Talk:Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy

translation of hebrew word מגמה

Those familiar with the issue sure know that the two factions were dubbed the "מגמה הכללית" and the "מגמה החסידית", yet I didn't find a comfortable translation for the hebrew word מגמה. I saw Ynetnews use the term "tracks", what sounds to me like they used google translator to come up with this one... I used the term "section", but am not comfortable with it. Do you have ny better suggestions? געגאנגען (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Track" is the correct technical term. Sometimes megamah is used in the sense of "specialisation" but not in this case. 95.35.190.61 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. however I'm not looking for technical "formal equivalence", just something that would feel right. געגאנגען (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for the word "trend". The phrase מגמה כללית (megama klalit) means "general trend" or "general direction" (of events). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this would be the general translation (Although someone pointed out here that track is the right technical term, I believe that trend is more true, not a linguist), but I don't think it applies to this case געגאנגען (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Found the Jewish post translating it to 'sector', still not satisfied געגאנגען (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

the word is "stream", surely. 85.250.69.23 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

POV language

In addition to previous neutrality concerns, it seems that now the article is written in a very soapy language and contains many words to watch. I hope that this can be fixed soon. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't here when the previous concerns were mentioned. However I do have an interest in expanding the article to contain the full story, but I'm very new to writing on Wikipedia, so if possible and you don't mind, please point out some examples so I would know what to avoid. Thanks. געגאנגען (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no time to go over the entire article, but here are some examples:

From the beginning there were some Sephardi parents that viewed the new section as opened solely to discriminate against the girls of Sephardi origin. A belief widely shared throughout the Sephardi community in Israel, who feel constantly discriminated against by the dominating Ashkenazi community - even by the secular parts of the country's Ashkenazi leadership.

Really? Doesn't seem entirely correct to me, and is very loaded and not 100% relevant to the article. This should be trimmed and properly sourced (sourcing is the most important).

The parents were especially offended by the cement walls meant to keep the girls, some of them long time friends, from communicating with each other. They also pointed out that the students in the new section were teached[sic] to pray in the Ashkenazi tradition and accent, which encouraged their belief about it being a force of discrimination against them

The words especially and pointed out should be replaced with neutral terms. Moreover, as in the previous segment, the lack of sourcing is really problematic here because the statements are rather unexpected (i.e. WP:REDFLAG).

Also the article is written in poor English—this I can fix myself, assuming the other concerns are addressed. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out, I'll try and fix to the best of my ability, if you don't mind please let me know here if it's better after my edits [BTW, I don't want to contend your notion that it's not entirely correct, just for your information I believe so too, this is after all a matter of conflict, what tends to be very loaded (add to this two weeks of jail and 200,000 protesters, and you've got the best recipe for a national disaster...). But I WOULD cautiously dispute your claim that it's not 100% related to the article - this IS the article, and the whole theme behind the very loaded issue.

Also sorry about my poor English, it's not even my second language[...] געגאנגען (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is some improvement, but the language still needs to be "neutralized". Another thing though: one cannot be expected to read 250 pages to verify information on Wikipedia. If you have a 250-page source, you need to point out the relevant page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, still working on it (doing it first on my computer will post it piece by piece), will do my best - Just to clarify, so far I'm using one reference name for every time that I cite the ruling, should I use a different ref every time and point out the page/article? When is better to use a ref name and when to specify each ref?געגאנגען (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question. If you are asking whether it is necessary to use a different ref for different pages in the same report, then yes. However, you can use the Harvard citations system to make the refs shorter and more readable. If you are asking whether a new ref is necessary for the exact same reference used multiple times, then no—you can use a name to unite all the identical refs. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What if I have better information than the source?

For example, I'm editing right now the reply from the justice ministry, and the quoted site (Ha'aretz), a usually reliable source - as far you can call the media reliable, that quotes the ministry as warning the school that it might loose it's license over the separation issue. However, I have before me the court ruling where it tells the full story, and it quotes the ministry as saying that it might revoke the school's license over the permit issue, and shakes off the discrimination issue that it doesn't belong to here but the education center. I fixed it inside, but I couldn't find a source on the internet to back me up (other than THE source, of course). What should I do in such cases? געגאנגען (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Media bias is certainly a legitimate issue that can and should be mentioned here. As far as the court ruling misrepresented by Haaretz, if it is sourced at the hebrew wiki that's probably sufficient. 109.253.24.229 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment from the above user is incorrect. The Hebrew Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Generally if you have a source that say something you know to be false, you can avoid putting the information in the article in the first place, but only for very small things. In general, you need to stick to reliable sources no matter how much you believe they are wrong. We have a very important policy called no original research, which I encourage you to examine. It deals precisely with your question. By the way, there is no requirement that your source has to be online, but other editors may request a major excerpt from the source if it's offline. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I read the article you pointed out and it was very helpful. Is a Hebrew/Yiddish source good enough for the English Wikipedia? געגאנגען (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a sourced translation is preferred, but you can translate passages yourself if you provide the original and your translation in a footnote. See the Accessibility section in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

change in focus

The page has recently undergone a change in focus. Is this desirable? Ki imanu kel (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain?געגאנגען (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This page was created at 22:16, on 20 June 2010 by user Toussaint. This is a clear indication that what makes the page notable (see WP:N) are the events of last June. There is certainly a lengthy prehistory involving discrimination against sephardim, but the level of detail would be more appropriate in a page dedicated to this topic (which is certainly more important than court discrimination against charedim and the story of a group of brave parents that seem to have done the impossible last june). Ki imanu kel (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the page to include more details of the story, including the events that led up to the June imprisonment. The Sephardi discrimination allegations are a legitimate part of the story - actually they ARE the story - and take up a very small part of my overall description.

Don't think it was fair to cite a "change in focus" just because of a very small part that touched the controversial overall discrimination issue, what you haven't even edited, and what I believe is crucial to understanding the full picture. I changed the intro back to reflect more of the story's background and explanations. I did use some of your insight though. Please discuss here your proposal to change it, if you still have one, before editing it on the page.

I still hadn't finished the editing process, and will certainly include every aspect of the story as much as I will be able to find it sourced (I have a lot of first hand knowledge, but those aren't legitimate on Wikipedia). I'll do my best to stay true to all aspects and sides of the story. געגאנגען (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you attempted to present the background. I have several objections to the background you presented. The notability of this page stems from the June events; the background you presented is secondary to this, and certainly does not belong in the introduction (most of it does not belong even in the article). Furthermore, the events of last June were a confrontation between charedi parents and the court, and not charedi parents and sephardic parents. The changes you made misrepresent this. In addition, what happened last june is that the court caved in to the protests, also misreprented in your account. Ki imanu kel (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got the impression that this page is exclusive to the "jail" part, and even if so, how can you describe the jail part without telling the story first, WHY they were sentenced to jail? I strongly believe that the background is a vital part of the story.

You're definitely wrong to state that this wasn't a confrontation between the Charedi parents and the Sephardic parents, when that was why the court got involved in the first place. You may contest the court's findings, but you can't dispute the narrative of the story.

Same with your assertion that they were freed because the court caved in to the pressure. You're allowed to interpret their acceptance of the agreement however you see fit, but you still can't change the fact that there was an agreement made, and that the court viewed the issue as settled because of it. See: The High Court judges appeared satisfied with the compromise during Sunday's hearing. Judges Edmond Levy and Hanan Meltzer, however, emphasized one point: The parents' representative must acknowledge that the compromise is within the implementation of the court's previous verdict, which revoked the discrimination in the school.

I'm changing it back right now, And I would strongly beg you not to undo the changes before contacting me here, or in private. Thanks in advance. געגאנגען (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have any factual objections to what i wrote, I'd be happy to sort them out right here. געגאנגען (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have not been agreed upon and I strongly object to them. Please re-read the relevant sections of WP:BRD. I firmly request that you revert your changes until a consensus is reached here. Editors who engage in edit warring are not seen favorably at wikipedia. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments above are the best proof that your approach to this page is WP:POV and is unacceptable by the standards of wikipedia. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe we're gonna have to turn to reliable secondary sources to resolve this one, will do it later.געגאנגען (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the first two paragraphs here, and also see the link they provide to the news of the actual ruling. Also see the subsequential links provided therein. I believe this should be enough to prove that you can't tell only half of the story.

