-terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions, 2010 p.94, where profiling in counter-terrorism is discussed)

By ignoring this widely used definition and redlinking Avi Kober you have simply thrown doubt on the credibility of the obvious. One could add gender to the list, as does the Kansas definition cited by Birzer on that page. 'Ethnic profiling' is the preferred usage, I might add, in Europe, for 'racial profiling', also because it is better understood there that there is no such thing as 'race'. You will have to be reverted, preferably with the addition of the above material, to avoid editors in future fussing over this.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added the U.S. organisation "ACLU" as requested. Please note I did not originally red-line Avi Kober at all. If you go to "Avi Kober" you will find that someone else red-lined him first.XavierItzm (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not the solution. You failed to recognize that Kober's definition reflected a widespread technical definition, which was not reflected in the Wikipedia racial profiling article you cited to question Kober. Something that is widely documented does not need attribution beyond the citation of the source I think, like many, that before editing, I check several, sometimes a dozen, book or scholarly article sources to evaluate the material and then cite one. That takes sometimes an hour. To see this result challenged by editing that does not appear to check around widely is disappointing. Editing is a science, and if you apply a thorough methodology like this, there would be far less controversy or unfortunate contretemps.Sorry for thinking you did the redlinking, but it is a bad practice. I usually write a stub, to avoid redlinking in such cases (redlinking has two functions on Wikipedia: to cast suspicion on the notability of the person cited, the POV angle, or to send a message to the original editor: 'do more work. I myself can't be bothered'), but most academics we cite don't yet warrant notability, even if they have an eminently strong curriculum Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

With regard to something "that is widely documented", as you say, we'll have to come up with better citations than the U.S.-only "ACLU." Clearly an article on an Israeli issue should not be based on a provincial point of view. Perhaps some European or Israeli source to back up Kober? Not that I am profiling any Yank NGO's, of course, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, not reading and responding precisely to what one's interlocutor writes is how the article crumbles. I give up. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Need more history

The article should not be restricted to recent times, but should also include a section on the history of this phenomenon. For example the military government of 1948–1966 was a paradigm of racial profiling. An example of a source would be Shira Robinson's "Citizen Strangers", p43: "The permit system was not merely bureaucratic. Rather, it created a culture of racial profiling and served to criminalize the Palestinian public at large. Officers from the military police and the Border Guard regularly patrolled the “closed zones” and erected both “fixed” and “flying” checkpoints where they stopped pedestrians and bus passengers and demanded to see the permits of “any Arabs.” In cities under civilian rule, the police routinely stopped anyone who wore a white headcloth or appeared to have a darker complexion (often stopping Yemeni Jews by mistake). In at least some Jewish towns, officers had to meet monthly quotas for the number of Palestinians they arrested on permit infractions, and they were rewarded for exceeding them." As hinted in that quotation, Arabs were not (and still are not) the only ones subject to racial profiling and that should be covered also. Zero^talk 06:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is quite a lot of literature on this, dug out with the usual scrupulous acumen by recent Israeli scholarship. I didn't know of Robinson's book, but, if no one else does, will duly enter that. Thanks indeed. I've been thinking that Arthur Ruppin's contributions might also prove useful.Nishidani (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Absurdity of "racial" in this context

Israel is populated by Arabs and Jews, most of whom are of broadly Middle Eastern origin, so that you usually cannot tell an Arab from a Jew by skin tone, facial features, height, hair type or any other visible physical characteristic. The profiling is done on grounds of ethnicity, citizenship status, and other aspects of personal status and background. This is NOT AT ALL like a French or German security office visually screening for people who look black, or look Mediterranean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The present title imposed on the article is a rather American contraction - which in the American sense (mainly in relation to African Americans) makes sense, but in the Israeli sense does not quite do justice to the topic (which has indeed been covered also through American eyes - but coverage is not limited to American terms). Security profiling in Israel is on much wider grounds than just ethnicity - for instance - one of the brackets which are classified at airport security is that of a "naive, love-struck girlfriend" (either as a bona-fida accomplice, or as an unwitting mule) - the classification of this profile bracket (which also includes Westerners) is entirely not racial. As for recognition of Jew vs. Arab (when this isn't in travel documents - e.g. a random checkpoint in the street), this is typically done via a number of Shibbolethes that members of both groups are able to apply (though they can fail vs. members of one group that have integrated - e.g. into hip Tel-Aviv).Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

