Talk:Religion in Israel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

A few questions

Why aren't the Samaritans listed under the Abrahamic faiths? Obviously, they meet the criteria, though most people aren't familiar with them enough to include them when discussing the "big three". I mean, after all, they predate Christianity and Islam, and Abraham is a central figure in their religion. Also, why are Karaites not specified as Jews? While they are indeed a minority today, and most modern Jews might no longer be acquainted with their existence even, it certainly seems like a big omission. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the Samaritans are an Abrahamic faith. The Karaites are not a Jewish denomination; they have a religion of their own, which is closely related to Judaism, but is not Judaism. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, of course they are. They define themselves as Jews. Every academic scholar in the world treats them as such, and accepts this as a given fact. What reason do you have to claim such a thing, out of curiosity? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind. I REALLY wanted to assume good faith here. However, after looking over the previous discussion, and looking at the edit history related to that section, I see you've already been involved in an edit war over this. At various points, you both removed any mention of the Karaites, and also the qualifier that they practise a form of Judaism. Given your reverts, edit summaries, and arguments above, I can pretty much say without reservation that this is a case of IDONTLIKEIT, POV, and religious censorship. Wikiepedia is not censored, and does not omit what reliable sources say about Karaites as per your religious sensibilities. Rabbinic authority on their halachic status does not define their Judaism, even if you believe it does from a strictly rabbinic point of view. Reliable sources are what we use, and they overwhelmingly disagree, given their historicity.
That you claimed before, "they are Jews, but do not practise Judaism", is an argument from Maimonides in arguing that they are minnim (heretics). Aside from your edit summaries that kept saying "see discussion" (though every editor disagreed with you)... You also put one in Karaiam (I guess because you assumed the editor was a Karaite from Crimea). You are perfectly capable of speaking English, as were they, and "testing" their religion and ethnicity is a bit beyond the pale.
I don't want to appear uncivil. You appear to be an excellent editor, and one that's extremely knowledgeable about traditional Rabbinical and Orthodox Judaism and Jewish culture. But I can't very well let religious censorship of a minority stand. Feel free to respond. I'm fair minded, and open to discussion; it won't fall on deaf ears. However, given the issue at hand, and that you showed a distinct lack of neutrality before, I'll be taking it with a proverbial grain of salt. I honestly mean no disrespect, as it seems out of character with the rest of your editing, which I truly believe is otherwise excellent. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was uncomfortable reading your attack on me, as a matter of fact. Still, I think there is no real reason for it. They are Jews, and their religion is related to Judaism, so I think we agree here. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't an attack. I summarised what happened, and the reasoning for it, to highlight that it didn't meet the standards of being NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. I never disputed that you thought they were ethnically Jews. You clearly say that. I even technically understand your disagreement in saying that they are only "related" to Judaism, given your religious outlook, but that's a POV, and you were editing based on that, as this shows:
Wrong: they are Jews, but their religion is not Judaism. These are two separate things. [User:Debresser|Debresser] (User talk:Debresser|talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Category:Wikipedian Karaites says: "In modern times Karaite Judaism has formed its own independent Jewish organization, and is not a member of any Rabbinic organization". This sentence is mirrored on a few Internet sites as well. If it is not even affiliated with the Chief rabbinate of Israel, then how can it make a claim to Judaism? This shows clearly that Karaism is not Judaism. Again, without saying that Karaites are not Jews.
Please do not be mislead by the term "Karaite Judaism". The fact that Karaism presents itself as the true Judaism does not mean it is, not even that it is Judaism. [User:Debresser|Debresser] (User talk:Debresser|talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And the edit summaries:
18:58, 15 February 2011‎ Debresser (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,737 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Лфкфшыь шы тще ф зфке ща Огвфшыьб умут ша лфкфшеуы фку Оуцыю) (undo | thank) --- Which translates to: Karaites are Jews, but they do not practise the Jewish religion.
19:10, 15 February 2011‎ 79.179.28.136 (talk)‎ . . (50,737 bytes) (0)‎ . . (As you wrote in whatever it was, I can't understand your arguments)
11:57, 16 February 2011‎ 147.237.70.108 (talk)‎ . . (50,737 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Revert per discussion) (undo) Referring to your own comments only.
18:29, 16 February 2011‎ Debresser (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,737 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Undid revision 414277155 by Benjil (talk) Stop confusing Jewish and Judaism. Sources are on the talk page.) (undo | thank) Referring to the citation which doesn't actually say anything about them not being Jewish, but just that they don't practise normative Judaism.
05:20, 17 February 2011‎ Benjil (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,737 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Revert POV pushing) (undo | thank)
It's fine, and I understand your confusion. But I really want you to see that I'm not "attacking" you. I'm just trying to illustrate that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, citing Rabbinic opinion -- when it comes to a religion founded on a dispute over rabbinical authority and the oral law ---, is a religious POV, and not a standard under which we are allowed to edit. Rabbinical sages, and the Chief Rabbinate is only an authority on things related to Rabbinical Judaism, and the Law of Return. Even then, reliable sources may disagree with them. It's not a reliable source for what constitutes a religion. It's effectively the same as saying the standard should be that Christians should be referred to as polytheists, because Islamic Shariah says they are guilty of shirk for believing in the Trinity. You're a good editor in every respect, so I just wanted you to realise that this is a POV which you may not even be aware you have, and it's my responsibility as a fellow editor to inform you if you're not editing according to policy. I'm not attacking you. I'm actually trying to help you. I'm sorry if you interpreted it otherwise. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in my opinion, you are the one who is confused. My argument is that the word "Judaism" is used, in ancient as well as in modern writings, to describe specifically and only rabbinic Judaism. The term "Judaism" would not include Karaite Judaism, unless specifically stated. Karaism is simply too far from rabbinic Judaism to be able to refer to the both of them with one term, in most cases. I have no problem with the term Karaite Judaism, because that term is unambiguous, but just "Judaism" would not include Karaite Judaism.
Mind you, in my personal opinion, Karaism is not Judaism and the term "Karaite Judaism" is incorrect, but I am not trying to impose my personal view here, just that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has to conform with certain standards, like WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore we have to differentiate between "Karaite Judaism" and the unspecified term "Judaism". Debresser (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, I find this to be a bit disingenuous and revisionist, in all honesty. No where did I, or any other editor, suggest that without the qualifier. It's not even relevant. The edit histories show that you clearly did have a problem not only it being referred to as a form of Judaism, but also with the word Judaism being attached to Karaite. And as 'per common name', and 'sources supposedly only using Judaism to refer only to Rabbinic Judaism', that's a complete fallacy. For example Hellenistic Judaism, as well as the Essenes, Saducees, Therapeutae, and so on. Sources say otherwise. You got caught pushing a religious POV, and still are slightly, as per your recent edit on the section. I was fine with that edit at first, but only in the spirit of cordiality and compromise (as per your talk page), as it still reflected your personal POV. I've been beyond civil with you, and gone out of my way to extend a friendly hand. At this point, it sort of feels like you're moving the marker, in the interest of watering it down further, but I'll still as of yet assume good faith. I don't want my first content dispute in history to be with you, nor do I want it to be over something as inane as this, where you're clearly walking the line of policy. I'll be reverting that edit back to its original wording, as it did indeed remove the context, but if you want to revert it, that's your choice. You haven't yet come up with one good reason as to why you're disputing these things, as common name doesn't apply, aside from what essentially boils down to "a rabbi says so". The academic sources are not on your side, and I can provide literally thousands. Let's move on, shall we? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully my recent revision of the wording is acceptable. I think it not only would perhaps satisfy your personal POV, but actually makes clearer what's meant by the statement. :)Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Your nice post on my talkpage notwithstanding, you are actually rather highhanded here and in your editsummaries. You claim I censor Wikipedia and "got caught on POV pushing". I deny both these accusations. I strive to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of my ability and understanding. As to the section in question. I also edited the sentence in question once more, and think it is much clearer now. I hope we can agree at least on that. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. And I know that you generally do, with a few notable exceptions that I've seen on the AN/I boards. You've contributed a lot to Wikipedia, and you do quite a bit to combat vandalism. I truly applaud that, and in this case, I think you were for the most part acting in good faith. I don't withdraw my assertion that there was systemic bias, but I'm not completely sure you were even aware of its presence. And yes, that edit is perfectly acceptable. We're in agreement. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Debresser, I'm glad we worked that out, and could reach a consensus. I see you pop up every now and then, and you're as solid an editor as I've ever seen. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Quinto Simmaco what do you think about inclusion of the Druze? With Christians at 2.1% and Druze at 1.7% there is not a lot of difference. GregKaye 11:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I could support that, GregKaye. Though to be honest, I'd like to get a consensus on this. Arising from within the tradition of Islam, they could certainly be considered Abrahamic, though they obviously differ significantly from the larger Abrahamic religions. If we include them, we'd also logically have to include Baha'i, who are indeed Abrahamic, and have a pretty solid claim to that title. The inclusion of the Druze is only slightly complicated, of course, due to the complex origins of some Druze beliefs, many of which are thought to have been transmitted from the late classical period (and possibly from a non-Abrahamic Neoplatonic and Gnostic milieu). Whatever the origins of those individual beliefs which helped inform the Unity movement though, they are obviously as Abrahamic as any other post-Islamic religions, such as Baha'i, Yezidism, and Ahl-e Haqq. Perhaps even more so, respective to the latter two faiths. All of these faiths consider themselves Abrahamic, unlike Mandaeaism... It depends largely on what the sources say, and on what consensus here is. From my readings in the past though, I don't doubt we could find sources both in favour and against, predicated on varying ideas of what constitutes an "Abrahamic faith". The figure of Abraham is present as a major figure in both traditions. Even casting a wider net, they venerate or esteem many of the same religious figures, and both have origins rooted in (however loosely), and connections to, the other Abrahamic faiths. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, I'm wondering why we even need such a distinction, or a debate about it, especially since it might unintentionally introduce original research. The only truly non-Abrahamic faiths we mention are Buddhism and Hinduism. Rather than "Abrahamic Faiths" and "minorities", we could divide them between "Abrahamic" and "Non-Abrahamic". Obviously, the current grouping is a bit mixed up, with religions having a proportionally larger population in "minorities", as GregKaye pointed out. The current schema we're using might be just a little bit UNDUE, and it would certainly be mostly NPOV (so far as I can see), and in line with common naming, to make this change. It might also give us the ability to mention even smaller minorities, if we could find sources to support their inclusion; they certainly are there, though not counted in the census or having official recognition. Religious traditions such as Alevis, and neopagan groups like Wiccans and Am Ha'aretzim. Of course, their inclusion would be wholly dependent on what reliable sources say. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2015