If more proof is needed I'll be happy to provide it, but only if there is a reasonable explanation as to why they're needed. Please don't be offended, and don't just use explosive language without explaining what you see in my comments.געגאנגען (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Background is proper in this article like any other article. However the background content must comply with WP:SYNTH, meaning the background must be the same background as described by the sources discussing this incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My point is precisely that the incident in question is not what געגאנגען makes it out to be, but rather the events of last June, as the date of creation of this page testifies. געגאנגען seems to think this page is about how "sephardim are constantly being discriminated against", the way he put it in the article. That subject deserves its own separate page. The subject of this page is the event of last June. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

the history of discrimination against sephardim is clearly a notable topic, but should not be included here unless the sources discussing this incident discuss the history of discrimination. Racism in Israel covers the general topic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can provide proof that the general discrimination topic is mentioned in the overall storyline, but I don't think I'll be able to find a link quoting the general discrimination topic directly in the "jail news". This isn't the way the media operates, especially not the online media, where you're usually only provided links to the previous articles about the story, and of course not at such a controversial topic where naturally you have news stories every second week.

Would it be enough if I provide proof about mentioning the topic in the overall story?געגאנגען (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User געגאנגען , we have already understood that you feel that you can provide proof of discrimination, etc. What a wiki editor has to realize is that being completely convinced is not the criterion of inclusion here, but rather a consensus of editors. You seem to have a lot of energy to devote to arguing down your opponents at wikipedia, but this sort of thing will backfire. Ki imanu kel (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't even comment on the offensive language, only ask to refrain from using it because it won't help either of us reach the much needed conclusion. However, I do believe I presented part of my case here above, but you haven't responded directly to the point.

I will not repeat myself though, because I'd rather start focusing on reaching an agreement between us, with your help. Please see my proposal below.געגאנגען (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of compromise can start after reversing your deletion of a lead that was in place for a number of months before you began to implement your anti-discrimination program at this page. Ki imanu kel (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

this page is about June 2010

User געגאנגען wrote above: "I have no idea where you got the impression that this page is exclusive to the "jail" part, and even if so, how can you describe the jail part without telling the story first, WHY they were sentenced to jail? I strongly believe that the background is a vital part of the story." Now this page is not about the "jail" part, but rather about a confrontation between the charedi parents and the court. I got this impression from all the coverage of the event. Now user געגאנגען is free to believe that hundreds of thousands demonstrated on June 17 to protest against sephardic families, but most people think they demostrated against the court decision to incarcerate charedi parents for exercising their right to educate their children. Ki imanu kel (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I offended you and apologize for that, but I still believe that you're very wrong in describing the event and/or interpreting my intentions.

I never intended to give the impression like the demonstration was against Sephardim, nor did I think, or want anyone else to think, that this page is about the overall discrimination against Sephardim. I simply believe that this page should contain the whole story, it's only common sense to tell why the parents were sent to jail and why the Charedi community was offended, AND of course EVERYONE that wrote about the story included everything. I'm in a hurry right now, but I will come back soon and prove it.געגאנגען (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(not sure why we need to discuss the same topic twice on the same page, but I'll let somebody else sort out THIS one...) Please read the first two paragraphs here, and also see the link they provide to the news of the actual ruling. Also see the subsequential links provided therein. I believe this should be enough to prove that you can't tell only half of the story.

If more proof is needed I'll be happy to provide it, but only if there is a reasonable explanation as to why they're needed. Please don't be offended, and don't just use explosive language without explaining what you see in my comments.געגאנגען (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I feel that I've already covered myself thoroughly by linking to Ynet news, I'd still like to add this quote, in Hebrew, from the popular Haredi website "Bechadrei charedim". This will give us the perspective from the Haredi point of view (I quote the relevant paragraphs, and I'm translating them):

מספר שעות לאחר הדיון, הוציאו שופטי בג"ץ את החלטתם הדרמטית, שעוד תטלטל ככל הנראה את המדינה: לפי ההחלטה, כי הורה לתלמידות בבית הספר בעמנואל, שלא יציית להחלטה להפסיק את האפליה העדתית עד מחר - ייאסר ביום חמישי לתקופה של שבועיים.

בהחלטתם כתבו השופטים, שההורים הפרו את פסק הדין, וכי הובהר בו כי ההפרדה בין המגמות מונעת מגישה עדתית ולא דתית.

עוד הוסיפו השופטים כי פסק הדין איננו כפוף או מותנה באישור של גורם חיצוני כלשהו, ובכך רומזים להורים שטענו שהרבנים הם שאמורים לאשר את פסק הדין.

[Translation]"Several hours after the hearing, the supreme court judges served their dramatic decision, that will probably shock the whole country: per the decision, every parent of the students in the Emmanuel School that will not obey the ruling to end the sectarian discrimination till tomorrow - will be jailed on Thursday for two weeks.

In their decision the judges wrote, that the parents violated the ruling, and that [in the ruling] it was clarified that the separation between the sections was based on a sectarian approach and not a religious one.

The judges also added that the ruling isn't subject to the approval of any outside factor, thus implying to the parents that claimed that the Rabbis need to confirm the ruling"[End translation].

I believe this should fully and completely erase any doubt about the relevance of the case background and the discrimination allegations to this page.געגאנגען (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the court spin on the story. Levy's disdainful treatment of the spiritual leaders of the charedi community that you just quoted can certainly be documented in this page. As I already mentioned, there is a conflict of interests involved in reporting the court spin as the objective story line. The notable aspect of the story is the order of incarceration, the demonstration, the parents' voluntary submission to the said incarceration in respect for the law, the resulting embarrassment for the court, and the early release, with the parents sticking to their guns on retaining the right to decide where to send their daughters even in the face of random (and illegal, as documented in the article) judicial intimidation. Anything else does not belong in the lede paragraph. Ki imanu kel (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At least we're beginning to come to some understanding here. You agree that this was indeed the court spin on the story (what even the Haredi website felt that it should be quoted as part of the storyline). I never intended to quote (report?!) the court spin as "objective", and I plan to clarify both sides in the article later on. But neither can you represent your view as the the objective. I believe you feel very strongly about the story, as do I, and we're not even so much apart as you think we are.

However, I thought about it and decided that since your main offense seems to stem from what I wrote later in the article about the discrimination allegations in general, what was already questioned above by another user, I would agree to change the language of said paragraph for it to reflect only the story, and allegations, at hand, IF you agree to leave the intro the way it is now, where the allegations are just there for show, simply to make some sense of it all.געגאנגען (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am encouraged by your sentiment that we are close to an agreement, but the lead must be changed to what it was before your unilateral changes. What made Emmanuel an international celebrity overnight is the jail sentence, the demonstration, and the early release without concessions on key demands. I sympathize with your concerns over discrimination, but they should not spill over into page ledes, over the opposition of fellow editors. Ki imanu kel (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

how the court itself feels about "the court versus charedim"

User געגאנגען wrote: "High Court judges appeared satisfied with the compromise during Sunday's hearing. Judges Edmond Levy and Hanan Meltzer, however, emphasized one point: The parents' representative must acknowledge that the compromise is within the implementation of the court's previous verdict, which revoked the discrimination in the school". User געגאנגען presents this as evidence that the conflict was between the charedi parents and the sephardic parents, and the court was an impartial observer that happily applauded when the two groups of parents reached a compromise. The Orwellian nature of this logic should be all too clear to anyone but Mr. Lelum himself, but he would rather rewrite history that he failed to make. There is a conflict of interests involved in presenting the court's own opinion in interpreting the confrontation between the court and the charedi parents.

Everyone who followed the news knows that the court caved in to pressure. Judge Levy announced to the parents that this is what the court case is all about: will the parents follow the directive of their rabbis, or will they follow the directives of the court? Well, Levy got his answer. The parents even refused to sign the document that they consent to the court when they were released from jail. Ki imanu kel (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry for somehow not presenting myself clearly. The sole purpose of quoting the source was to show that - as usual - there's another side to the story, and what you saw as caving to pressure others viewed as a real agreement that satisfied the court (I myself actually believe that you are right on this one, and Levi really realized that he took his ego trip too far, STILL, Wikipedia can't present interpretation as fact, nor quote 'everyone' as a reliable source. Of course I will include this side later on when I'll get to that part.געגאנגען (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The court wanted the parents to send their daughters to a school of the court's choice. The parents refused and were jailed. A few days later the parents were released. They never sent their daughters to the school of the court's choice. On the contrary, the daughters are now studying in a separate school, raising the question of what the "segregation" hullabaloo was all about in the first place. You yourself acknowledged in an earlier comment that the Haaretz misrepresented this as a "racial" thing contrary to fact. The account you present in the preceding paragraph is unrelated to these facts. If you were so upset about the cement fence in the school, what about the concrete walls and a mile's separation existing now? Rather, the entire racial thing was a pretext for attacking charedi control over the education of their children. Whether or not the court and Lalum learned from the slap in the face they received remains to be seen. I repeat my firm request to revert you unilateral changes that have not been agreed upon. At least one other editor feels that your focus on racism is misplaced. It did not work in the court, and it will not work here. Ki imanu kel (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I understand your take on the story, I even agree with you that you're probably right. Your only problem is that not everyone saw it that way, and the intro needs to tell the actual story, without the explanation behind it.געגאנגען (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction you deleted is factual and does not depend on what you describe as "the actual story", which in actuality is the court's story. Normally that would not be so bad, but in this case the court is a party to the conflict. Your approach to this page remains Orwellian, and you continue ignoring two editors' dissatisfaction with your lede edits, as if this page is your private property. Ki imanu kel (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