These are both 'nice' opinions, but we go by sources, and they are unambiguous in this regard. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary - profiling - non-racial - has been covered by RS - [1][2][3][4][5]. It really is more complex than just Arab / Jewish (which is also a component). Reflecting American terms to different circumstances is not always so straightforward.Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I went through all 5 sources, and two of them mention Israel's ethnic profiling, while two are just news reports, that don't use the r word, and the second book mentions racial profiling and Israeol's BASS procedures without connecting them, which is evidence for nothing. Thanks anyway. Two of those sources have proved useful for further building up the age content.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

These sources refer to security profiling using different terms in the Israeli context (and particularly the airport context) - for instance calling this behavioral profiling.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The ones I used from your list mention racial profiling. Other synonyms, some euphemistic, recur, but that is immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A the very least it should be made clear to the reader that the American paradigm does not apply -- there may be sources that use the term but the reader needs to understand that if it is "racial" it certainly isn't the US/UK/etc understanding of race which is based on physical features so people don't come to the funny conclusion that Ahed Tamimi is oppressed for her jet black (in reality blond) hair and brown (in reality quite pale) skin. Israel does have people that look different from another but this is more intra-Jewish and actually also intra-Arab (if you haven't noticed some Israeli Arabs are blond and can pass as Swedes and others are very dark and could pass as Yemenis) than differentiating Jews and Arabs. You don't tell Arabs apart from Jews based on their skin color or their faces, it's other things like mannerisms, culture, speech et cetera. And furthermore for the sake of NPOV, at the very least, if there are sources that dispute this narrative (I would be shocked if there weren't), such a dispute must be handled in a balanced manner that allows both sides a presence on the page. ---- Calthinus (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that this article as a as a WP:POVFORK copypasted from Airport security#Israel with the addition of a POV title. NPOV would be improved by moving to a more neutral and accurate title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Security screening in Israel in which profiling (of all kinds) could be discussed.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The article, even the misleadingly named subhead Racial profiling in Israel#Racial profiling in other contexts is entirely and exclusively about Security screening in Israel, a far more accurate title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Re E.M.Gregory: if, as Icewhiz suggested, profiling of all kinds is discussed, I would support Security screening in Israel. If this is instead to be a page about the "racial profiling" controversies involved (hopefully with balance given to both sides), perhaps Controversies regarding security screening in Israel would be best if that ends up being actually the topic. If people are energetic enough perhaps two pages can be created. ---- Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The two editors here wished to delete the page. A good deal of work was done on it citing numerous quality sources concerning 'racial profiling in Israel'. They are still thinking of it as they say it was before re-editing, as a POV fork of airport screening in Israel. It is no longer subject to that suspicion, and deals with a much broader topic. There is still to be included a substantial literature on Israel's racial profiling, and much of it says that it has nothing to do with security screening. The complaining editors would do well to write an article on the Security screening in Israel they desire, rather than retitle this topic, whose connections with 'security' are thin, unless we define security as securing a Jewish majority in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please AGF. I was discussing the article as it now is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No you are not. You are discussing the article as it was. The article has been expanded 60% since these objections were made, and the content deals with sources that use the termn 'racial profiling' which has a very long history, based on old racial theories, in Israel, a topic worth writing up, since scholarship is now covering it.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can all see, and I had seen that you (or someone,) overstuffed this article on profiling with a lot of historical material about racism. What you HAVE NOT SHOWN is that the profiling is based on race.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have to. The sources state that, if you care to read them and the article which, as a humble transcriber, I paraphrase.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the page shows that "Security screening" does not describe it. Zero^talk 13:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Nish: Lemme be totally clear here. Do I think racial profiling in Israel is likely a notable topic that deserves it's own page? Yes. Do I think this is that page? No. Do I value academic blood sweat and tears? Yes. But-- I've seen it so many times it's all predictable now -- BDSnik will say "look at all these RS" to which Likudnik does oppo research and successfully finds that the majority if not the totality of all the writers have signed pledges to observe BDS in their private lives, are members of some academic Marxist-Leninist or "anti-colonialist" club, et cetera (there is nothing wrong with these things in isolation, everyone has freedom of thought, but when you are publishing papers on relevant topics it raises... questions), at which point BDSnik probably cries BLP. What should Wikipedia do? We have to take a neutral stance on each issue, and naming a topic in a certain way implies a certain view (hence we do not have-- or at least I hope we don't --- have "White and Asian superiority in intelligence" despite the fact taht there are authors with degrees published by respected companies advocating such a putrid view -- it seems we do have "Race and intelligence" as what Racial differences in intelligence redirects to but the lede makes it very clear it is a controversial view). I have nothing wrong with a page that discusses accusations of racial profiling under a different title -- indeed, they should be discussed, but we must observe NPOV -- which includes not uncritically regurgitating what seleced sources say -- or else our whole encyclopedic project is tarnished.---- Calthinus (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I simply do not think that Wikipedia should shy away from realities that are widely known and discussed at the highest levels of Israeli and 'Jewish' scholarship. My experience on the I/P area of wiki is that most objecting editors, are simply unaware of this 'conversation/research', and they keep citing newspapers, which rarely cover these controversial topics, as if Wikipedia were a politicized synthesis of tabloid factoids, and not a paraphrase of cutting edge knowledge in the human sciences. Your objection is far too vague. Racial concerns were and, to some considerable extent still, deeply rooted in the growth of a 'Zionist ideology' (sources use that), and these influenced decisively Israeli policies in any number of areas like Yemeni immigration, Mizrachi aliyah, settlement strategies, ethnic cleansing, laws blocking marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. You don't have to take my word for it. Take a look at the following of a dozen or so studies I've had on file for some time (I'm not a BDS activist) I don't hurry to write up 'dirt' if I read something 'negative'. If the topic is sensitive, I take months, and often years, before venturing to write up what I've learnt, as here. I've long known of this topic, but only stepped in to edit it when I saw the page up for immediate deletion. Examine just this small sample, reflect on it, and then get back to this page, if you could do me this courtesy.