Not moved. That said, there is agreement that the article can be adjusted in order to address the issues raised in the original post. Addition of the note to the lead image caption seems to be unopposed, and further changes (e.g. identifying which regions the statistics refer to, and presenting alternative statistics if they're available) can be made or proposed as necessary. If it turns out that this approach results in problems after trying it for a while, then perhaps this issue can be revisited in the future. Sunrise (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion in Israel → Religion in Israel and Palestinian Territories – Just as an example the Article begins with display of a picture of the "Western Wall and Dome of the Rock.." both of which are found in the Old City (Jerusalem) in East Jerusalem in the West Bank. As well as another picture of the Kotel/Western Wall the article also contains pictures of the "Foundation Stone in the Dome of the Rock" and "The Church of the Holy Sepulchre" both of which are in the Old city. The only picture that is specifically relevant to Israel is of "The Bahá'í Arc" in Haifa. The only other picture for which a particular location is relevant is of "the Great Synagogue, Jerusalem but, even in this case, West Jerusalem is still contested. A relevant fact, that I maintain to be centrally relevant, is that the original UN partition plan for Palestine was for there to be a Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) which was neither to be in a Jewish or an Arab State but which was to have been in international administration. Any ownership by any side is yet to be decided on by agreement. The other pictures could well be representative of a great many places in Israel/Palestine inclusive of Israeli "settlement" cities. The article has a significant content on local practice of Islam which can apply all over. The content on the Samaritans is most relevant to their activities and residence at and around Mount Gerizim, also in the West Bank, and I well recommend a visit at Passover if a trip is practical. Many Druze live in the Golan Heights. GregKaye 11:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Disagree - Religious demographics in Israel and Palestine are very different...In fact, I would recommend the creation of a separate article Religion in Palestine. This may resolve the image problems mentioned above by including images in this article as well under a relevant context.--Peaceworld 12:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
--Peaceworld That could be an option but the WP:NPOV alternative for the Israel article would be to remove all pictures and content related to the West Bank from the article. We can't present an ".. in Israel" article and then present content from locations that are not accepted as being in Israel. I don't see a problem with demographics. The article currently contains a pie chart on belief in Israel but that can stay. If a pie chart can be developed for territories on the other side of the Armistice line then that could be added. GregKaye 19:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, couldn't we just write a note on every relevant image, explaining this very dispute? We would have to make a lot of additions and NPOV changes to the contents of the article if it was to be moved. Islam and Samaritans in Israel form only a small part of this article. Relevant activities of the Samaritans can be moved to the Religion of Palestine if and when it is created. In my opinion, it is an unnecessary move for the sake of a few images and I believe this is one of a few decent Religion by country articles.--Peaceworld 22:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
--Peaceworld. My suggested wording is to write Religion in Israel and Palestinian Territories. Would it be possible for you to propose a workable alternative wording. This would also be a wording that could be added to similar images and content in the Israel article which currently labels the "main" topic, with all its imagery of West Bank locations, as "Religion in Israel". GregKaye 06:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe I presented my alternative above. If we recognize these images as an NPOV issue, and move the page in line with your recommendation, the issue would still be unsolved...For example Israel#Religion also displays those disputed images and I don't think a parallel alternative Israel and the Palestinian Territories for Israel is possible.--Peaceworld 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, having read once again what you asking, I believe a viable note could be attached to each of the images (or just the first one). As this is essentially a discussion limited to Jerusalem, a moulded version of Israel#cite_note-15 could be attached.--Peaceworld 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Against This article is about Israel as Israel defines itself, including official state statistics. If some want to dispute those definitions, that complicates matters too much. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Debresser This is a Wikipedia article speaking in Wikipedia's voice so as to present things that Wikipedia says are ".. in Israel". The "Temple Mount", the "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" etc. were on land intended as "Corpus separatum" and are now internationally classified as West Bank. Wikipedia is not here to WP:SOAPBOX how Israel defines itself. We are here to present an WP:NPOV and encyclopaedic unbiased fact. GregKaye 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm usually on board with your often very helpful ideas, GregKaye, but I have to disagree on this one, as per what Debresser and most of what Peaceworld111 said (sans the lengthy image captions). That generally seems to be how these articles are structured. I would say replicate and split the relevant content where necessary into an article concerning the Palestinian territories. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Quinto Simmaco What exactly do you see as the basis of support for presenting images taken from the West Bank and presenting them in the context of being ".. in Israel" and not even permitting explanation? How, I would like to know, does WP:NPOV fit in with this stance?
Wikipedia is not here to take sides. Please note that the whole topic of Israel is already a hotspot for tendentious editing and edit warring certainly within Wikipedia and reportedly elsewhere.
The fact is that the borders of Israel are not well defined. All we have are the post war results of armistice agreements which, by nature, are meant to have been temporary. They were drawn up in 1949.
The UN, with one abstention, declared Jerusalem LaW "null and void". In this context, a Wikipedia endorsement of Israel's official state statistics, as advocated by Debresser, would be as equally absurd. GregKaye 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that we shouldn't explain the nuances. I'm completely on board with that. I was simply saying that we should probably clarify this more in the article, rather than creating absurdly long image captions. However, I do think that it should probably be mentioned. Apologies for being unclear. I had been up for an ungodly amount of time.