narrative by געגאנגען

user געגאנגען wrote: "You're definitely wrong to state that this wasn't a confrontation between the Charedi parents and the Sephardic parents, when that was why the court got involved in the first place. You may contest the court's findings, but you can't dispute the narrative of the story." I have not had a chance to respond to this yet, so i am responding now. This narrative is געגאנגען 's own narrative. The point is not so much whether it reflects reality, but whether it is WP:NOTABLE. the old introduction that געגאנגען deleted mentioned briefly alleged charges of discrimination, as well as alleged bias on the part of the court, which is as it should be. Now געגאנגען insists on extending the introduction back to alleged 2008 discrimination, with all sorts of details added to the lede. There is no evidence whatsoever that, before June 2010, this interested significantly more than the parents in Immanuel themselves, as well as Judge Levy. There has been little media coverage, indicating that there is little grounds for wikipedia coverage, let alone special emphasis in a lede. The old lede that passed the scrutiny of numerous editors should be restored. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I revised the intro to what it was before I started to write here, and I'll start over, be back in a few minutes to fully explain my standing, and hope we can then get to some agreement.געגאנגען (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, here we go. first let me state that I can't run around every time to a new section explaining myself endlessly, so I'll stay right here in this section and discuss the full matter, and please don't open an new section unless absolutely necessary.

I'm a very new editor to Wikipedia. The reason I came here is because I've been using Wikipedia for quite some time (I know, I know, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for the 'serious' people... still the best place to start), and I always wanted to give back. Now there was a topic that I thought Wikipedia would be interested in. I have researched it thoroughly, and I have some first hand information (and, NOT from the people that Ki imanu kel wants to associate me with). So I thought this is my chance of contributing to the community I came to love.

I looked up this page, and I thought that the intro, as the whole page, was too limited and did not contain the usual amount of information I'm used to see on Wikipedia, so I decided to use my knowledge and update the page with the full story. I signed up and started to edit, without any intention of harming the story; changing it's focus; and/or offending anyone on either side.

Unfortunately some of my actions offended the above user, and from what I've learned so far he's disputing my story telling on four accounts (please correct me if I'm wrong). 1) The story on this page is only about the jail ruling and the turmoil it caused in Israel; 2) It was wrong of me to mix in the general explosive issue of discrimination against Sephardim in Israel; 3) I'm wrong to describe the early release of the parents as something that was made possible by an agreement where both sides backed off a little, because everyone knows that in fact the parents never gave up their position only the judges simply caved in to Haredi pressure; 4) I misrepresented the facts by siding with the court's spin on the story - that the separation was due to discrimination and not on religious grounds.

1. As I've already shown above, every secondary reliable source that reported on the ruling, including the Haredi sources (online and more so offline), repeated the simple fact that the actual ruling was about the separated section in the school and the battle that erupted because of it, and the June decision was about the contempt of court which arouse from the parents' disobeying the original ruling.

   Even more so, the page itself, before I edited it, started out by saying and I quote "an ongoing series of incidents regarding alleged ethno-religious segregation of students at a Hasidic Beis Yaakov school in the town of Immanuel". If you'll check my edits you'll see that all of my edits were actually focused toward the story itself. There was only one more time that I cited discrimination in the words "bringing discrimination charges". I don't think that it changed the narrative of the story at all, other then giving it some more background in as few words as possible (may use some minor edits here and there, but doesn't need to be completely deleted) - not just that, I even concluded by describing the incident as being "widely recognized as a crucial point in the larger ongoing battle between the secular and Hareidi communities in Israel", not one word about the alleged discrimination!

   The page name was never "fight between Haredi and secular communities in Israel", it was, and still is, "Immanuel beit Yaakov controversy". To me this includes everything regarding the Emmanuel controversy, and I don't think that the Supreme court resides in Emmanuel, not even the protests occured there but in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak. If you believe that this page should only concentrate on the jail and protests, then where should I be able to write the background to the story? Do I need to create a different page for it? Why? that just doesn't make any sense to me.

   Because of all that, I believe there is no real reason in telling only the second half of the story when the first half is vital to understanding it, just like you wouldn't begin this page by describing how the parents walked on to the bus that brought them to the prison... Therefore I ask you to agree to leave the intro as I've presented it the last time before undoing it on your request.

   The only thing added that supports your claim about me resigning to the court's ruling, is my stating that the Israeli Sephardim in general feel discriminated against, what brings me to the next issue;

2. Although, as you've mentioned yourself, it's true that the Sephardim feel that way, and that there's an ongoing battle even at this very moment about those alleged discrimination in Haredi schools (Modiein Eilit and more), still I understand that it feels very offensive to some, and I can tell the story without this punch line, therefore I agree to delete this sentence (which, BTW, you never deleted, and that was the ONLY thing contested by another editor) as a sign of mutual respect, and to restore the natural flow of this page (what will allow me to get back to finishing the full story).

   Of course the page will still need to contain the fact that the battle started because of Sephardim alleging discrimination against them by the separating Emmanuel parents.

3. As said above, I agree with you on this interpretation of the facts, however, Wikipedia must act as neutral ground and can't present interpretation as fact. The facts are clear that there was a signed agreement between the Slonimer Rebbe and Rabbi Yosef, on which ground the court released them. You know, and I know, that the court actually didn't achieve it's intended goal, and would have never reached it, so they caved. However, the court itself disputes that notion and tells the story differently, therefore the intro can only include the simple fact, and later on we can submit both accounts of what really happened.

   Believe me, I'd love to be able to tell this story, and some other much disputed stories on Wikipedia, the way I believe them to be true...

4. Same as #3, I can't write on Wikipedia what I believe to be true, only the simple facts as they happened, and then quote all interpretations and accounts of the "real" story.

   Hope this would be enough to reach common ground.געגאנגען (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

welcome progress on lede

We are finally coming to some kind of an understanding regarding the nature of the lead. I think the journalist should be identified, as in the previous versions. Also, the fact that the parents were released without compromising their position should be mentioned. I appreciate your cooperation. Ki imanu kel (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the journalist identification (I was actually the one who identified him), but it's the fifth time that you didn't answer me on why we shouldn't include the full story in the lede, starting from the beginning. You can't just put in your old proposition without any changes and call it a compromise. Please explain your opposition to what I wrote above. (and please, for god's sake, stop opening a new section everytime you want to reply to me on this page).

And again, you can't present your interpretation - that the parents didn't compromise on anything - as conclusion, when in fact the court and the secular journalists 'spinned' the story as a real compromise (I personally also believe that they didn't compromise anything, but it's still our word against theirs, and you can't present it as consensus).

Really hope we can finish it here and now and move forward.געגאנגען (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your copious comments. I happen to be extremely busy right now and may not be able to comment in detail before shabbat. As far as the lede goes, as I mentioned already the detailed prehistory of alleged discrimination is not WP:NOTABLE in my opinion to be included in the lede; though some of it may be appropriate as background information further down in the article. I already mentioned that very little of it reached the public eye before last summer, and not much of it was reported last summer, either, with main focus being last summer's events. As far as the fact that the parents did not compromise on their key demands, I am puzzled by your claim that this is some kind of insider information available uniquely to the two of us and a few other lucky insiders; it was certainly the view presented in the charedi press that I read. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1) First of all, I believe the criteria to decide notability doesn't have to do with when the story picked up, but with WHAT WAS TOLD WHEN it picked up, and I've already shown above that "everybody" starts the story from the alleged segregation story, as common sense would have it, including the Haredi media. Second, I don't think your statement that it wasn't picked up earlier is correct. For one example, here is the Jewish post reporting that the Israeli TV "Channel 2" picked up the story, as early as October 2007. Also see the link from the Haredi website "bechardei charedim" reporting on the story in July 2008, more then a year before the actual ruling, let alone the contempt decision.

