Talk:Religion in Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation for land tracts being owned by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate[edit]

I was curious about this and started looking it up. I found an Israeli property consulting company that discussed the exact same issue of land ownership on their website. I'm not sure if this is good enough for a footnote or not, but it at least confirms some of what has been spoken about in the wiki article. The website for this is here: http://www.property.co.il/church_land.html This website does not say where they got their information from on this subject.

Jennie1964 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Persecution[edit]

Funny. The article this content came from is "persecution by Jews", but the word "persecution" keeps getting deleted. It got deleted in the orginal article. And it's getting deleted here. Apparently, the point is that the modern state of Israel doesn't "persecute" anyone. There is simply a passive voice form of "tension" that isn't attributed to anyone in particular. "mistakes were made", as it were, but we cannot report by whom. FuelWagon 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Its nice to know that the series of articles on wikipedia is kept up to maintain a certain order of lies.The fact that the tacticts of Israeli police and miltary arent up to question is strange enough.Even better is the fact that the articles all seem edited down to carefully avoid any kind of notattion of the mistakes the jewish nation has made towards other faiths.For example The fact that the Muslim population was not defined as a religious community is a vestige of the Ottoman era, when Islam was the dominant religion. The religious rights of the Muslim community are not affected by this, as even members of unrecognized religions are free to practice their religion.... is blantantly untrue.The fact remains that muslims cant walk around unharrassed and they wont admit this.The tactics taken up are there to try and save lives sure ... but at what costs.The israleis need to be marked as being imperfect and human like they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakesmart (talkcontribs) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My POV on first sentences[edit]

I removed "religion in Israel is a complex subject" as the first sentence. It says nothing and adds nothing. There is often a desire to have the page title appear as the very first words of the lead but I don't see this as fundamental. Marskell 16:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way of getting the phrase into the lead? I agree that sentence added nothing, but I think it would be better if the article started with its name somehow. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UbC)
I just swapped around the clauses of the first two sentences so that religion in Israel appears early. Marskell 21:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

I've added this article as a DYK suggestion; thanks to the multiple contributors.--Pharos 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No question is a bad question :)...what is DYK? Marskell 23:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Did you know... section on the Main Page. You can see my suggestion at Template talk:Did you know.--Pharos 23:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thx. I've seen it—brain just didn't produce the "what's it stand for" on the spot :). Marskell 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Persecution[edit]

Israel is the only modern country that does not commit persecution of Jews. Germany sought to eradicate them (the holocaust did happen people) The United States has a long history of persecution in the form of hangings, job discrimination, and denial of services, England expelled them, Portugal forcibly baptised Jewish children or drowned them. In Israel one can be free to be a Jew. The Jews built Israel and that can't be denied. Persecution is an appropiate term. - Amerasian 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • England expelled them in the reign of, if I recall, Edward the First. At the time the English were mostly whiling away their days attacking the Scottish (I can only imagine it made a break from attacking the French). And thats when the king wasn't doing in his own serfs. At any rate, saying that a jew can't be free to be a jew in England today because of n event that happened 600 years ago, isn't that just a little strong? Similar points could be made about the other countries you mentioned. Sabine's Sunbird 23:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

+++

I'd heard Messianic Jews get a pretty tough time in Israel and didn't the Jewish settlers get kicked out of Gaza recently for being Jewish? -- Sounds like persecution to me. You're talking bollocks 23:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Whitewashed rubbish as usual. Try telling Neturei Karta members or those opposed to the policies of the Government of just how much they're beaten down and violently opposed even with peaceful protests. Israel doesn't love Jews wholesale, it loves those who support it, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Many of your examples here are from the past, yet you say the only modern country that does not persecute Jews. 86.174.0.229 (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing statistics[edit]

From reading this article I was unable to decipher how many Israeilis are atheists. Can anyone offer an answer on that? Kaldari 23:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

For Jews, at least: "51% are "secular". Among the secular, 53% believe in God." Thus 47% of 51% of 77% = 18.5%. This assumes all of the the ultra-orthodox, traditionalists, and mainly Muslim non-Jews are believers. Note too, that not noting a belief in God is not always equivalent to self-identifying as atheist. Marskell 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't add up. If 19% of ethnic Jews are atheist and 80% of Israel's population is ethnically Jewish, that means that nearly 15% of the population of Isreal is atheist/nonreligious. However in the "Religious breakdown" section, only 4% of the population of Israel is not Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Druze "by religion". I don't think 15% of the population can fit into 4% of the population. These statistics don't make sense. I think the heart of the problem is that this article is confusing ethnic Jews for religious Jews. Kaldari 16:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Though it sounds contradictory, a census can allow for a religious identification but not an affirmation of belief God. The Factbook (and thus presumably the latest Israeli census) lists Israel as 77% Jewish by religion (80% by ethnicity). So far so good. I assume this is further broken down into orthodox, secular etc. But I doubt very much the question of belief in God is even asked and that the number here comes from a poll. If you say "one can't identiy as a religious secular Jew," you would indeed have a perfectly logical point—but no one said self-identity is logical. I suspect there are a great many utterly secularized Jews who are still loath to give up the religious label.