Derek Jonathan Penslar, Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870-1918, Indiana University Press, 1991

Nurit Kirsh, 'Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology,' Isis, Vol. 94, No. 4 (December 2003), pp. 631-655

Tom Segev, The Makings of History / Revisiting Arthur Ruppin,' Haaretz 10 August 2009

Amos Morris-Reich, 'Arthur Ruppin's Concept of Race,' Israel Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 1-30

It's easy to form an opinion. We all have them. On Wikipedia, the only opinions that hold weight in article creation are those that reflect what the best available sources state. As to implications, analogies, fears, concerns about images, well, I couldn't give a fuck, privately, or otherwise. That's politics, which is, by its nature, deceptive. There are no taboos in scholarship (actually there are, but that is the principle groundbreaking research constantly infringes), and this is what should guide wiki. Not the defense of a national interest that can only see in knowledge the 'political' angle.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani in case you were wondering I don't hold a negative view of you. Yes Zionism has had some racial aspects (many nationalisms did during that period, it was quite in vogue, including also Arab nationalism). You do your research with much good work. I am also aware of the scholarship on this issue, I took classes back in the day, though obviously I have not spent as much time on it as yourself. I simply have a different opinion on how wiki should proceed (and, about holding academics accountable). I'll be transparent, I have my own biases. There was once a time when I might have agreed with almost everything you're likely to say about Israel as a country (some of it I may still agree with). Then I got disillusioned with a lot of what was going on on "that side" as well. Intellectuals in Western countries who make sweeping statements (albeit with internal logic) about a society of 8 million people have many of the same problems that those studying other subjects like Economics, Sociology or Cognitive Science have (preference for "elegant" theories, favoring overarching theories with high explanatory power but little falsifiability, etc...), but when they are criticized they are often very quick to assume the critic is doing so out of "national interest", which shuts down important conversations about ethics and accountability. Sometimes I am wrong. I have changed my mind many times. "Security screening" may not be perfect. It is simply, in my view, less problematic than the status quo, which I believe represents a specific position that is not a global consensus -- and thus in violation of NPOV. If we had a page mainly about how African migrants were treated and then a separate section for the debate of whether long-standing discrimination against Arabs in the context of "security" and other contexts was racial profiling, then I would support it. This is not that.-- Calthinus (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think you misinterpret what I am doing here. I don't edit Israeli articles, or articles dealing with Israel. I edit articles dealing with Israel's occupation of another people, or its wars with that people, and this almost always relates to Gaza or the West Bank. That is why it struck me odd when you mentioned BDS, something I could never support on principle, for the impeccable reasons given by Finkelstein. I came to edit these articles because in 2006, when I chanced on them as for example the Hebron articled, it seemed as though Palestinians were terrorists, who had no lien to their land. As soon as I worked to get some sense of parity in POVs, I, like anyone else who does so, came under endless and unremitting attacks by editors who edit exclusively on behalf of a national interest, and only negatively with regard to Palestinians. That is how it still is. I see in your remarks some familiarity with a talking heads milieu. Or at least I imagine, as I can imagine say Howard Jacobson's (to me) weird position on these questions as in part understandable because he lives in a cultural world where anti-Zionism and anger over Israel is frequent. I don't live in any such milieu. I live detached from any broad social world, on my own terms, and my impressions come from experience of living decades back in Israel, and reading books and articles. Philosophically, I am opposed to exceptionalism - whether it be American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Israeli, etc. And here, it strikes me that, as is often the case, tip-toeing kicks in, and people continue to make an exception in this case because well, it could be anti-Semitic. It ain't. Israel's nationalism is a classic case of what happens everywhere with new nations, with the difference that the best standard treatments of nationalism have studiously avoided included it in their surveys. Idem here, race has deep currents in Zionist thinking, and it is worth the trouble writing up the extensive literature on that. Here we deal with profiling of Arabs, and I guess I'll eventually sit down and write Zionist theories of race/or/ The 'Jewish race' in Zionist thought, a subject which has increasingly drawn a lot of attention from Israeli scholars.