2) I'm puzzled that you're puzzled as to what I wrote. You yourself say that it was certainly the view presented in the charedi press, that is "exactly" what I was saying. The Haredi media viewed this as a victory for the parents who didn't move an inch off their principles, BUT the secular press, as the court itself, viewed this as a compromise, some even tried to spin it as a full victory for their side. Therefore we (meaning the Haredim) can't present as definite that the parents didn't compromise, when there are a whole bunch of people out there who dispute that notion.

What's undisputed is that there was an agreement signed and the parents were released afterward, and that's exactly what the lede should be telling. Everything beyond that is debatable and subject to interpretation.געגאנגען (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What's undisputed is that the court wanted the parents to send their daughters to a school of the court's choice, jailed them for refusing to do so, released them when the charedim called the court's bluff, and the parents never sent their daughters to the school of the court's choice. This true story can certainly be documented in the media reports. I have no objection to mentioning the media who give a different spin on the story, in the body of the article. I am sorry to say bechadrei charedim is not a charedi site. Sorry don't have more time right now. Ki imanu kel (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On that note, let's mirror what you wrote, just slightly different: What's undisputed is that the court wanted the parents to send their daughters to a school of the court's choice, jailed them for refusing to do so, released them when the parents broke down after actually tasting the prison life and/or being afraid for their wives about to be jailed, and bent on their knees they bowed before the court and agreed to send their daughters for the last three school days to study in the old "reunited" school, together with the pupils that just days earlier they forbade their daughters to even look at. This true story can certainly be documented in the media reports. I have no objection to mentioning the media who give a different spin on the story, in the body of the article..

Again (X6), I don't think this was the case, but you can't present your "understanding" of the event as "undisputed". Of course I'm not gonna argue with you about "bechadrei charedim" being a chareidi site, since you're probably gonna declare that any charedi on the internet is not really charedi. Anyway, I'll wait till after shabbos when hopefully you'll have more time to reply to everything that I wrote above.געגאנגען (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I find your approach to this story a bit paradoxical. On the one hand, you agree with me as to the nature of what transpired. You even seem to agree that this can be documented in the charedi press. On the other hand, you seem to think that for high minded reasons this page should be written more in line with a spin found in haaretz etc. Now it is true that wiki is not seeking the "truth" but rather properly sourced information. On the other hand, one is under no obligation davkeh to present a properly sourced spin one knows to be distorted. Or does one? The parents fought long and hard against specious segregation and racism slurs for the right to send their daughters to a school of their choice. They won that right after the spectacular events of last summer. The odious segregation charges have now been paradoxically resolved by the girls being segregated in a school of their own, to their parents' satisfaction. Can anyone knowing this true story be interested in telling a different one? Ki imanu kel (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if I had any agenda or interest in writing the story, this doesn't erase the fact that we're on Wikipedia, and one needs to follow the rules here. I'm not in the mood of being accused tomorrow by somebody else that I'm biased or something (been there, done that. Wasn't pretty). We're not the only two people on the internet (and I believe that we both wouldn't be here if we were...), and just like you have your observation of the story, somebody else has a different one, and that's why Wikipedia has such strict policies to stand on neutral ground.

I agree with you that if there were only 2 ways to present the story then I'd be obligated to choose the true one, even if it ain't pleasant for everyone and it would lead to future arguments with other editors besides us, but as usual there's always a compromise to be made, and that's by first telling the part of the story that everybody agrees on, and later on we can present both views and let the intelligent reader decide who's right.

In our case, we can write in the lede that the parents were released after signing an agreement, which is something nobody ever disputed (even the Chareidi press called it a "peshoro", the Hebrew word for agreement), then we can disclose inside the article the fact that the so-called agreement was nothing more then paperwork to provide a ladder for the judges to get down from the high tree they climbed onto, and also present that this fact is disputed by the secular media and the court.

However, you still haven't answered me on the more important matter of the lede's nature, please do it ASAP. Thanks.געגאנגען (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote this I found the English website of the leading Chareidi newspaper, Hamodia, and see for yourself that they also write that there was "an agreement", It even states that the parents Chareidi lawyer Mr. "Green expressed his satisfaction that the court found a creative way for the parents to fulfill its order, without forcing them to act against their faith". Of course he later on describes the [true] belief that "The court knew that it had gone too far. It never expected things to spin out of control as they did. They misjudged the strength and unity of the chareidi sector, and its willingness to be moser nefesh for the sake of its most treasured values, of which chinuch[:education] is one of the most uppermost". But you still see that the fact that there was an agreement, and that the court acted like it felt 'satisfied', is undisputed.געגאנגען (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would rather stick to a truthful account, and if those hypothetical editors step forward insisting on the spin you seem to acknowledge as spin, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Personally I am disappointed by your apparent desire to glorify Lalum's "bravery" in transgressing the shulchan aruch. It could be that it's Lalum who is the racist, you know. Ki imanu kel (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the question, what is true? We say blue, they say yellow, so we have to start at green. It's as simple as that. Wishful thinking and reality are two different things. I can't present the matter as I'd wish (if everything would go according to my wishes, we'd live in a completely different world, and you know it).

And I'm not gonna come back to this matter until you answer me on the main issue of the nature of the lede.געגאנגען (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the lead is to present the most WP:NOTABLE aspect of the story. As far as Lalum's allegations of racism and segregation, they have been rebuffed by the court in Jerusalem two years ago, and now also in Emmanuel, as the court's authorisation of a separate school for the charedi girls acknowledges what the state inspector was saying all along, that the parents' desire for a certain type of education for their girls stems from religious reasons. I have the impression that a certain irony is lost upon you, of someone acting against halachah and starting an organisation called "no'ar keHALACHAH" no less. Ki imanu kel (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've shown you numerous times again and again that everybody who reported on the story, including the Court, the secular media, and even the Haredi media (which are all three parties to this conflict, as rationalism and objectivity were thrown out the window), included the full events leading up to this mess. Even if I were to agree with you that in fact there was no discrimination - what the court and the secular media dispute, not just Lelum - it's still notable in the lede that those were the events leading up to the story. I've also pointed out the name of the page, that involves the whole story, BUT YOU DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO ANSWER ME ON ANYTHING THAT I WROTE, YOU JUST KEEP ON REPEATING YOUR SAME OLD STATEMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ONE SECOND THAT I MIGHT BE RIGHT, OR TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY I'M NOT.

Somehow, in your quest to edit the page in a way that it would represent solely your side of the story (not even "your side" of the "whole" story), and use it as your personal media outlet to deliver your massage, you didn't even feel important to mention that the parents were ever imprisoned, only that they were released... Not to mention that you keep on sticking to your version that the parents were released because of the protests, when this "fact" is disputed by numerous accounts from the secular side of the storytelling. Yet you find it notable enough to mention that the court allowed them to open a new school, even if it doesn't fit your own version of what this page should present.

Even when I proposed a compromise and agreed to censor one sentence that isn't vital to the story and what you quoted as the source of your hostility towards me - even though I still believe it is a legitimate part of the story - you asked me to change back the lede and then we'll negotiate. I did as you asked, but since then you just kept repeating yourself over and over, without even once trying to engage in a useful conversation.

My patience is running out. I'd really like to avoid an edit war, but I have no idea how to contact anybody higher up the food chain, and you seem deaf and blind to whatever I'm saying/proposing, so if there's somebody else here reading this please let me know what I need to do in such a situation without getting entangled in an edit war with the above user. Thanks in advance.געגאנגען (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You may notice that the Jerusalem post article mentioned at the bottom at the page opens in a way very similar to what currently appears in the lede here. What is emphasized is last June. As far as the racism/segregation allegations, we are both aware of the fact that they were not proved in court either in Jerusalem two years ago, or in Emmanuel most recently. The state attorney similarly reported that the parents' demands stem from religious sensibilities rather than racial discrimination. While he did recommend that the ministry take action, it was based on what he perceived as technical violation of regulations governing state-sponsored schools, rather than racial discrimination. The official authorisation to open a separate school for the haredi girls this year should apparently have put to rest further allegations of discrimination/segregation, as even the court seems to have acknowledged that the parents' demands were legitimate. In such a situation, the insistence on Lalum's spin on the story would appear to go contrary to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" which underlies much of western jurisprudence. If Lalum wants to take advantage of the western legal system, he has to obey its limitations as well. Ki imanu kel (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If Judge Meltzar wrote longer comments, wherein he tried to compare this ruling to the historic Brown v. Board of Education that ended segregation in the US and outlawed the "separate but equal" mentality, as the article currently states, what does judge meltzar make of the current separate but equal situation authorized by the court he sat on? Either his comparison to Brown v. Board of Education is spurious, or he just slapped himself in the face. Ki imanu kel (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for finally at least responding to the main topic. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper where you start with the most recent news - and BTW, if to follow your exampled Jewish Post article, then the lede should start with the news that the court postponed the arrest of the 22 mothers... - the only question was if the full story meets the Notability guidelines, what it most certainly does, and therefore it should be changed back to the way I wrote it.