To use a close to home example, I'd certainly place a bet that a good number of Quebecois list themselves as Roman Catholic on censuses but, if asked in an ancillary pole, would say they do not believe in God or at least decline to answer. So it goes. Marskell 17:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the article on Judaism, the most important belief of the religion is belief in God, so how can people claim to practice Judaism if they don't believe in God? That seems rather ridiculous to me, but I suppose its a cultural difference I don't understand. Kaldari 18:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I presume it means that the cultural aspects of the religion (festivals etc) are an important part of their identity, while not actually believing in God. It's similar with Christianity in the UK - far more people call themselves Christian than belief in God. But they're culturally Christian - they celebrate Christmas, enjoy watching nativity plays, get married in church... 86.174.0.229 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. That is why "Jewish" is an ethno-religious group. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

More issues[edit]

These all need to be raised:

  • Observance of Jewish holidays
  • The status quo (shabbat, kashrut in government institutions)
  • Marriage issues (non-Orthodox: Reform, secular, intermarriage)
  • Conversion issues (non-Orthodox within Israel; recent landmark cases)
  • Pig (recent ruling that a municipality is not allowed to ban its sale, I think, as many had previously done)
  • Transportation on Shabbat and related issues

Are these elsewhere on Wikipedia?

--jnothman talk 15:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Need better sources for stats[edit]

Right now the stats on the basic religious breakdown of the Israeli population comes from one source: the Israeli Ministry of Interior. This source doesn't seem to be particularly accurate or thorough. In fact until 1994 they classified anyone who wasn't Jewish, Muslim, or Druze as "Christian" even if they were Atheist, Buddhist, or Satanist. Aren't there any better statistics out there? Kaldari 18:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "Atheists" is not a "religious" group...maybe there are a few Buddhists in Israel (like some poor Israelis who have been duped in Tibet), but who are the "Satanists" exactly? IZAK 05:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just using those as examples. My point is the Ministry of Interior didn't care how many Buddhists or Hindus or Bahai there were, or even how many actual Christians there were. They just lumped everyone into the Christian category if they weren't Jewish, Muslim, or Druze. Kaldari 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Questionable assertion[edit]

How can it be said that "the great majority of Israeli Jews practice Judaism as their religion" if 50-70% of Israeli Jews are secular? Kaldari 19:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I was confused by this too. It definitely has to be cleared up. Maybe it means the majority incorporate some form of Jewish religious practice. --jnothman talk
  • It probably means that they practice "some degree of Judaism". IZAK 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There are very high numbers I've seen for fasting on Yom Kippur or attending a Passover seder, for example.--Pharos 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • This is common for secular Jews in the US, but not so much in Israel. Personally, I think the statement may just be inaccurate, but without more sources, it's hard to tell. Kaldari 14:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's a poll on the subject [1].--Pharos 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the source. It's a little old, but useful. Kaldari 15:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Here's the highlights of the group's study from the year 2000. [2] Interesting stuff.--Pharos 15:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • As an Israeli Jew, I can testify that a great deal of the population practices some degree of Judaism. That includes Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot and Passover. Scarlight

I've tempered the sentence down a bit, so that now it reads: "the majority of Israeli Jews practice Judaism in some form". Hopefully that sounds a bit more accurate, as it doesn't specifically say "as their religion", since for many Jews it is more of a tradition/culture than a practiced religion, per se. Kaldari 19:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Mufti and the Nazis[edit]

Klonimus has inserted the following into the Islam in Israel section:

Amin al-Husayni was officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28 1941 in Berlin

During WWII, al-Husayni was in frequent contact with high level Nazi officials including Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

Babajobu removed it on the basis of "THAT picture of the pre-Israel mufti is not relevant to Islam in Israel", at which point Klonimus reinserted it, stating, "Baba, it is very relavent, becasue the Mufti permently poisioned relations between Jews and Muslims in Israel by introducting a fear of genocide. ."