As far as the move, I was simply stating pragmatically, that so far as I've come across at least, "Religion in (nation)" articles are never combined with one another. It's done according to each individual political state. And that, as you've seen, consensus is virtually never achieved for such radical revisions in articles relating to Israel, or the Palestinian territories.

Of course we're not here to take sides, or give voice to one disputant over the other. We do, however, report what reliable sources say, though. The UN, while the largest voluntary representative body of governments in the world, and which regularly serves as an arbiter and interpreter of international law, is not our only reliable source. Nor does it dictate policy here. Of course we report what the general consensus at the United Nations happens to be. If a nation agrees or disagrees with a resolution, we of course report it. If there is commentary on such resolutions, we of course report that as well. The multiplicity of views on issues relating to Israel, and that sources from different backgrounds and of different constituencies have various biases, makes navigating these murky waters difficult.
I'm not going pretend that I understand the nuances of those issues. My point was more that creating such an article wouldn't just break with precedence, but breaks with the "type" of article it is. Every opinion that's reflected in reliable sources can be aired here, if there's consensus for it. The issue of the pictures should indeed be discussed in some way, given the issues related to control and administration of those site. My comment was really on the suggested move. I think that combining two different political states into one article doesn't really serve any purpose. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Quinto Simmaco Peaceworld111 I have edited the article here so as to add the text "(Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed).[note 1]" with the note copying the similar text from the Israel article.
I don't think that "nuances" covers the issue. We are dealing with a "(Jewish) State" that was allotted a certain territory; which, during a series of wars, expanded and that, after an armistice agreement, withdrew part way and to the green line. Further conflict then led to Israel controlling the West Bank, Gaza and Golan. I have no understanding as to how it is then possible to say what is Israel and what is not. No agreement with the people that matter has been achieved and I think that an encyclopaedic thing to do would be to present the whole picture with relevant facts and views to readers to enable them to come to decisions. There are articles that consider religion not according to national boundaries such as Religion in the Middle East. Even if we make statements to the effect that the Old City sites are in the West Bank this may still indicate that a done and dusted border exists along the green line. There is currently a debate over how to deal with the content of the article List of cities in Israel which was previously entitled List of cities of Israel presumably because it included the entirety of Jerusalem and the five West bank settlements that are classified as cities. GregKaye 08:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Respecting MOS

Let me be very clear: I'm far from an expert in this article's topic. However, I can read what WP:DUPLINK says, and it certainly doesn't say that two of the same link (even when they look like different links due to piping or redirects - something that shouldn't happen, anyway, per WP:EASTEREGG) should come in quick succession. That's why edits like this, this and this one aren't quite kosher, if I may say so, even regardless of any consensus about use of specific religious terms, which has been stated to exist. LjL (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Recently added longthy undue to Reform section

Recently there was an lengthy section about the reform which is not balanced towards like the rest of the article. It also cites many specific cases as is written as a promotion for certain movements rather than informational. - It should be removed. Important to note that the user who added it has been told by many editors across many articles to stop the un-balancing articles with lengthy POV. Caseeart (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you are refering to VanEman's additions in these edits. Similar edits are being discussed at Talk:Mikveh#Controversies, and I agree that VanEman 1. is an editor with a strong POV tendency in his edits. 2. adds too many details of limited importance and relevance. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed problems with the representation of the sources (chooses very specific phrases from the sources that do not explain the main ideas). Caseeart (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Why didn't you keep at least part of the first paragraph about non-Orthodox Judaism? It seems general enough. And the same for the first half of the second paragraph you removed. Those short and informative statements seem relevant and well-sourced. Debresser (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Done already. That paragraph is now restored. Removed the complaints and the poorly sourced material (that misrepresents the Jpost article (selects a very specific pov portion), and the other source that has almost nothing to do with reform - it's just POV that the user tries inserting in every other article). Now it is restored but written short, informational and to the point. Caseeart (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A survey published in May 2016 shows one third of Israeli Jews "especially identify" with Progressive (i.e. Reform and Conservative) Judaism. This is a larger number than the number of Christians or Samaritans in Israel and close the the number that identity with Orthodox Judaism. So in terms of proportion, the Progressive section should have close to the text amount as Orthodox.

This "survey" was conducted for the Reform movement; It can't be taken seriously. All other studies give much lower numbers, in particular the Pew study about Israeli Jews, that gives a 3% identification with Reforms. Benjil (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Free from persecution