As for the segregation matter. You constantly keep trying to convince the already convinced (me...) that the court in fact didn't arrive to the conclusion it lusted, what is true and should be pointed out in the article. But you still can't present it as decisive, in fact, even Levi himself said "before" the contempt decision that if they would've opened a new school they wouldn't have been held in contempt, AND that he wouldn't oppose them opening a new school for the next school year. (some even suggested that he hurried up the court procedures to end before the school year - even when some of his own colleagues begged him to wait the few weeks until the school year is over - because he wanted to 'teach a lesson' for the Haredim before they open the new school and slip out of his contempt reach, what utterly backfired), therefore, even if you're right on the sense of things, it's still impossible to state decisively that the new school, or the agreement for that matter, were a complete slap in the face.

I wouldn't mind, though, to include in the lede the fact that the parents actually didn't compromise on anything, as long as it contains the full story. We'll still have to be careful with the wording.געגאנגען (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, your idea of a "full story" apparently involves detailing the racism/segregation charges. In my opinion, they are (1) not what makes the story notable, and (2) were not substantiated in court, and hence amount to a wanton case of wishing to pursue possible libel in the public forum of wikipedia. Either of those items would be sufficient to pasul your project. May I suggest an alternative outlet to your energy? The wiki page on the crusades presents a picture of basically an idealistic movement that was cynically manipulated by the clergy, etc. Both of us know very well that, rather than being an idealistic movement, the crusaders were a rampaging murderous mob whose first actions were the wholesale slaughter of innocent Jewish communities throughout ashkenaz. Why not devote some energy to pursuing that misguided page rather than pursuing a handful of Jewish parents in a small Israeli town? Ki imanu kel (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. Back to the offensive language, and not only is there still no response to anything that I showed above to prove my side, other then heated rhetoric, but you are actually simply quoting things that I never wrote. So I'm gonna try a new approach and hope this will prove once and for all my "intentions" and ideas - I'm gonna copy the current version of the lede. and the one that I edited the last time before I changed it back, and you tell me where you find my detailing the racism/segregation charges.

This is the current lede version:

The Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy is, since 2007, an ongoing series of incidents regarding alleged ethno-religious segregation of students at a Haredi Beis Yaakov school in the town of Immanuel, as well as alleged court bias against the charedi community in Immanuel. In June 2010, the parents jailed by Israeli supreme court order were released before the end of their sentence when large-scale protests against what was alleged to be an inhumane and illegal incarceration swept the country. Secular journalist Nahum Barnea described the court decision as one "made not from the heart, nor from the head, but rather from the belly". The court has since approved a separate school for the haredi girls in the 2010-2011 academic year.

This is what I believe it should look like (with a few minor changes), and exactly how it was before being edited back on the request of Ki imanu kel:

The Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy is an ongoing series of incidents regarding alleged ethno-religious segregation of students at a Hasidic Bais Yaakov girl school in the town of Immanuel, as well as alleged court bias against the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) community in Immanuel.

The conflict began in 2007 when the school was divided in two sections, bringing discrimination charges. The Supreme Court ruled in August 2009 that the new section be closed. When the parents refused they were sentenced, on June 15, 2010, to be jailed for two weeks. The court also fined them 400 shekel per couple for each day they refuse to implement the ruling, and ordered the Independent Education Center to pay 5,000 shekel a day until they ratify the court order.

Large-scale protests swept the country on June 17, the day the parents went to jail, against what the Hareidi community viewed as the court's violating the religious rights of the parents; their essential human Right to education; and what they alleged to be an inhumane and illegal incarceration. Eventually the parents were released early, on June 27, after they reached an agreement with the petitioners that was accepted by the judges.

In late 2010 the parents opened a completely new school for their children, with the consent and approval of the court.

The dispute was widely recognized as part of the larger ongoing battle between the secular and Hareidi communities in Israel. The popular journalist Nahum Barnea described the court decision as one "made not from the heart, nor from the head, but rather from the belly".

Can you please, once and for all, point out which words you actually believe fit your description of detailing the racism/segregation charges?געגאנגען (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I've put this issue up for WIKIPEDIA:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements 3 days already, so far no response. I'm gonna wait till after Shabbos, and if there's still no resolution till then I'll have to go a step further. געגאנגען/Gegangen (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for outside opinion on lede

Seeking outside insight to help determine:

1. What is the narrative of the story, and whether the lede should include the story from the beginning or only the June 2010 event;
2. Also, on a side issue, whether the lede should state that the matter ended when a compromise was signed, or it should state that it ended because the court gave in to the pressure of the protests. See articles 4 to 8 for the full details. געגאנגען/Gegangen (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over the nature of lede to article, if it meets Notability, and over which version to use about the ending of the event. Please follow the discussion all the way till the end of Talk:Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy#welcome progress on lede (currently the last section on the talk page). Thanks. ):

It is the opinion of this user, reading the article, that the lead of the article is too short and that based on what is in the article without doing any independent research of my own that the issue appears to be ongoing and thus it should not state that it has ended unless said end can be documented via a third party reliable source. As for whether the prehistory to the notable event should be included, the lead should (if included) only briefly mention the prehistory of the notable event which is the focus of this article, and should not give that prehistory undue weight.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. First of all this event has ended, and I plan to take out the word "ongoing", I just didn't want to edit anything until this dispute between me and the other editor was resolved. Second, just to clarify about the lede, if you don't mind please see just above [at the end of article 8] how I propose to write the lede and tell me if it's satisfactory to your taste, and if not please explain why. Thanks. געגאנגען/Gegangen (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

the new york times

The article cited in footnote 3 says that "There has been a history of Ashkenazi-Sephardic tension in Israel, with Sephardim traditionally viewing the Ashkenazi founders as elitists, and themselves as underdogs." This does not exactly correspond to editor gegangen's text that reads as follows:

However, some Sephardi parents viewed the new section as opened solely to discriminate against the girls of Sephardi origin. A belief widely shared throughout the Sephardi community in Israel, who feel constantly discriminated against by the dominating Ashkenazi community [3]

The footnote (and the article it cites) does not support the claims exppressed here. Ki imanu kel (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lalum the Open-Minded

I had no idea Lalum was funded by the NIF. What an... open-minded person. Do you have a source for this? I wonder if Yosef junior is also on the NIF payroll. I have the impression gegangen finally caught on to what is going on here, on the pretense of standing up for the sefardim. Ki imanu kel (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted a whole lot of edits by new editors in this article. I hope that they don't take offense to this action, but it was completely warranted, because the additions were written in a way not compatible with Wikipedia's style and policies, namely, referencing minor websites in the text of the article is not acceptable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC

77 Line says: The vast majority of my edits were referenced to original sources, such as the NIF website itself, and the original source that the organizations Achoti and Tmura were involved in the case, (with these organizations Calling to "DONATE NOW" AND "CONTRIBUTE NOW"), court documents, and internet news sites, all in accordance with Wiki rules. Many of your statements are in fact un-sourced, and thus contrary to Wiki policy, and a Wiki editor has a right to erase all unsourced statements.

Please point out the specifics that you object to without erasing my entire work. Thank you.

Hi Ynhockey, Thanks for your interest in this page. I share your concern about compatibility with wikipedia policies. I also agree that the website of the New Israel Fund (NIF) is a "minor website". At the same time, NIF funding of Lalum is an important part of the story, and I see no reason to doubt that when NIF describes Lalum as a recipient of their grants, they are telling the truth. The wholesale reversal of a month's worth of work by three editors may not be compatible with wikipedia policies. I therefore firmly request that you revert your drastic edit. I look forward to a productive cooperation on this page; describing opinions you happen to personally disagree with, as "spam", is not helpful. Ki imanu kel (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ynhochney states above, "I just reverted a whole lot of edits by new editors in this article." All edits that are fully sourced are indeed in compliance with Wiki policy. By erasing the many sourced edits that have been posted, Ynhochney has violated Wiki policy. The sourced edits must be re-posted. -Becky613

Becky613, please make sure to sign your talk page comments so that they are easier to follow.

As for the merits of the issue: one of the main problems with the content I reverted was that it contained an external link every few lines, which is entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia. External links should not be placed in the main article, except in very specific circumstances. Not knowing the motives of the editor who added these links, it is easy to see them as spam. I apologize to all editors making the edits if these links were not intended to promote the websites in question, but ask that you please review WP:MOS and WP:EL before making further edits to this or other articles.