I would argue that there was a fair fear of genocide with or without the Grand Mufti. The way the sentence and image are added seem to push the POV of a negative pro-Nazi image against al-Husayni. I do think that here his Nazi involvements can be mentioned, but in closer tie to the previous sentence. Either way, the sentence can't be put in again until after discussion of some sort. --jnothman talk 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people were "in contact" with Nazi officials. If we have something relevant to say about it, let's say it. Otherwise the sentence seems to imply that the Mufti was a Nazi supporter. Was he? If not, why do we have this suggestive sentence in the article? Is it really relavent? Kaldari 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is about Islam in the State of Israel. For the one picture in this section to be the infamous pic of al-Husseini meeting with Hitler is, in my opinion, very inappropriate. If this were an article on Religion in the Yishuv, then fine, but not here. al-Husseini is only marginally relevant to this article to begin with. And that Husseini himself "introduced a fear of genocide" is perhaps an arguable proposition, but it is OR and not suitable for the article. Babajobu 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's very relavent to discuss the Mufti's relationship to the Nazi's. He was the leader of the Muslims in the BMoP at the time. His association with hitler becomes relavent due to his stature as a religious figure. Klonimus 03:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That picture has been used to justify a lot of things, and in particular tar Muslims in the area with the Nazi brush. Nazis were in contact with Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists in the middle of the 20th century. Nazis were also in contact with certain Jewish leaders, and tried to use their influence for their purposes. --MacRusgail 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nazi's were also in talks with Zionist leaders about the deportation of Jews. Does this mean all Zionists are Nazi's? You wouldn't dare insinuate that. I've come across this Mufti and the Nazi links far too much in modern times, a piece of propaganda to tar Muslims with, I've even had this rubbish spouted by Christians in North America nowadays, no doubt to rally support for Zionism's cause.
Nothing more than a piece of vile, distorted propaganda. If this Mufti was a Nazi then so were many Zionist leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The original Israelis had little on the Mufti, and only much later did it become necessary to claim he'd ordered the Holocaust. They kidnapped Eichmann from Argentina, but left the Mufti living openly next door to them in Lebanon. He may have been a Nazi - but he tried to hide out in Lebanon and Baghdad (and Syria?)) before going to Berlin, where his status was low indeed. Nor had the Nazis been listening to him in the 1930s, when they were helping populate and industrialise Palestine. The statement in the article "The council was abolished in 1948, but the Grand Mufti continued as one of the most notorious Islamic and Arab leaders of modern times, often inciting Muslims against Jews wherever he went." needs taking out, it's Islamophobic and ridiculously misleading. PRtalk 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Secular festivals[edit]

I don't know where to put this information, and I don't have enough of it. Can someone help me out with either of these?

Although secular Israelis generally do not observe Jewish festivals in their traditional, religious manner, the days are nonetheless public holidays and have taken on some traditions in the secular community.
Due to the traditional sanctity of Yom Kippur many Israelis do not drive, leaving the roads empty in Jewish areas of Israel. Consequently, Yom Kippur has become known to secular Israeli children as "Yom Haofnayim" (Bicycle Day), a day on which thousands ride bicycles through the vacant streets of the cities. Orthodox Judaism considers riding bicycles a desecration of the sabbath and of Yom Kippur, but it is given less concern than driving a car or monetary transactions.
The secular community has also adopted many traditional greetings associated with festivals, greeting each other with chag sameach ("happy festival") during a festival and for some time preceding it.

--jnothman talk 22:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this could be a sub-section of religious tensions. Or perhaps a new section on religious and secular "intersection" could be added. I recall in the last year or two, for instance, much bruhaha (sp?!) over a Gay Pride march in Jerusalem. This sort of thing has a place though I hope for more knowledgable editors. Marskell 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Gospel[edit]

The article mentions that there has been friction between Christian groups and the government. Is this refering to the ban on preaching the Gospel, since this is a rumour that is widespread. Is this true?

I belive this to be true, but the only webpages I could find were pages of the "we fight against Jewish supremacism" sort. Although these pages are sometimes correct, I think most Wikipedians discount them as beeing anti-semitic. Personally I find it difficult to find correct information about Jews and Israel.

sverre

Would "they" stand for this in America?[edit]

What would you think the Jews would do if the US dared pass a law that restricted marriage between races? This isn't too much different from Israel's nazi/apartheid like laws. It seems like the Jews of the world scream "diversity" and "acceptance" down the throat of European peoples but as soon as it comes to "their" homeland everything is different. Volksgeist 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There should definitely be mention of forced segregation and the fact that Jews and Palestinians are not allowed to marry in Israel. Why is this important piece of information left out? 87.194.21.39 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7669118.stm

Some mention should go to the way Israeli Arabs, mostly Muslim, are treated as third class citizens within Israel. The link above shows an Arab man getting arrested because he drove his car on a Jewish holiday in a Jewish area. That's ludicrous, forced observance of other religious customs. Would you tolerate this if a Christian had been arrested in Syria driving a car on a Muslim holiday?

And in the words of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "for many years there has been discrimination against the Arab population". Straight from the horses mouth. 87.194.21.39 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Subbotniki from USSR[edit]

How many subbotniki are living in Israel? Have they contact with Sabbat-Adventists? SimonMayer.

Israel explicitly a religiously Jewish state?[edit]

The assertion that Israeli is religiously a Jewish state, in addition to ethnically, is incorrect. Israel has no official religion. Rather, it defines itself as the national home of the Jewish people. Israel's criteria for Jewish identity for the purposes of immigration differs from Jewish law and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. See link below. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/11_Democracy.html

YouTube Link[edit]

a) not in English so impossible to follow unless a French speaker and b) unknown origin so impossible to judge reliability as source and whether a copy vio. I therefore removed. --Spartaz 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Palestine[edit]

What relevance does this article have to Wikiproject Palestine?