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, though perhaps discussion of views should probably be on user talk pages, not here, for other editors' sakes. To be entirely honest I would be fine possibly with even titles like "Profiling/Discrimination of/against Arabs" or some variant of that referencing the "security" context or whatever so that it matches a title found in an RS. It's the "racial" thing in the title that is unacceptable to me. Although it has been stated that "racial" does not need to refer to physical characteristics, this is going to be the Anglophone understanding of the word as in most Anglophone countries it is understood this way-- specifically, it will unquestionably conjure up the trope of "white" Jews oppressing "brown" Arabs (the incorrect perception held by many in the West), but we all seem to agree it is not about skin color. And the truth is that when it comes to this sort of rhetoric, a different standard really is applied to Israel than other countries. Were we writing about Kurds with relation to similar phenomena in Turkey ("backward" Kurds viewed as criminals and/or PKK sympathizers/members...), would we use the term "racial profiling" as an undisputed label? Well it's not a perfect analogy but I think it's close enough, and correct me if I'm wrong but I really don't think so (granted for obvious reasons this wouldn't be anywhere near as controversial/emotional for Turks as they are not aware of a global campaign to denounce their country as a racist entity and "decolonize" it). I also have yet to read about Chinese "racial profiling" of Uighurs, a phenomenon which is also a lot more similar to what Arabs experience in Israel (although the Chinese variant would be found by a lot of reports to be more extreme given the "totalitarian state established in Xinjiang") than what Blacks experience in the US-- and I likewise expect that if "Racial profiling in China" (or Xinjiang/Tibet) were created, many people would take issue with it from the PRC or its diaspora. -- Calthinus (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Well okay I suppose perhaps I stand corrected on Uighurs : [[6]] -- though this is not on wiki ... and to be fair it actually is not that hard to tell Han from Uighurs by appearance alone-- Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It comes down to this: sourcing. The raising of discussions about the US, China etc., are in my view irrelevant. There's a great, by now classic (1992), work by Frank Dikotter on The Discourse of Race in Modern China, which strangely enough, we do not use much on the relevant articles. pro-China POV defensiveness perhaps. In his new revised edition he cites cogently a point against those who would gloss over the discursive tenacity of Chinese ethnocentrism: 'Racial discourse should be 'spelled out in order to be dispelled'.' (OUP 2015 p.viii) That doesn't mean that editors like myself come to wiki with a mission: rather, a lot of editors (yourself excluded) do have a mission, to tone down, elide, blur or fudge the obvious, amply documented realities regarding one side in a toxically venomous and violent ethnic dispute, while using a good deal of time to shovel shit on the other party simultaneously. If responsible sources focus on 'racial/ethnic profiling', we write the article in terms of that definition. Everything else appears to be a 'meta-worry' about NPOV, which is a value generally held in contempt in the I/P area, and good to see raised. But content can be controversial, or deeply disturbing, and still be described neutrally, so NPOV concerns exclusively the quality of paraphrase. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

nonconsensual name change

E.M. Gregory is attempting to change this page to a page on a different topic, without consensus. I only reverted one change which completely whitewashed the facts, but all the changes need to reviewed. This is unacceptable. Zero^talk 00:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Profiling in Israel is done in the context of security screening - which is the more COMMONNAME and is what this article is about.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The article stated that racial profiling did not arise from airport security, but before that. There is a long history to that predating the late 1960s, and therefore by trying to restrict it to airport security measures the effect is to preempt the larger issue.