The second major (related) issue is directly referencing the said links. This is also against Wikipedia guidelines even if the links are non-promotional. For example, the line:

His report can be viewed on: http://beisyaakovemanuel.blogspot.com/

Directly references a site in the text. This should not be done.

The third major (related) issue is the reliability of the sources—I was hard-pressed to find even one link given that would comply with WP:RS as a source. This was mainly what led me to assume that it was spam. We definitely should not be referencing blogs, or the New Israel Fund (except in some very rare cases, which don't apply to this article as far as I have seen).

The fourth major unrelated issue with the edits is readability and WP:MOS compliance—have you tried reading the text? It's completely impossible to read or understand. It has no coherent structure and there are many style, grammar and even spelling mistakes. There are also excessive quotations, which is poor style and could constitute a copyright violation.

The fifth major issue with the edits is neutrality. For example, opinions such as:

(There is no mention of the shame and disgrace suffered by the daughters of Rav Meirav and Kremolovsky, who had been tormented for being too religious and for speaking with an Ashkenazic accent, submitted in their letters to the court, noted above. Advising the tormentors to cease their bullying, learn healthy communication skills, and respect school rules may go a lot farther in correcting the alleged social injustice that the attorney claims concern for.)

Are presented as fact. Articles should not have opinions such as this and that's not really up for discussion, it's the most basic policy on Wikipedia and is considered a core policy. This particular sentence also violates WP:BLP, another core policy.

Maybe there are other issues I haven't touched upon, but in short, the edits managed to violate, in some way, almost every important Wikipedia policy and guideline. I certainly don't hold it against the editors who contributed this content, and am willing to help these editors in any way. However, there is absolutely no case to restore the edits as they were. I recommend any editor interested in restoring the content to first read the pages I linked to above, and then prepare a draft on a sub-page of their user page which can be linked to from here and examined before it goes into the article.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yn, I sympathize with your concerns. Certainly the outside links, whenever used and if it is appropriate, should be placed in a footnote rather than the main text. Similarly, emotional statements, such as that on "shame and disgrace", should be avoided--unless of course such claims can be properly sourced. Spelling errors should be corrected. I have actually already done some work in this direction; both on placing outside sources in footnotes, removing emotional language, and correcting the spelling. Ironically, your global revert has undone some of my work, as well. Thus, I streamlined the English spelling of the names of the judges involved, which was completely inconsistent throughout the article. Concerning NIF, I disagree and I think that NIF funding for Lalum is a very significant aspect of the story, and there is no reason to assume they are untruthful in describing Lalum as a grantee. Keep in mind that in news-related stories one relies on online news outlets much more often than other wiki pages. In short, you have some valid criticisms, but nothing that cannot be addressed started with the version you truncated. Such a "bold" move is particularly surprising when it comes from an editor who has contributed nothing to the page since its inception over half a year ago. I therefore request that you revert your massive deletion which undid much useful work. I can certainly commit myself to working on improving the page then, but few editors would be interested in doing the same tedious work a second time over due to a wanton deletion, coming as it does from an editor apriori unsympathetic to the beit yaakov (I noticed your numerous edits last shabbos). Ki imanu kel (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ki imanu kel, I did not actually delete any revisions (although based on WP:BLP, it was within my rights as an administrator), just reverted, therefore you should feel free to start working from a different copy (as I said, create a draft)—but don't return the article to that state.

Secondly, when anyone deletes content from an article (or an entire article), the question is simple—did the content benefit the encyclopedia overall? In this case the answer is a definite no, for the reasons I outlined above. Please note that while a couple of the things I mentioned can be easily fixed, other things like the NPOV and BLP issues are violations of core Wikipedia policies and are largely non-negotiable.

Thirdly, please don't bring my personal beliefs into this; obviously I am not religious, but that has nothing to do with Beit Yaakov, which I don't know or care much about. I remind you that having strong connections to an article's subject is a detriment, not a merit. Keeping an article tidy and clean from POV and BLP violations is actually a significant contribution, contrary to what you claim.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The content you deleted is helpful to wikipedia, contrary to what you persist in claiming. Some emotional language has to be removed, as I mentioned, but other than that the recent edits provide helpful background to the event in question. Wikipedia guidelines do not give an administrator any exclusive rights as far as censoring the content of a page, contrary to what you seem to imply. Your "POV" objections are left deliberately vague in such a way that one wonders whether your goal is to encourage editors to improve the page. I strongly agree that maintaining an impartial distance from the subject of an article is a merit, not a detriment. Precisely for this reason, a radical secular position is so far removed from both sides of the conflict in Emanuel as to make one too biased to monitor the content of the page. Note that you are fighting against a clear majority of editors interested in working on this page, which is a clear violation of wiki policies. Your massive deletions should be reverted, at which point we can work on improving the article. What I find particularly disappointing is your failure to respond to specific suggestions I made to improve the page. This is not an indication that you are interested in making a constructive input here. Tkuvho (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC) [a.k.a. ki imanu kel--I am not a new editor]

Hi Tkuvho! Before I respond to your comment, please take the following steps if you are the same editor as Ki imanu kel as is implied in your signature.

Responding to your comments, I find it disappointing that you have not addressed my concerns and are instead choosing personal attacks over constructive discussion. You say that I did not take your suggestions into account, but I cannot understand what suggestions you are referring to. So far you have stated that we need to revert my edit and start improving the article from there, but that's not a specific suggestion for improving the article, and in any case you can do this on a draft page, as I have suggested.

Because of your harsh words, I have re-read the edits I reverted and have honestly not found much that can be inserted into the article in that form. Starting from "The local Rabbi of Immanuel, ...", the first paragraph has words to avoid, such as "Rav Ba'adani is one of the "Gedolei HaDor" - leaders of the generation, among the foremost Rabbinic leaders of our time.". It is also sourced to an unreliable source. The problem continue on and on like I outlined in my above comments.

Please address my concerns above or at least, as I asked you numerous times, prepare a draft that with the content you believe should stay, and we can work from there.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that you have not responded to my comments above for 72 hours, which is surprising coming as it did after deleting 22K's worth of material. I have not chosen personal attacks over constructive discussion; what I am criticizing is your deletion of helpful background material, rather than your person. I have no problem with the suggestions you made above, but again, they are minor suggestions that can easily be fixed by placing a tag in the text to bring them to the attention of the active editors. I have no problem deleting the peacock phrase concerning the leader of the generation. As I already mentioned, your revert also reintroduced both unsourced and incorrect material into the article. The right way to proceed is to revert the unhelpful edit so we can continue working on the article, to which we hope to see you personally contribute, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by administrator Ynhockey

In an edit dramatically entitled rev to version hopefully without spam, user Ynhockey deleted 22K's worth of background material recently contributed by several editors. When challenged to explain why such background material constituted "spam", he explained that he was referring to links, included inside the text against wiki policy, to outside pages which he claimed were too "minor" to be included here. Such links constitute less than 1K of the 22K of material he deleted. Ynhockey also made some valid criticisms, referring to an emotional unsourced paragraph (which certainly should be deleted). When challenged to justify deletion of material beyond such problematic material, Ynhockey brandished his administrator status, as if such status justifies wholesale deletions, without ever placing tags to signal the material he objects to. The wholesale deletion of valuable background material should be reverted. Tkuvho (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tkuvho, please read my comments above and don't misrepresent my comments. I have provided specific examples of problematic material, and you yourself admitted that there were many problems with the content I reverted. If you feel that the information is valuable, please feel free to re-add it in a way that complies with Wikipedia policy. As far as I see it, this will essentially require a complete rewrite, which is one of the reasons I reverted. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your valid criticisms, which concern a very small part of the deleted material. In my response, I suggested specific ways of addressing those criticisms, and even volunteered to do such work myself. Unfortunately, you have not responded to my suggestions. I can't sink more time into this page only to risk it all being erased in an additional wanton massive delete. While some of your criticisms are valid, such criticisms are typically accompanied by tags being placed in the text so as to signal problematic material. Massive deletions are only appropriate in very specific circumstances, which have not been reunited here. Your deletions have had the additional effect of discouraging new editors of continuing their valuable work. It is true that they seem to be personally involved in the issue, but that should be a reason for monitoring their work rather than deleting it as you have done. Please undo your draconian edit so we can continue improving the article. Tkuvho (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see specific suggestions that I haven't addressed. Please point them out. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned some of them above but I don't mind repeating them here.

(1) your edit introduced additional inaccuracies into the article.

(2) your edit deleted valuable information. To give a quick example, the media reported that the court compared the situation in Immanuel to Brown versus board of education. The article corrected this misperception by pointing out that only Hanan Melcer (of recent hanging rope fame) claimed such a connection, in his own minority opinion.