I suspect the fact that what is Israel and what is Palestine depends on who you talk to. --MacRusgail 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be relevant if we are having a political debate, but it is not in this case. International law defines quite clearly what is Israel and what is Palestine in terms of their modern borders. This article does not deal with religion in historic Palestine or in the West Bank and Gaza, and thus is clearly not relevant in any way to Wikiproject Palestine.Sstr (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Smallest of the Abrahamic religions"[edit]

I contest the following statement - "Christians are presently the smallest religious group and denomination of the Abrahamic religions in Israel."

I say this because Israel has dozens of religious minorities of various kinds. Do the Bahai's or Druze count as Abrahamic? There are arguments for saying that they do, and if they do, then I suspect they number less than Christians apiece.

I think this should be rephrased as "Christians are presently the smallest of the three main Abrahamic religions in Israel."

Note I also removed "denomination" - Christianity is not a denomination. Roman Catholicism, Methodism etc are.

--MacRusgail 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Haredim 5%[edit]

The intro says that Haredim are 5% of the population. That is not true. I have seen estimates ranging from 8 to 12%. 5% is a ridiculously low number. Also, note that about 23% of Jewish children are in Haredi schools. I've been trying to find a source for an hour already. If anybody can help in finding some more accurate demographical information regarding the percentages by observance, please do. --Rabbeinu 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is riddled with mistakes[edit]

I am sorry to say, but there are more mistakes in the article that I have fingers. Just one example is the "status quo letter" which was given in 1947 (not 1948) by BG to specifically Agudat Israel and states exactly 4 subjects (Sabbath, kashrut, educational autonomy and marital status). It does not talk about "Importation of non-kosher foods is prohibited" or even mention "public transport" (see letter in Hebrew (DOC format). This is just one example, but there are many more. DGtal 07:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am gonna fix the mistakes in the English article as soon as we create a good Hebrew version. --Acidburn24m 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OR, uncited, or irrelevant material[edit]

I'm listing here recent additions I don't think properly comply with policy.

  1. "Most of the Israel Jews tend to define themselves somewhat between being religious and being secular, and more of being in a middle group which defines themselves as traditional. The conservative movement (which is called in Israel the traditional movement) and the reformist movement, whom are the largest Jewish movements in the world..."
  2. "While Judaism has always affirmed a collection of Jewish Principles of Faith, it has never developed a fully binding catechism. In the middle ages Jewish "main belief" were formulated more than once, but those were never saught as obligated upon all Jews, and at best it was only accepted amongst the students of the rabbi whom formulated them, or his followers accepted them on themselves. An exception to this is the rule is Maimonides' 13 principles of faith (written by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides or "The Rambam"). the list of the Rambam fundimental beliefs gained a preferred status, and nowadays a translated version of it exists is many Jewish prayer books. Still, also the Rambam's list was never eventually saught as obligated upon all Jews. With no central agreed-upon authority, no one formulation of Jewish principles of faith could take precedence over any other."
  3. "Judaism's core belief, however, firmly remains a binding principle agreed upon by Jews of all backgrounds: the belief in one God, creator of the universe. Through out most of the history of Judaism, since the Destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD) and the creation of the Talmud books (between 200 AD- 550 AD), there was also an common belief in the godly reward and punishment regarding to peoples acts, and the belief of an "after life", which is the place a person arrives after the death of his body."
  4. "At the same time, there is also a significant movement in the opposite direction towards a secular lifestyle, where Orthodox and religious Jews reject their previously religious lifestyles and choose to become secular themselves. Contrary to the Israeli-Jewish repentance movements, for the yotz'im bish'ela (pl. noun for those who leaves their religion) there are no organization which encourge them to become secular and they usually face ostracism from their original community. In addition, many are unprepared for life in the "outside world" as they have no modern education or they have almost no money."
  5. The entire "Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism" section.

This is an incomplete list. While there may be good facts to support some of the assertions, no citations have been provided. The sections on Jerusalem and the Principles of faith are irrelevant as written. nadav (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

does anybody here agree with Nadav's claims ? Acidburn24m 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The target of :Main article: Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism does not exist.--Redaktor 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed other parts that seem to have little to do with religion as practiced today in the State of Israel. nadav (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not History of Palestine[edit]

If someone wants to create an article focusing on religion in Palestine or the Land of Israel since the biblical age, then that's fine. But in the mean time, this article should stay on topic. It should cover demography and religion in Israel since its founding, with a short historical background (not further back than late 19th century) for context. There can be very short context on the historical significance of religious sites in Israel, but only for the purposes of explaining religious practice in modern times. nadav (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this should not be under WikiProject Palestine as it deals with the demographics and religion of the modern State of Israel. Thus, it's not relevant to the demographics or religion of historic Palestine or the West Bank & Gaza. I suggest that the article be removed from the Palestine-related categories. Sstr (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NEED HELP[edit]

can sum1 tell me all the religions in Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.214.15 (talk) 14:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Who added that bit about HELP ME THIS IS BORING! LOL HI PATRICK! HE WAS BORN ON THE DAY OF HALLOWEEN! SCARY I KNOW HE EVEN LOOKS LIKE A WEIRD PUMPKIN FACE LOL! HES A COOL GUYS BESIDES THAT AND HES FUN TO HANG OUT WITH! What on earth is that? Prox

Let's include sources when adding material[edit]

This article is sorely lacking in references. I would like to encourage editors to include sources when adding material - otherwise the references problem is only going to get worse! thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine[edit]

This article is not relevant to Palestine and should not be categorized as a Palestine-related article. International law defines quite clearly what is Israel and what is Palestine in terms of their modern borders. This article does not deal with religion in historic Palestine or in the West Bank and Gaza - it deals with religion in the modern State of Israel, and thus is clearly not relevant in any way to WikiProject Palestine.