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Israel&diff=724991889&oldid=724978345 I removed this text, which does not have an RS, on the grounds that it is not needed. What relevance does it have to an article about religion in Israel? It might be relevant to an article on Zionism, or on the war for Israeli independence, but I do not see any need for it here. This article is about religion in modern day Israel, and does not need to refer back to the reasons for its founding. Maureendepresident (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The sentence was "Israel was founded to provide a national home, safe from persecution, to the Jewish people.", and you removed "safe from persecution". On the one hand, your argument that this is not directly relevant to this article seems correct. On the other hand, this whole sentence is for background, and IMHO this is relevant as background information, and should therefore stay. More importantly, I think this addition stresses the importance of freedom of race, creed and religion in Israel, since the State of Israel was found to prevent persecution on those parameters. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything in a Wikipedia article needs to be referenced. I agree that if it was not referenced it should be taken out, like much of the lead paragraph, which doesn't match the references. Also, it should be noted that Israeli Jews are very much divided on what it means to be "Jewish." The religious define it as a religion, but the secular define it as ancestry or culture. So we need to be clear that when we're taking about Jewishness in an article about religion, we're not getting confused about what that means in the context of an ethnic religion.VanEman (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a strong dislike for editors who 1. edit war instead of obtain consensus 2. disagree with anything I do just because I did it 3. claim that a lack of sources it what motivates them, when it is so easy to find sources. I, of course, would not have anybody specific in mind.
For a nice first source please see {{Cite web |url=http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutTheMinistry/Publications/Pages/Vibrant%20Israel%20-%20Zionism.aspx |title=Vibrant Israel-Zionism |publisher=State of Israel |access-date=June 14, 2016 |quote=In 1897, the first Zionist Congress... proclaimed its aim: the return of the Jews to their historic homeland, where Jews would be free from persecution and be able to develop their own lives and identity.}}. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The first suggested source does not work. The fact that In 1897, the first Zionist Congress, proclaimed this does not equate to an RS that the State of Israel was founded on this basis. I will add a citation required for now, as the words free from persecution do not appear in the Israeli declaration of Independence. Also note that I will add for the Jewish people, rather than to the Jewish people.Maureendepresident (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with adding the tag and changing "to" to "for". I think the first source is good enough, because even if it isn't there explicitly, it is clear enough and common knowledge that the result of the efforts of those Zionist was precisely the founding of the State of Israel. However, out of respect for you, my fellow editor, I will not add the source at this moment. I hope some other editors will comment here. Perhaps somebody will bring a better source. I have asked editors at WP:ISRAEL to help with this. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • See [[1]] at the bottom is the translation. It mentions the need for a safe homeland for the Jews and it also mentions 1897. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21's reference gives priority to the need to establish a Jewish homeland for a homeless people, and not solely as the result of persecution. Why don't we just remove the whole of this sentence 'Israel was founded to provide a national home, safe from persecution,[citation needed] for the Jewish people.'? It does not relate to the article, and certainly does not relate to citizenship or religion. We have plenty of references here to the declaration of Independence claim about guaranteeing religious liberty for all citizens, and I think that is more relevant. In Religion in the US I don't see any reference to the fact that its founders were escaping religious persecution.Maureendepresident (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you read the declaration? Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Official_translation Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
S J . You stated that the declaration refers to a 'safe homeland' for the Jews. That is OR. The words safe and homeland do NOT occur together. The only use of the word safe is to refer to safeguarding the holy places. Please read your own reference. It does not say what you say it does.Maureendepresident (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying the declaration doesn't insinuate that Israel will be a safe homeland for the Jews? I just re-read it. Let's not bend over backwards to now start to claim what you are asserting. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Insinuate means suggest or hint (something bad) in an indirect and unpleasant way. Is that what you meant? You stated that the declaration mentions the need for a safe homeland for the Jews. As I have pointed out the words 'safe homeland' do not appear. It is therefore OR to state that they do. The phrase used in the article which I suggest needs an RS is 'safe from persecution' not safe homeland. If you believe you have an RS for safe from persecution the best way to test it is to put it in and see what happens. I still don't see why that is relevant to Religion in Israel. This article is not about Israel's founding history, but only about religion in Israel.Maureendepresident (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I had actually read the Declaration of Independence before posting here, but agree with Maureendepresident that it is not precisely what we're looking for here. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The declaration uses says that the holocuast prove how urgent it is to establish a state. I think it does mean it's for Jews fleeing persectuion. I have once saw on the internet a protocol of a Zionist congress (not the Elders of Zion lol) in which they said something about it.. My question is, are you searching for a source about the establishment it self or the intentions behind it (let's say, Zionist statements before the Holocaust talking about establishment to aviod persecution). Although without a source, I think we can all agree, that with the help of the May Laws, Kishinev pogrom and general persectuion in Eastern Europe, the Zionist movement got most of its initial support.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The text deserves an RS that states that Israel was founded in order to keep Jews safe from persecution. Whether we all agree or not that Jews have suffered persecution at different times in history is not relevant, since our opinions do not matter.Maureendepresident (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's kind of WP:BLUE at this point. I don't think we need a RS or something farfetched to take the Declaration or other documents and say Israel was founded to keep Jews safe from persecution. Indeed, that is one reason for the Right of Return. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, some editors disagree and think a source is needed. I have asked for help in finding one at WP:ISRAEL. Since this is the easiest way out of the conflict, is there anything you could do, find a nice source perhaps? Debresser (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
How does this not imply that?