(3) the criticisms that you have made can be easily addressed; the peacock terms you mentioned should certainly be removed.

(4) instead of deleting massive amounts of material, the gentlemanly way practiced at wikipedia is to signal objectionable material by a descriptive tag summarizing your objections.

(5) when you criticize reliance on the New Israel Fund webpage to source the statement that Lalum is their grantee, I must disagree with you.

I could elaborate this list, but I would rather work on the article, once I have some assurance that there is not an additional massive revert on the horizon. Tkuvho (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You actually never pointed out these things before, so it's good to know your actual concerns. I will address them one by one:

1) My edit didn't introduce anything, I actually reverted to a previous editor's version. I did not edit the content of the article.

2) As I said at least 3 times above, please feel free to reintroduce the valuable information that disappeared with my revert, provided that you do so in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. I really don't see why you are so adamant about having me do it.

3) In that case, feel free to address them using a draft, which can be later put into the article.

4) When over 90% of the material is objectionable (or over 50% for that matter), the correct thing to do is to revert and then work based on the original version, not vise versa.

5) This is a minor point, but it can be addressed by qualifying the statement as "according to the New Israel Fund ...". I don't really see why you are bringing this up as it is only one of several examples I provided to illustrate a general problem with sourcing.

About your last point, I will say it again (kind of tired of repeating this), the correct way to solve such a situation is to create a draft, like User:Tkuvho/Draft (click to create), and if there is consensus to introduce it into the article, there will be no problem to do so.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a positive contribution to the article, you should tag material you find objectionable, rather than mass delete. I have no idea why you think 90% of the material is objectionable. If you labeled at least a few items, we could take it from there. My time is too valuable to re-introduce improvements that were already made, only to have them reverted again. A "draft" is created when an editor is planning a new page. Then other editors can respond to the draft and either encourage the creation of the article, or otherwise. In this case, there is no question about the notability of the article. Deleting 22K of material that you seem to be the only one on wikipedia to find objectionable, is just not the way to go. You mentioned above that you are "not interested" in Beit Yaakov. Why don't you just leave this article alone if it does not interest you? Tkuvho (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As to (1): your edit did re-introduce errors, by reverting to an old version whose errors have been corrected by editors who have actually contributed to this page. Tkuvho (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have actually pointed out more than once why practically everything I reverted was problematic. This can be divided into about 100 different points, but like you, I have little time and finding every problem would be a complete waste of it. The burden of proof for an edit's validity rests on the editor who makes it, not the other way around. If you want to reintroduce a problematic edit, you need to fix the content to comply with Wikipedia policy and (again, kind of tired of repeating this) make a draft. This has nothing to do with new articles and works with existing articles just as well. If you don't have time to do this, then perhaps you should start just by fixing the factual errors you found in the original version with reliable sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your objection has been persistently that some of the material is not properly sourced. The way to handle such a concern is to flag such material so as to give the active editors time to find better sources. The way not to handle such a concern is a trigger-happy mass deletion. There has never been any question as to whether the material is actually true, which it is. The burden is on the trigger-happy editor to explain how his deletions are compatible with wiki policy or with good manners for that matter. Tkuvho (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The NIF webpage had previously been cited in the text, see footnote number 5.

Concerning footnotes 6 and 7: If you read the footnoted text, which is the Jerusalem Post and Ynet, I see no mention of parents being offended, or inviting the media, or it becoming a "media frenzy". I see no source for the claim that Ezra Gerashi was involved in the case. Footnotes 6 and 7 have thus been misused, thus the claims associated with them are misrepresentations, and should be erased. I look forward to comment. 77Line (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your feedback. I have just re-posted information on the page, I believe in full compliance with wiki policy. My footnotes are unnamed at the bottom, but the links work fine. Please air any objections here before attempting to delete my edits. Thank you. 77Line (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that the text is mostly readable, I have introduced a number of tags which apply to the article instead of reverting. There are still many major issues though, and I urge anyone interested in the subject to fix them. I will personally work on the article later on, but many of my edits will likely meet with objection from people passionate about the subject. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Now I have named my footnotes. Please specify any more objections so I may correct them. 77Line (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

77Line, you can't cite Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. Other than that, you can start addressing the main tags I placed in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede

The current version of the lede is incoherent. I suggest we replace it by the one from the version from a week ago. Tkuvho (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not write a new lede? I agree that the current version is impossible to read, but the previous one wasn't great either. Since lead sections don't require sources as long as they summarize the information in the rest of the article, writing a lead shouldn't be a problem for someone familiar with the subject. Just be careful not to write anything that doesn't already appear in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Under "Discrimmination Allegations" I have revised a sentence, making it less emotional. Additionally, the previous sentence which included "and more so by the Haredi schools" is not to be found in the given source. This source was thus not used correctly. Here is the new version of this sentence, hope it finds favor in the eyes of the editors here:

"A belief allegedly shared throughout parts of the Sephardi community in Israel, who allegedly feel discriminated against by the Ashkenazi community[9] - even by the secular parts of the country's Ashkenazi leadership,[10] and by the Haredi schools.[11]" 77Line (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated to the previous comment, I find this sentence extremely problematic:

Aviad Visoli notes that the Israel Supreme Court held no hearing, no cross-examination of plaintiffs or defendants, rendering the court's decision illegal.

1) Why is Aviad Visoli's opinion in the lead? Who is Aviad Visoli?

2) It seems like a random potshot at the courts. Usually they are tasked with determining what's legal according to their interpretation of the law, so we'll need a little more evidence for the WP:REDFLAG claim that the court's decision was illegal.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of problem that was weeded out over the past few months, and is not present in the version from two weeks ago. Tkuvho (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The version from feb 11 reads as follows: "The Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy is, since 2007, an ongoing series of incidents regarding alleged ethno-religious segregation of students at a Haredi Beis Yaakov school in the town of Immanuel, as well as alleged court bias against the charedi community in Immanuel. In June 2010, the parents jailed by Israeli supreme court order were released before the end of their sentence when large-scale protests against what was alleged to be an inhumane and illegal incarceration swept the country. Secular journalist Nahum Barnea described the court decision as one "made not from the heart, nor from the head, but rather from the belly". The court has since approved a separate school for the haredi girls in the 2010-2011 academic year." Tkuvho (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not really related to what I said, but if you can provide a follow-up on the events, that's very good. Please make sure though that the facts are sourced within the article itself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

I suggest we move the page to "Emanuel Beit Yaakov". The word "controversy" in the title is not really helpful. Tkuvho (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me.

I have re-posted the following, please do not erase. Thanks. "The topic has been in the headlines over the past year thanks to the efforts of the NIF family."

Does anyone have sources for the allegation that parents in Immanuel called Yoav Lallum and his Noar KeHalacha organization to start this law suit? Who were they? You cannot have anonymous plaintiffs. Thanks 77Line (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced statements should be deleted. As far as the title is concerned, perhaps "Beit Yaakov Immanuel" is better? Tkuvho (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the controversy, so a title that omits this word is incompatible with the content of the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

supreme court blues

Hi 77,

Thanks for your additions. Many people think that the high court fell short of professionalism in this case. However, this article is not primarily about judicial activism, which is an interesting topic in its own right. If this material belongs here at all, it should not be in the introduction. Would it be acceptable to you if we moved most of this material to a separate section later? Tkuvho (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point.

I would like to leave the two quotes on judicial activism that relate directly to the Immanuel case in the lead, and put the quotes that comment on judicial activism later in the article. An understanding of Israeli Judicial activism is an important factor in this case, even if all quotes need not be in the lead. Thanks 77Line (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's work on removing the tags at the front of the article. If anyone thinks they need to remain, please be specific as to what needs to be modified. Thanks 77Line (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Lellum Lallum Lalum

Could we try to agree on Mr. L's spelling? Tkuvho (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Misused footnote:

Under the section, "Additional Lawsuit by Lallum", there is a lengthy paragraph that misuses its footnote.

The footnote herein used refers to the time that the parents attempted to send their daughters to school in Bnei Brak and were thwarted by the Ministry of Education on their first day of attendance. The statements in the paragraph in question do not find sources in the footnote. It has thus been deleted. You can compare the two versions under "history". Thank you.

ps. I do not know how to make bold titles, can someone tell me how? Many thanks.

77Line (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

TAGS ON LEDE

I meant to erase only one tag, the one that claims the article needs more references, and I erased them all by mistake, and I do not know how to re-instate them.

My goal was to erase the one tag that I think clearly is not needed. If anyone feels strongly that the other tags need to be re-instated, please specify why. So many changes have been made since those tags were posted, I think they need to be re-evaluated. Still, I did not mean to erase them all at once.