I therefore suggest that this article be removed from Palestine-related categories.Sstr (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way - but it does seem to me that it would be difficult to make a very clear distinction between Israel-related categories and Palestine-related categories for many topics. The article on Jerusalem is in both projects, naturally. Of course, if this one has been added to Wikiproject Palestine purely as a political point, then it's undesirable - but I think the test would be whether having it in Wikiproject Palestine brings in new editors who do constructive work on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's fundamental deficiencies[edit]

The article seems to be missing the most central to its subject point -- Judaism's status in Israel and its role in the country's Law system.Muscovite99 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Really ? Who said it was its central subject ? It is called "Religion in Israel", not "Judaism's status in Israel". Benjil (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean there's such article Judaism's status in Israel? What i meant is this: Israel has a highly peculiar legislation regarding religion: being a secular state, it has reserved functions normally played by governments for religious institutions. Also, Jewish law is partly incorporated into the state's law. A simple case in point: to be baptised от Israel? an Israeli needs to obtain a permission from the government; one cannot get married outside a religious institution, etc. I might have missed it (but, anyhow, it should be a separate section), but there does not seem to be as much as a mention of the Minisrty of Religions.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed" WP:Synth Historical Glosses[edit]

There are a number of articles, including this one, which rely on unsupported public-relations claims made by the Israeli government regarding an Ottoman, British Mandate, or United Nations basis - or recognition - of the Israeli civil religious system, laws of nationality, and etc. In many cases those claims are completely baseless and misleading. The article cited by Prof. Shimon Shetreet notes that there were legal prohibitions against discrimination on religious grounds in the LoN Mandate of 1922. His editorial fails to mention that the British never complied with the requirements of the mandate in that regard. Prof. Shimon Shetreet states that those prohibitions are merely "instructive of Israeli policy in safeguarding freedom of conscience and religion".

During the Ottoman and British Mandate periods civil marriages and divorces obtained through foreign consulates were registered by the state administration. That privilege was suspended and was only recently restored, see PM Olmert Decides to Resume Consular Marriages

The League of Nations mandate system did not automatically eliminate existing treaty obligations. During the Peace Conference, British Prime Minister Lloyd George claimed (1) The McMahon-Hussein Notes were a treaty obligation;(2) That the agreement with Hussein had actually been the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement;(3) That the French could not use the proposed League Of Nations Mandate System to break the terms of the Hussein Agreement; (see pages 1-8 of the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Four: 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 1')

Under the terms of the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the British and French governments were required to consult with the Sharif of Mecca with regard to the form of administration that was to be adopted in Palestine. The implementation of the Balfour Declaration was approved under the terms of the FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT, which was placed before the peace conference in January of 1919. Article V of that agreement provided that "No regulation nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

Herbert Samuel abolished the position of the Hakham Bashi, and instituted the new Orthodox Rabbinate and the position of the Grand Mufti. The various British Mandatory administrations never established the special commission which was required under the terms of the mandate to determine the legal rights and claims of the various religious communities in Palestine. see for example The End of the French Religious Protectorate in Jerusalem (1918-1924)

The mandatory administration had no authority to extend 'official recognition' to some religious denominations, while withholding it from others: Article 22 of the League of Nations required that "the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion." Articles 14 and 15 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine stipulated that "A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine... ...the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine." Article 15 stipulated that "The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."

In any event, the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 terminated the mandate and required the Constituent Assembly of each State to draft a democratic constitution "Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association." It further stipulated that "No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex." It was mandated that those rights be included in the Declaration of the State and that they be non-derogable: "The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them." Israel never complied with those requirements. Prof Shetreet notes that "the Declaration itself does not confer any legally enforceable rights".

The General Assembly of the United Nations also defined "human rights and fundamental freedoms" when it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provided that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." and that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

Nothing in the treaties, LoN mandate, or UN partition plan allowed for the mandatory application of the Orthodox Halakha to define Jewish nationality or as compulsory state law governing personal status under the Status Quo Agreement. harlan (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Article 51 of The Palestine Order in Council grants the religious courts jurisdiction over personal law. Article 53 discusses the Rabbinical courts. Because of David Ben-Gurion's histotical commitment to the orthodox factions, this is still the law for many personal matters (most notably marriage) in Israel. If the British Mandate failed to comply with the LoN is a different matter, which is irrelevant here. -- Nudve (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Nudve, The article doesn't say the current system is a holdover of a policy established by a British Order-in-Council, it claims it is a holdover from the mandate, which is both incorrect and irrelevant.
The Covenant of the League of Nations contained in the Versailles treaty, and the U.S. Palestine Mandate Convention both required the Council of the League of Nations to define the terms of the mandate, and tasked Great Britain to put them into effect. The terms could not be modified by the mandatory using a domestic Order-in-Council that was repugnant to the terms of the mandate itself: Article 1 of the mandate explained: "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate." Palestine was not annexed or transferred to Great Britain under the LoN mandate. see Palestine Nationality and the Mandate, Norman Bentwich, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1939)
The so-called status quo agreement changed the previous civil religious system by transforming the Orthodox Rabbinate into a group of state officials. Violations of that successor system have became almost ubiquitous. harlan (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you prefer this new wording. -- Nudve (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source?[edit]