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

and

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

I can try to find sources but just from reading that it seems to reason Israel's creation was to have a homeland free from persecution. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no need for an exactly worded source; all nations are formed for the same list of reasons, this one in particular is even more notable then the hundred other reasons due to the persecution faced by the Jewish people at the time and historically. There's no need to apply a double standard, an exceptionally high bar of evidence, for Israel's reasons for formation. Sepsis II (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No one is applying an exceptionally high bar of evidence for this text. Implication is not an RS. As yet, no one has provided any reason why the claim that Israel was founded to keep Jews safe from persecution has any relevance to religion in Israel. If we want to add information that has no relevance we surely need an RS. Can anyone tell me why the claim about safe from persecution has any relevance to this article? If the statement said that Israel was formed to allow Jews to practise Judaism, then I could see relevance. Why do we need this claim here? What does it add to the article? Even it the sky is blue that is not a reason to put it in every wikipedia articleMaureendepresident (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, free of persecution, on religious grounds, for having faith, having the wrong faith, having no faith, being born of those of incorrect faithfulness. This is en.wiki not German wiki, such a level of nitpicking, demanding others find sources for you, isn't appreciated. Sepsis II (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sepsis, and it is notable because in Israel Jews are free to practice their religion without fear of persecution. There are countries in the world where they can't do it and countries where they couldn't do it. So it makes perfect sense to include that. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I fail to understand how anybody can seriously maintain that no source is needed. Wikipedia has a simple policy (not guideline), WP:V, that says that any challenged information can be removed if it is not sourced. It's in the led of that policy. Feel free not to challenge it, but if there is even one editor who does challenge it (not because of any POV or for other ulterior motives), then either provide a source, or it has to go. It is as simple as that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Propose to merge Religious relations in Israel -> Religion in Israel. The basis for the merge is that there is no other article in Wikipedia titled "religious relations in Foo". Secondly, from the size perspective, the article Religion in Israel is only 64kb, while Religious relations in Israel is 48kb - and probably much of the articles actually overlap. It is much better to have the Religion in Israel article to be more profound and informative.GreyShark (dibra) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if the resulting article won't be too large. See WP:LENGTH. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: would be less than 100k, since articles have much overlap.GreyShark (dibra) 10:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religion in Israel. 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:

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) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Religion in Israel. 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:

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) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Religion in Israel. 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:

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) 07:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Need to merge?

At first blush it seems like the latter duplicates subject matter coverage of the former. Is this a POV fork? A good faith redundancy? Should they be merged? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Religious relations in Israel is an independent article, large and with many sources, which is summarized in the Religious relations section of Religion in Israel. All of this is the way things should be done on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Closing, as there appears to be a consensus for WP:SUMMARY. Klbrain (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

In the third sentence, change "with the remaining 4.1% including both minor faiths such as Samaritanism and Baha'iism, and irreligious people with no faith." to "with the remaining 4.1% mostly including minor faiths such as Samaritanism and Baha'iism and those who are of Jewish ancestry but are not considered Jewish by Halakha, but also a small amount of irreligious people." 93.173.170.232 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is factually correct. I'd say "and also a small amount of irreligious people.", not "but".
It's a bad idea to use expressions like "minor faiths" as they can interpreted as commentary on the quality of the faith. Just removing the word "minor" would help a lot, and not hurt the meaning given that percentages are given. Zerotalk 00:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done, with the word "minor" removed. Fish+Karate 09:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "those who are of Jewish ancestry but are not considered Jewish by Halakha", because that is not correct. There are many more of those in Israel. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

Please change "although some Baha'is have ignored such notices when not seeking pilgrimage." to ".". According to the citation, this statement has no foundation and it is not particularly true or a generality for the case. Hence, I ask that this excerpt is removed from the article. Thank you. Randomhash68 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Randomhash68:  Done — Newslinger talk 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2018

I noticed that there was a problem with one of the hyperlinks in reference 2.