Becky613 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually all of the tags are justified. The referencing problem still exists—you can't cite blogs and should take great care when citing primary sources (such as NIF). In any case, I don't mind removing the tag if at least some of the sources are addressed. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

About tags - which blogs are you referring to? Can you be more specifc so the tags can be removed? Thanks Becky613 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Copying from your user talk page: Hi Becky613,

Here are some of the outstanding issues with the article:

• There is extensive use of primary and/or unreliable sources. For instance, court transcripts should not be used as sources. Other problematic sources include BeHadrei Haredim and Israel National News (Arutz 7).
• The article is not formatted properly and doesn't include enough internal links. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of style for more details.
• The article is not written in a neutral or encyclopedic tone. Just taking a random quote:

When discussing allegations of ethnic discrimination, it is important to review the ethnic self concept of the parties involved.

Why is it important? Have you ever seen an encyclopedia written in this style? And more importantly, in some cases the articles takes a clear stand for or against a certain party, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• The article has too many quotations—this is self-explanatory. Remove the less important quotations and paraphrase some of the important ones as regular prose.

I hope the above was helpful. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

revising the lede

The current lede is a bit long and unfocused. I suggest revising it in such a way as to focus on a small number of issues. First, while the controversy seems to have started way back in '07 or '08, what made this story a household name were the events of june '10 when the parents were threatened with imprisonment, the charedi community reacted in a mass protest, the parents voluntarily submitted to what secular journalists described as a heartless incarceration, and were released early when the court caved in to a rapidly expanding protest, without compromising on their fundamental demands. If this is the newsworthy story, the lede should focus on this, while the background material should be presented in later sections. Tkuvho (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revise it, but the biggest problem with the lead right now is readability. I just read it and couldn't understand anything. At all. Other than that, you are right that the background information should be less prominent, while the story itself should be more prominent. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed broken link

A footnote to the New Israel Fund website, in which the NIF takes credit for keeping the Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy in the news, was no longer available. I just fixed it. Also found a footnote ot the NIF page that had been replaced with an unrelated article about busses. Restored that too. The HaAretz link used to lead to several articles that declared that the new school was solely an ethnic spilt, until an HaAretz article admitted that "30% of the jailed fathers are themselves Sefardic". Those articles are now not available on the link. Instead, you will see articles which refer tangentially to what HaAretz columnists refer to as discrimmination in Haredi schools, and artciles about the approval of the new Chassidic school after the jailed fathers were released. Note that there are no reader comments under these articles. This issue was a hot topic garnering many comments at the time. The fact that these articles have no comments is unusual indeed.

Here is a link to an article written by Gideon Levy about Beit Yaakov Immanuel that refers to an HaAretz article, but if you press the link it takes you to the HaAretz home page, not to the article to which Mr. Levy refers:

http://cjpp5.over-blog.com/article-haaretz-com-israel-covert-secular-discrimination-is-worse-than-the-blatant-religious-kind-par-gideon-levy-49672660.html

Not only did the NIF and HaAretz declare for three years until the fathers were jailed that this was solely an ethnic split, it appears that the NIF and HaAretz are obscuring the role they played in the courts and the media.

I struggled with whether to speak out at the time of the Immanuel case and I struggle now with exposing the apparent cover up by the NIF and HaAretz of their role in spreading misinformation about the school, about Haredim, and about Judaism. I also struggle with posting the court documents that misrepresented the school and in not granting a trial to the parents. With the misinformation spread at the time, the apparent cover up now, and the lack of due process by the secular Israeli Supreme court, major secular Jewish organizations have acted unethically, declared that they manipulated the media, and wrought injustice. My goal is of course to fix and prevent further injustice, but I also fear that this can be used as fodder for antisemites. Maybe it is better for people to think that Haredim are a little primitive than to think that major secular Jewish organizations did the above. I don't know.

Here are the HaAretz articles that as of November 2014 are listed in the search engine. I unfortunately did not copy the URL's of the original articles published between 2007 and 2010, I did not suspect that search enginges could be tampered with or that HaAretz could possibly erase the articles written at the time:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-given-one-week-to-reply-to-petition-against-segregation-at-ultra-orthodox-schools-1.400432

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-high-court-to-hear-petition-against-segregation-at-ultra-orthodox-girls-schools-1.400252

The next article by Yair Ettinger in the list concerns Haredi internet sites, I do not know why it is posted under the Beit Yakov Immanuel search:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ultra-orthodox-and-online-1.321827

This article has no reader comments:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/high-court-of-justice-approves-private-school-for-haredi-girls-in-immanuel-segregation-row-1.313853

Here, the title is, "Ashkenazi parents get okay for private school in Immanuel segregation row": This was published after the fathers were released from jail, one third of whom were Sephardic, yet HaAretz continues to use such rhetoric:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-parents-get-okay-for-private-school-in-immanuel-1.310240

(There are about thee more articles on that search option)

The next step is to track down the original articles published in HaAretz between 2007 and 2010 and compare them with those listed here. And I am still struggling with whether to do it at all. Peace.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Becky613 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 

Well User:Becky613, whatever misrepresentation can be documented should be listed here, provided it meets the condition of notability. For example, if Haaretz erased links to earlier articles, we need evidence that this occurred beyond your (or mine) memory that the articles were there earlier. As far as URL's of earlier articles are concerned, they can probably be found in this page's history (click at the top). Tkuvho (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Or a trip to the library and look at microfiche copies of HaAretz articles and compare to what can be found on the internet. If anyone kept original copies of the HaAretz articles they should scan and post them on a blog, then see if they are traceable on the 'net. This is all so sad. Becky613 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea in case you haven't thought about it: somebody published a whole book of copies of articles that came out at the time. Perhaps the Haaretz piece is there as well. A note of caution: wiki is not the place to do investigative reporting. One might be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Haaretz suppressed data in order to protect its reputation, but this is not enough to include this information on a wiki page. One needs to be able to source such a claim to a published article in RS. Tkuvho (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the website that you can use to search for archived articles, but you need the original URL (web address of the article):

https://archive.org/

I had the original URL of the NIF links, but not of the original HaAretz articles. I tried to find original URL's of HaAretz articles, like in the above quoted one by G Levy, but that link led to a front page. If you have access to the book you mentioned, please inform. Also archived videos of journalist Sarah Beck of channel 2 TV standing in front of the school and saying that it was an ethnic split - I always wondered if in that clip you could hear people on the side saying, "that's not true!" But I never saw the clip. Becky613 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This old version of the page from 2010 has some dead haaretz links that might contain the URLs you are interested in. Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/08/670/010/s11/08010670.s11.pd
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101217010125/http://jewishideas.org/articles/old-fashioned-discrim to http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/old-fashioned-discrim
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ladaat.net/article.php?do=viewarticle&articleid=8208
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719205749/http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328 to http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719205749/http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328 to http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719205749/http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328 to http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/08/670/010/s11/08010670.s11.pd
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101217010125/http://jewishideas.org/articles/old-fashioned-discrim to http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/old-fashioned-discrim

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5770/BLK70aemanuel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327162257/http://www.officehours.com/rebecca/beisyaakovemanuel/Article%20by%20SHmuel%20Kofer%20on%20Tsofar.pdf to http://www.officehours.com/rebecca/beisyaakovemanuel/Article%20by%20SHmuel%20Kofer%20on%20Tsofar.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5770/BLK70aemanuel.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5770/BLK70aemanuel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517123733/http://www.lawofisrael.com/IW/elyon29369-htm/ to http://www.lawofisrael.com/IW/elyon29369-htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken lead, incomprehensible writing

Currently the article starts "The Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy concerns the founding of a Hasidic girls' school in the Israeli settlement of Immanuel in September 2007." But the controversy is not about the founding, it is about the way the school is run. One hopes that the following paragraphs explain what the "controversy" is, but I would be surprised if anyone who doesn't already know the story will have a clue after reading what is there. First there is "that this was solely an ethnic split between Sephardim and Ashkenazim" — huh? Then the next paragraph starts "In a 2009 Israeli Supreme Court ruling, a claim was accepted regarding separation on the basis of origin between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi students at the Beit Yaakov girls' elementary school in Emanuel." — what claim, and is Beit Yaakov the same school mentioned without name before (never mind the new spelling of Immanuel)? Following that is "Mizrahi students who studied with them refrained from sending their daughters to school" — daughters of students, no wonder it is controversial!

The entire introduction needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone who knows the sources and can speak English. The present text is shameful. I also strongly suspect factual distortion. Zero^talk 02:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Has been a back and forth that I didnt even try to keep track of in the watchlist. nableezy - 03:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)