Israel has always protected the Haram Al Sharif and even forbids Jews from saying prayers at the site of the Holy of Holies.

This seems to be an opinion and not a stated recorded fact.

but the Grand Mufti continued as one of the most notorious Islamic and Arab leaders of modern times, often inciting Muslims against Jews wherever he went.

Again where are the sources? P.S: it wasn't against jews it was against the zionists. Palestinian jews were anti-zionisim at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one argued I am going to change that. --Michael1408 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talkcontribs)

Dubious[edit]

One paragraph in this article says

Most Jewish Israelis classify themselves as "secular" (hiloni) or as "traditional" (masorti). The former term is more popular among Israeli families of European origin, and the latter term among Israeli families of Oriental origin (i.e. Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa). The latter term, as commonly used, has nothing to do with the official "Masorti" (Conservative Judaism) movement in the State of Israel.[dubious – discuss] There is ambiguity in the ways these two terms are used. They often overlap, and they cover an extremely wide range of ideologies and levels of observance.

I have tagged this paragraph as dubious. It says basically that "masorati" is the same as "hiloni". I think that is very much not true. Somebody who is hiloni is professedly non-religious (and sometimes "hiloni" is used to mean outright anti-religious). Somebody who is masorati professes to neither. Moreover, more often than not, people that self-identify as masorati are observant in some degree. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my revert. I thought you were saying that the difference between masorati and conservative Judaism was dubious. I agree with you that hiloni and masorati are not the same. Benjil (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I regret the misunderstanding. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There are sources in abundance that contradict this paragraph. Actually, since this paragraph is unsourced, it can be removed at will. I just need some time to find the sources to write something more truthfull. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Even our Wikipedia article hiloni says the opposite of this paragraph. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed after nothing has changed for almost a year. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A little later it says

Many Jewish Israelis feel that being Israeli (living among Jews, speaking Hebrew, in the Land of Israel), is in itself a sufficient expression of Judaism without any religious observances.[dubious – discuss] This conforms to some classical secular-Zionist ideologies of Israeli-style civil religion.[citation needed]

I have tagged the first sentence as dubious, since I have not met such sentiments yet among Israelis. Even if they exist for some people, they are not logical and I very much doubt a significant number of Israelis subscribes to this point of view. The second sentence is vague and also a little dubious, and unsourced in any case. In addition, it is not clear if the supposed existance of some such secular-Zionist ideology would have anything to do with this opinion amongst modern Israelis (if such were found to be widespread). Debresser (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubiousness of Israeli Christian percentage[edit]

At most this can be criticized for failing to explain WHY there are so many Orthodox and Catholic Israelis. Actually I am not sure if the percents given are exact, but I am sure there are few Protestants. My big reason for doubting the percent is because by far Orthodox Christians should be the biggest. That is because based on Israeli government figures over 100,000 Orthodox Christians have come from the former Soviet Union as immigrants in the last 50 years. By contrast, there are 15,000 Messianic Christians among Israelis, showing that Orthodox rally are a huge amount. The second thing to consider is that even among Palestinians the Orthodox Church has always been important. So I recommend adding another source for this statistic to clear any uncertainty. 2600:1002:B00D:AD1B:8092:4E6F:BC4E:9BED (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Samaritans and Karaites[edit]

shalom, these two Jewish communities exist in Israel, it would be fair to mention them. As it seems to me that this article follows a preordained pattern I don't want to upset it and hand over the matter to you, thanks, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. There are a few lines about such minorities as the Druze, so these warrant the same treatment. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Karaites are Jews and recognized as such by the State of Israel and the rabbinate - and themselves - and counted as Jews in the religious statistics of Israel. As such, they are not an "other religious minority". 79.179.28.136 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong: they are Jews, but their religion is not Judaism. These are two separate things. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
They are Jews and, by consequence their religion is Judaism. It is called Karaite Judaism. You should look this article: [3]. As you have no source to back your claim, I revert it. 147.237.70.108 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Judaism. Not about Karaite Judaism. This is not a part of mainstream Judaism, and as such has its place in the "other minorities" section. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is about "Religion in Israel", not Judaism. Karaites, according to everybody in the world, are part of Judaism, including the Israeli rabbinate and authorities. Therefore, they are not under "other religious minorities" who are all, by definition, non Jewish. Unless you find a credible and source stating otherwise, please refrain from reverting a legitimate edit. Benjil (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The words "a legitimate edit" are of course a matter of opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition, nobody denies that the article is about religion is Israel. The issue is whether Karaism should be listed as a denomination of Judaism, or as another religion. And again, I am not saying they are not Jews, just that their religion is not a denomination of Judaism.