Please change the text from this: [1] to this: [2] Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Biscuit-in-Chief: Neither of the links you provided appear to work - however, I did manage to fix the link by changing it to go to https://www.haaretz.com/1.5448149. So  Done, I guess. --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: Oh yes, I see, my bad. well, thank you for correcting the reference anyway :)

References

  1. ^ Haaretz Service (16-09-2009). "Israel on eve of Rosh Hoshanah: Population hits 7.5m, 75.4% Jewish". Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115060.html. Retrieved 2009-12-26.
  2. ^ Haaretz Service (16-09-2009). Israel on eve of Rosh Hoshanah: Population hits 7.5m, 75.4% Jewish. Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-12-26.

POV text regarding Jerusalem

Unsurprisingly, Debresser doesn't want to give up "Despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Quran". Of course it is a standard part of the anti-Muslim polemic regarding Jerusalem. Debresser would scream loudly if "Despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Torah" was used to prefix a description of the importance of Jerusalem to Jews, even though that is just as true and perfectly easy to source. Debresser knows perfectly well that in both cases indirect references are claimed, and that in both cases those works are by far not the only sources of tradition. But that would be a balanced way of presenting the facts. Zerotalk 06:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This being a later retconning, or tradition, is clearly relevant given that several sources raise this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously. And I don't see anything POV about it. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course several sources raise it. That's because it is a standard part of the anti-Muslim polemic regarding Jerusalem. Like I said. Otherwise it would appear in a few specialist works rather than all over the internet. This is a clear npov violation. Zerotalk 00:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether it is "part of the anti-Muslim polemic" or not is at best your original research, and at most a spin of your POV. Furthermore, calling it POV is itself WP:OR at best. I see no objective reason to call this POV. And even if it were, if it is sourced, it can stay, such is WP policy. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser. If you can find sources that say it, it should stay, no matter how egregiously POV it is. I fully intend to gather reliable sources that say Jews worship at the synagogue of Satan and add that to the article as well. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Is the Islamic point of view that verse 17:1 "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa)" refers to Jerusalem? Debresser (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

Please change

"The Karaites are an ancient Jewish community that practices a form of Judaism distinct from Rabbinical Judaism, dating ostensibly to between the 7th and 9th centuries based on textual evidence,[1][2][3] though they claim a tradition at least as old as other forms of Judaism with some tracing their origins to the Masoretes and the Sadducees."

to

"The Karaites are an ancient Jewish community that practices a form of Judaism distinct from Rabbinical Judaism, which separated from the Rabbinical stream of Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries based on textual evidence,[4][5][6] though they claim a tradition at least as old as other forms of Judaism."

Explanation of requested changes: The Karaites do not claim descent from the Sadducees; rather, Rabbanites and Karaites have at times both accused each other of being Sadducees. As one example, the Roman Historian Josephus states that the Sadducees did not believe in angels. However both Karaites and Rabbinates believe that there are angels, since they both follow the Masoretic text of the Bible, which has angels. The Sadducees, on the other hand, are believed to have had a different version of the bible which did not include angels. Huggy82 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing "dating ostensibly to between the 7th and 9th centuries" to "which separated from the Rabbinical stream of Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries", but you have not convinced me to do the main point of your request, namely deleting "with some tracing their origins to the Masoretes and the Sadducees". Your reason sounds a lot like original research. In addition, even if it were not true, the fact remains that some hold it to be true. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mourad El-Kodsi, The Karaite Jews of Egypt, 1987.
  2. ^ Ash-Shubban Al-Qarra’in 4, 2 June 1937, p. 8.
  3. ^ Oesterley, W. O. E. & Box, G. H. (1920) A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Mediæval Judaism, Burt Franklin:New York.
  4. ^ Mourad El-Kodsi, The Karaite Jews of Egypt, 1987.
  5. ^ Ash-Shubban Al-Qarra’in 4, 2 June 1937, p. 8.
  6. ^ Oesterley, W. O. E. & Box, G. H. (1920) A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Mediæval Judaism, Burt Franklin:New York.
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. DBigXrayᗙ 08:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

I request the name listed as 'Baha'iism' in the first paragraph to be listed as Bahá'í Faith. That is the correct name of that religion. Thankyou :) 154.20.116.25 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_Israel/Archive_2&oldid=1137120267"