Both E.M Gregory and Icewhiz have removed substantial sources (I think the technical term for what happened here gutting plus tag-plastering) on a definition on the grounds the definition doesn't mention Israel. Well no definition in a language will every specify the countries where that definition is valid. This is an English encyclopedia, the words used here are subject to authoritative English definitions. This is the first time on wikipedia that I have seen a definition of a term or concept challenged because within the definition the country to which it is applied (i.e. Israel) is not implied. Does anyone here realize what that unbelievable assumption would work out as if all editors applied it across Wikipedia?Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

EMG moved this to Security profiling in Israel - which is wider than Airport security. Copy-pasting sources from the US, where the racial component (e.g. black/white) is dominant to the Israeli profiling system (which is not based on race, is based on cultural/ethnic background as well as other components) is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please focus.

(a)I did not 'copypaste' sources from the US. That is an abuse of the word 'copypaste'. It is not a synonym for going to a library, examining the literature, transcribing relevant definitions, and then paraphrasing or quoting them for an entry that requires an authoritative source on the meaning of a term.

(b) That 'Israeli profiling system (which is not based on race': A zillion sources will tell you it is. E.g. Anshel Pfeffer asked one of Israel's major experts Lt. Col. Eran Tuval to clarify

why, I asked, are we still allowed to board airplanes at Ben-Gurion International Airport with bottles and tubes of liquid brought from home, while in Heathrow or JFK they confiscate our face cream and toothpaste? "Oh, that's simple," he answered matter of factly. "We use racial profiling, they don't."

(c)The Webster definition must go out because it is not a definition of 'racial/ethic' profiling.

(d)The last source Kober quotes, in the context of Israel, precisely the definition given by the American sources, and therefore both E M Gregory and your own explanations for removing it all are invalid. The Israeli source vindicates the appropriateness of the other definitions.

I've told you several times recently to stop opinionizing about what the putatieve 'reality' of the situation in Israel/Palestine is, and using that as a basis to cut out information you dispute.

The international definition is also required because there is no Hebrew word for 'racial profiling'. Pfeffer writes:'To Israelis, the practice of picking people out based on racial stereotypes is so self-evident, there isn't even a Hebrew term for it.'Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

For these reasons the gutted passage of carefully vetted material must be restored:

An extensive system of racial profiling is used in or by Israel, primarily by Israeli security forces. Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior, rather than on individual suspicion. More broadly, as in the definition given by the American Civil Liberties Union, it refers to law enforcement of targeting individuals who fall under suspicion because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Bio-social profiling has been seen as 'integral to the Israeli security apparatus.'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

No, as that would be WP:SYNTH. Your 4th source is by an Israeli writer, however it uses this definition in regards to practices in the West - not Israel. Find a definition that is used in relation to Israeli security screening practices.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:SYNTH existed on this page. I'll analyse your assumption for you.

'Ethnic profiling in Israel' cannot use definitions of 'ethnic profiling' unless the source definition includes 'in Israel'. I.e. one needs a definition of 'ethnic profiling in Israel', otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. That means automatically we have to revise several thousand pages, beginning with

• Antisemitism in the Soviet Union
• Antisemitism in the United Kingdom
• Antisemitism in 21st-century France etcetc etc

In such cases your argument implies the standard definition of anti-Semitism cannot be used unless a definitional source defines the specific anti-Semitism practiced respectively by the USSR. United Kingdom,. France, all assumed to be different. etc.etc.Nominalism. No editor has ever argued this save, by entailment, yourself. We accept that, for example, anti-Semitism has a definition, which is then relevant to each specific country. Idem 'ethnic profiling' has a definition, which is then applied to each country where it is thought to exist.

In short. I have great difficulty in assuming anyone can assert this principle in good faith. This kind of argument is a good reason for giving up contributing to Wikipedia. It's pointless arguing the obvious. This is the last I have to say. I hope sensible third parties can see through this removalism and restore the material. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear on the page of Ethnic profiling, the concept is mostly discussed in relation to Western societies that share certain historical traits which Israel lacks (the vast majority of concept discussion pertains to the US specifically). This makes it quite different than anti-semitism which is discussed in relation to the vast mass of West Eurasian-origin (and especially Muslim/Christian) societies. --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:. You owe the page, and Wikipedia an answer on this issue of definitions. Reply to the precise analogies above. What is the difference? Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)