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.

The same can also be concluded from the wording of this source: "During the early period, Karaism was a movement, that was an integral part of Judaism". During the early period it was, but not ever since. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop confusing Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism. This is clearly POV pushing. By the way the Reform movement in Israel is not affiliated with the rabbinate and his even smaller than the Karaite, so are they also a non-jewish religious minority. Karaite Judaism is a fringe movement today but it is a legitimate and old branch of Judaism and is recognized as such by everybody but you. Benjil (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that also according to wikipedia, Karaism is part of Judaism. And in this article the list of "other minorities" clearly includes only non-Jewish groups. And Israeli Ministry of Interior and the Central Bureau of Statistics do put Karaites as Jews according to religion. 147.237.70.107 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should messianic judaism be under the Christianity heading?[edit]

While I appreciate that they're different movements, the two sections explicitly mention each other and it's confusing to separate them. Shii (tock) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is in the Other religious minorities section. What second section you are referring to? Debresser (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity section[edit]

I'm not Christian but I removed the sentence that said "orthodox and catholic tradition says Jesus lived int he land of Israel". First, its not just orthodox and catholics that believe that, and most historians who believe Jesus existed (the majority) don't even come close to questioning where he lived. Believe what you want about son of God or not but according to every major Christian denomination and the vast majority of historians Jesus was an historical figure. See no difference between the original statement and saying "Italian tradition states that Julius Caesar lived in Italy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.113.211 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. :) Debresser (talk)

Opening paragraph[edit]

It contains this sentence: "The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2005 was 76.2% Jewish, 16.1% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.6% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion. "

In regards to the Jewish numbers, this makes no sense, especially since the article later mentions Jewish secularism in "Religious self-definition": "8% of Israeli Jews defined themselves as Haredim; an additional 12% as "religious"; 13% as "religious-traditionalists" ; 25% as "non-religious-traditionalists" (not strictly adhering to Jewish law or halakha); and 42% as "secular""

The secular vs. religious numbers for the Jewish population need to be mentioned in the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidpappe (talkcontribs) 12:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Marriage in Israel[edit]

New law has passed [4].If there will be no objection i will add this information to the article.--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That source says "Israel will soon allow", so can not be used as a source that this is already allowed. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The law has passed so its already allowed anyhow here is additional source.[5]--Shrike (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious Tensions Sections - Glaring Omission?[edit]

In an article entitled Religion in Israel, with a section called Religious Tensions, does anyone else find it absurd that, while "Within the Jewish Community" and "Between Jews and Christians" are listed, "Between Jews and Muslims" is left out?? One could start with a list of religious sites (Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount, Joseph's Tomb, Rachel's Tomb, Tsfat, Hebron and Tomb of the Patriarchs, etc., and even the Gov's decision last year to include certain sites on the Historic/Religious Preservation list... Or is the point that such a section would be too vaste? LFevas (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Too specific?[edit]

Isn't wikipedia about being specific? Padres Hana (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that we don't need a link about each of the religions. We don't want to end up with an external links section with tens of links, and the endless edit wars about where they should be linking to. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why not? There's plenty of space and edit wars seem to get sorted in the end. Padres Hana (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Try WP:NOTLINK and more specifically WP:EL, and WP:COMMONSENSE. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to Merge?[edit]

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)

Requested move 31 January 2015[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is not a lot of support for the proposed title, and no clear consensus in favour of other titles either. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)



Religion in IsraelReligion of Israel – This is, I consider, a tricky proposal and, as far as I see it, there is an NPOV problem here that has two possible solutions. The article is dominated by pictures and references to locations in the Old City (Jerusalem) which is located in East Jerusalem, miles from areas the UN had originally marked as being designated for a Jewish State and also on the eastern side of the Green Line. Related discussions are currently underway at Talk:Israel regarding areas that are to be considered as being within Israel. For instance many Palestinian cities which are also presented as being in West Bank territories are not listed as being cities in Israel in the Israel article. The typical article title format found in Category:Religion by country is "Religion in xxx" but, for reasons mentioned, I think that Religion of Israel would help resolve NPOV. Another solution would be to remove or very clearly qualify inclusion of locations beyond UN indicated and West Bank areas and I would appreciate comment on the applicability of this. GregKaye 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose rename as it sounds strange. Countries don't have a religion. I understand the claimed NPOV problem. On the other hand, visiting Israel would make it very clear to all NPOV claimers that East Jerusalem is very much Israel, and the distinction is artificial, formal only. I could agree with the second solution, although I oppose stressing this too much. After all, this is an article not about politics, but about religion. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Would that be correct? Does this article discuss and include statistics relating to all of the Palestinian territories? Moreover, what would be the definition of "Palestinian territories"? This leads us to a wasps nest of questions and issues. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is currently only 57,262 bytes long so there is plenty of room for expansion. There is already inclusion of Acre which was not in the UN areas and Mount Gerizim which is deep in the West Bank. The main Muslim sites are in the Old City and Islam is covered. No coverage is currently given to Christian pilgrimage sites inc Capernaum to the north of Lake Galilee in the UN notified area for the Jewish State and Nazereth, Bethlehem, Bethany and Bethpage all in areas marked for an Arab State. Joining up Israeli and Palestinian areas would allow a variety of Jewish, Muslim and Christian sites, as mentioned, to be included in the same article. Otherwise, while Israel view East Jerusalem as part of israel, this is rejected in Palestine and by the international community with the result that the Old City sites logically should not be included in the ".. in Israel" article. GregKaye 23:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, religion of Israel would imply solely Judaism, while the article is general, dealing with other religions as well. Hence religion in Israel. This is consistent with other "religion in foo country" titles, see Category:Religion by country. Brandmeistertalk 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is almost exclusively about religion in Israel, with a single paragraph about the Old City (which is still relevant to religion in Israel, even if that bit of land is not part of the country). The proposal appears to be a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Number 57 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Number 57 The simple reason for this is that the Old city, according to international law, is not part of Israel but is occupied territory. Another alternative is that image representations that connect to various locations, such as those in the Old City, be removed. Images in the article are categorised as follows.
  • 4 Old city images,
  • 1 Modern building in the Arab State side of the UN partition plan,
  • 1 Modern building in the Jewish State side of the UN partition plan,
  • 4 general pictures: street scene, graphics on wall, decorations display, graphics on a bus.
Basically 4 of the six building images are sourced from Palestinian territories and one of the other two is on the Arab State side of the UN plan. Your summary of paragraph content neglected to mention references to Acre/Akko and Mount Gerizim or that the majority of the remaining content is equally applicable to a wide range of areas across the Israel Palestine area. Jewish settlements cover large areas of the Palestinian territories. GregKaye 19:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I am aware that the Old City is not part of Israel, which is why I said "that bit of land is not part of the country". I also fail to understand your concern about the inclusion of Acre, given that it is within Israel. However, I do agree that it should be pointed out that Mount Gerizim is not in Israel (although it is still relevant to religion in Israel given its sanctity to the Samaritan population). Again, I think it's perfectly possible to address your concerns without renaming the article. Number 57 19:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
UN partition plan map.
UN partition plan map.
Number57 Acre is in the area marked for the proposed Arab State in map references provided in the UN partition plan. GregKaye 07:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: The partition plan is not relevant to the modern borders; Acre is not disputed territory as it is within the Green Line. Claiming otherwise is a fringe viewpoint. Number 57 08:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Number 57, can you cite that Acre is not disputed? As a country the entirety of Israel is on Wikipedia's List of states with limited recognition and territories beyond the boundaries set down in the UN partition plan are most certainly disputed. Wikipedia needs to present relevant information in relevant places to be encyclopaedic but, don't get me wrong, in this I am not at all against Israel. As a regular editor of ISIL related articles I was proposer and prime mover in the removal of a controversial, as I saw it, reference to the Golan heights on the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png which resulted in an, I think, gratuitous and unnecessary reference to Israel in ISIL relevant articles. Relevant information must be relevantly presented in all articles and that includes this one. Accurate presentation is a baby that should remain in Wikipedia's bath. There is a difference in an acknowledgement of de facto control and authoritative recognition of right. On this it is not Wikipedia's remit to side with views presented by the Israeli government and against both the Palestinians and the wider international community. GregKaye 09:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: If you need a cite for that, may I respectfully suggest that you may not yet have sufficient knowledge of the subject area to be suggesting changes? The 1967 borders (the Green Line) are generally considered to be the internationally-recognised borders of Israel – even Hamas recognises them. If you really need any evidence, UNESCO list Acre as being in Israel, whilst the Old City is not. Number 57 09:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Number 57 Your claim was specifically that it was undisputed. So far I have seen a quote regarding Hamas that it "suggests that armed resistance should be concentrated in the occupied territories rather than on the Israeli side of the 1967 green line". You were claiming that there is no dispute. A next step might be to ignore the existence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This still leaves the problem in the article of reference to clear Palestinian territory areas such as East Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim. GregKaye 10:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It is undisputed in reasonable terms; fringe viewpoints are not important here (you yourself are now talking about "clear Palestinian territory", but there are some people who would strongly disagree with that claim – we do not take any notice of those people either). But anyway, as I said above, it should be pointed out that Mount Gerizim (and the Old City) are not in Israel in the article. That doesn't mean it needs a full rename. The article on Religion in Italy contains a picture of the Vatican City and mentions the Vatican – that isn't a reason to rename it "Religion of Italy". Number 57 10:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Number57 You make a good point in regard to the Vatican but the one picture used pictures St Peter's and the Vatican from outside the Holy See. GregKaye 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

A Few Questions[edit]

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[edit]

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 IsraelReligion 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.

Merge[edit]

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)

Respecting MOS[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [[6]] 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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)